Sebastian Romanutti Archives - IPOsgoode

Announcing the 2020-2021 Winners of the Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize

ccraig — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:00:19 +0000

IP Osgoode would like to congratulate the winners of the Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize for 2020-2021. Four prizes in total are awarded each year to Osgoode students and the winning blog posts are featured in the IPilogue. Recipients also receive a $500 award, are announced at Convocation and receive a permanent notation on their official Osgoode transcript.

�ճ��(the “Gowling WLG IPilogue Prize”) was pioneered in��’s��Intellectual Property class in the Fall 2007 term and has been generously sponsored each year since then by , formerly��Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. As a sector-focused law firm, Gowling WLG provides clients with in-depth expertise in key global sectors and a suite of legal services, including a and 300-strong .

All blog entries and comments on the IPilogue submitted by Osgoode students are considered automatically for the prize. In each academic semester, one prize is awarded for the best blog post and one prize for the best comment.

This award is a chance to recognize Osgoode students' research and writing in a specialized and technical field and further encourage them to develop their strong interest in Intellectual Property Law. Of course, the subject matter of the IPilogue goes beyond strictly IP. Our stories also delve into related areas including: internet law, privacy rights, broadcasting, social media and free speech.

We are pleased to announce this year’s winners of the Gowling WLG IPilogue Prizes:

Fall 2020 Term:

Best Blog: Summer Lewis on “”

Best Blog Comment: We did not award a winner for this category

Winter 2021 Term:

Best Blog Post: Sebastian Romanutti on “”

Best Blog Comment: We have a tie.

Elif Babaoglu’s comment on “”

Jared Sues’s comment on “”

Congratulations to our winners and thank you to all who make the IPilogue possible. We are most grateful to Gowling WLG for its generous support.

The post Announcing the 2020-2021 Winners of the Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law and Technology Prize appeared first on IPOsgoode.

A Semester of Bliss during a Pandemic: My Internship at SOCAN (IP Intensive Reflection)

ccraig — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:00:00 +0000

Although the grim days of the COVID-19 pandemic have carried into the beginning of my third year at Osgoode, my acceptance into Osgoode’s Intellectual Property and Technology Intensive Program has kept my spirits high. I was one of the lucky few to have been given the chance to intern at the . SOCAN is a collective rights society that collects and distributes licence fees and royalties to artists for the public performance and mechanical reproduction of music. About three years ago, I came to Osgoode’s orientation week, walked to the Intellectual Property Law table set up in the hall, took a brochure discussing the IP Intensive, and read about a potential placement at SOCAN. Since then, I paved my law school path to get a spot there. One might say that the stars aligned when I received my placement, and the experience was exactly what I wanted and needed.

I came to Osgoode as a professional musician, and intended to get myself into copyright law and policy. What better place to realize that goal than getting a place in this internship? SOCAN’s focus is serving the world’s musicians; not only are they remunerating Canadian musicians for their performances and compositions, but they are also paying international musicians whose collective agencies have agreements with SOCAN. It’s a global operation, beyond simply managing music within Canadian borders. And not only that, but SOCAN is interested in copyright policy in Canada and internationally, whether it is being involved in the most important copyright cases of the past decade, or researching tariff policy of its international members performing anywhere internationally. It amazes me how many industries are involved with SOCAN nationally and globally.

Then there is the non-copyright work within an in-house environment that is so valuable for any law student seeking real-world legal experience. The common tasks that come up daily are usually not related to copyright at all, but are those common in any legal atmosphere, whether it be litigation- related, general research or proofreading of corporate-related materials, or just discussing just about anything during the day-to-day meetings with the legal team. One of the best memories I will have of the experience is the welcoming atmosphere created in every single meeting I had with the legal department. They were open, friendly, and treated me like one of their own. It was a shame that the pandemic did not permit these interactions to be in person, but I may only look forward to having the chance to work in a real office in the not-too-distant future.

One may find that an experience like this is transforming for any law student. I was given real files, involved in real issues, and matters seemed to move quickly from one copyright issue to another corporate issue, to government policy, to drafting documents for litigation, to ghost-writing letters for employees from other departments, and even to getting personal advice about the real-estate market. And with these experiences, one learns about every crevice of how a collective agency works, how it feels to work in-house and be involved in civil litigation every day, and most importantly, who are the people behind the profession. With me, the team was open with every matter, expressed themselves honestly and without restraint, and took time to explain the clockwork of each issue in more detail when I requested. It becomes important to realize that these professionals do love their job (most of the time), and a law student has to understand the importance of this to succeed in the profession in the long run. I began to understand it at SOCAN.

Having to be home for this experience was bitter-sweet. The SOCAN team made it sweet by making sure I was technologically equipped for all meetings and I was given access to all electronic resources. Also, of course, I need not mention the ease of my mornings. It was bitter because the tour of the office on the first day of my placement was the only time I got to step foot inside SOCAN’s physical world. But, I believe some misfortunes come with their blessings. I know I will always yearn to personally meet with each colleague from SOCAN one day. I can definitely say I now recognize their electronic voices, pixelated faces, and the inside of their homes. And who knows, maybe, when these difficult times pass in the near future, that day will come.

Written by Sebastian Romanutti, JD Candidate 2021, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post A Semester of Bliss during a Pandemic: My Internship at SOCAN (IP Intensive Reflection) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Working Remotely during COVID-19 and its Privacy Risks

ccraig — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:00:00 +0000

As our global society experiences the second wave of COVID-19, it is likely that workers will continue to work remotely and not be returning to their offices anytime soon. The number of remote working options spiked in May of 2020 increasing the amount of jobs done from home to in Canada. The number of remote jobs is expected to continue to rise, and employers have had to adapt in countless ways. One significant change has been in how employers manage privacy issues within their newly remote-based organizations.

Privacy has been a hot topic during COVID-19. Much discussion has taken place on the issue of securing privacy rights during a world health emergency, such as the use of personal information by governments or private-sector organizations related to public health (see an IPilogue article on privacy and big data during COVID-19 ).

However, maintaining privacy within the workplaces isn’t sparking as much debate. This transition towards remote working for employers and experts suggest that organizations re-visit existing privacy policies to ensure breaches of personal information does not happen at home or wherever a remote worker may connect to the workplace. The lack of preventative security controls that only an office may provide is a significant concern. Remote working might have employees use public Wi-Fi, which can lead to potential hackers having access to the company’s private information. Some employers may not have the resources to supply workers with work computers. Some may even be more inclined to switch to their personal computer from time to time for work-related tasks at home or on the go. This can lead to a privacy breach, as personal computers do not include all the intricate protocols and security systems work computers would have within their network. Having other people in a coffee shop have the ability to see what you are typing, or simply forgetting your work computer at a relative’s house are also dangers that risk privacy breaches.

Therefore, it is important to revise privacy policies within one’s workplace since remote working has become entrenched in today’s work force. The one-stop shop for finding out how to either familiarize or refresh privacy policy in any organization in Canada is visiting the Privacy Commissioner’s website for recommendations on best practices. Employees may start by re-acquainting themselves to best practices under relevant federal legislation such as . PIPEDA sets out ground rules for how Canadian businesses must handle personal information (, on the other hand, only applies to government bodies and their handling of private information). Some provincial legislation on privacy laws may slightly deviate from federal laws, so if one’s organization handles cross-provincial employees, clients, or customers, it is important to be mindful of the possibility of a tort action through either the common-law in some provinces, or statutory torts under others’ Privacy Acts. Alberta, British Columbia, and Quebec have their own private-sector laws that are substantially similar to PIPEDA, but only British Columbia, as well as few other provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have . Ontario, for example, has introduced a common law cause of action for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion through

A good place for any Canadian organization to refresh their privacy policy is by revising �ʱ��ʷ��ٴ�’s , which summarize an organization’s responsibilities and how they may be fulfilled during COVID-19:

Be Accountable. Comply with the fair information principles and develop a privacy management program that adapts to remote-working environments.
Identify the Purpose. Find out and document the reasons why personal information is being collected before or during collection.
Obtain Consent. It is reasonable to expect that customers will understand the nature, purpose and consequences of collection in most cases.
Limit Collection. Collection should not include personal information that isn’t necessary for its purposes.
Limit Use, Disclosure, and Retention. Make sure personal information is stored in a secure way and used only for the purposes it is intended for.
Accuracy. Minimize possibility of using incorrect information when documenting or disclosing personal information, and keep information up-to-date.
Safeguards. Ensure that remote work environments do not risk breach of personal information, and protect information appropriately relative to its sensitivity.
Openness. Make sure privacy management practices are clear for all remote workers.
Individual Access. Allow individuals to be informed and be given access to their personal information.
Challenging Compliance. Anyone may be able to challenge an organization’s compliance with these principles.��

Written by Sebastian Romanutti, Osgoode JD Candidate, enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School. As part of the course requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

The post Working Remotely during COVID-19 and its Privacy Risks appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Copyright Society’s Inaugural Bang: A Panel on �ճ�é�� and the Fundamentals of Copyright Balance

ccraig — Fri, 11 Dec 2020 16:05:36 +0000

On the first week of November, the Copyright Society hosted its inaugural event for the new Canadian chapters established in Ottawa and Toronto. The seminar, titled, “�ճ�é�� Two Decades Later: How the Concept of ‘Balance’ Continues to Shape Copyright Law in Canada”, presented a broad but important topic that is the epicentre of Copyright Law in Canada. A number of esteemed panelists came from all corners of the copyright field, including telecommunications, entertainment, collectives, and academia. All sides pitched their position on the famous copyright balance proclaimed by Justice Binnie in , which described the Copyright Act as “a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator”. Panelists also commented on how the Copyright Modernization Act has impacted the digital world within practice since its inception nearly a decade ago.

The panel featured Professor Giuseppina D’Agostino as moderator, who is a Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and founder and director of , the Intellectual Property Law and Technology Program at the school. From the(SOCAN), Janet Chong was the second speaker, representing Legal Counsel at Canada’s largest collective managing music rights. Jason J. Kee also spoke from the perspective of Government Affairs and Public Policy Counsel of Google Canada, and from Rogers Communications, Kristina Milbourn gave her legal views as the Director of Copyright & Broadband. Erin Finlay also shared some thoughts on the issues as a Partner with the firm Stohn Hay Cafazzo Dembroski Richmond LLP, specializing in the areas of entertainment law, copyright, privacy, and broadcast regulatory and cultural policy.

The discussion began with Professor D’Agostino summarizing the broad background of the balance principle that has defined the copyright legal landscape since its debut in 2002. Professor D’Agostino noted the concept as nothing new, spanning previous centuries of legal debate between stakeholders of the rights of authorship and reproduction of creative works internationally. After Theberge, the principle continued its influence throughout many more Supreme Court cases that Professor D’Agostino highlighted, including , , , all the way up to as recently as this year with . in 2019.

Ms. Chong followed with the perspective from SOCAN, a major Canadian music collective that cooperates with hundreds of thousands of music creators and businesses worldwide. She mentions the presence of SOCAN in Canada’s most influential IP cases within the past two decades, including three that were within the pentalogy of Supreme Court copyright cases of 2012. In terms of SOCAN’s position on the copyright balance in practice, Binnie’s principle is not much of an influence on her general work of advocating for fair rates and royalties for creators, and providing the end users with music services. But in terms of policy, the balance principle does shape the discourse in strengthening SOCAN’s lobbying efforts.

Erin Finlay provided her interpretation of the balance principle that she claims has lost its vigour over recent years. She emphasized the public interest as a balance of three factors, rather than it being misinterpreted as polarized between creator and user. There is a public interest in three things, claims Finlay: encouraging creation and encouraging dissemination of creative works, and obtaining a just reward for creative works. In her business, the principles “fair dealing” and “substantial part”, historic in our copyright law, are almost never relied on when the industry is creating entertainment products. She claims, instead, that the majority of her work is about collective bargaining, negotiations on copyright ownership, and rates licensing, all of which seeks the balance between creator, producer, and end user.

Kristina Milbourn then discussed how a company like Rogers Communications thinks about the concept of balance in our copyright law through its many branches. She notes that a massive corporation like Rogers shouldn’t be considered as a monolith when considering balance principles of our copyright law. Rather, as a parent company to a series of businesses, sometimes the interests align, and sometimes they don’t. This would mean that considerations of �ճ��’s principles would vary from the perspective of managing Television stations, to Internet services, to Broadcast Distribution Undertakings (BDUs), and depends on their interests at the time, which may or may not conflict.

Google Canada shared its views on the policy side through Jason Kee as counsel of government affairs. From a global perspective, Kee notes that Theberge is not dissimilar to international norms, and the interpretation of a polarized balance is also missing the mark, as Finlay has noted. He suggests that there are human rights issues at stake in terms of freedom and expression and right to remuneration, which may both align despite the discourse on the tensions that exists between them. What Kee emphasizes the most is not that balance should or should not be sought, as this is unanimously agreed upon by the national and international community. Instead, Kee stresses the difficulty of putting a defined quantum, or amount deserving for a certain party, in terms of payments to owners of copyrights who have their works circulating online.

Following each panelist’s presentation, questions were presented by Professor D’Agostino, and debate ensued, which revolved around the subjects previously covered, including how to properly remunerate creators, the notion of access and the balance principle, the international approach to solutions, and optimism for the future. As the discussion continued to spark debate amongst the distinguished panelists, it is certain that the topic will have a very prevalent place in our legal discourse on copyright law in Canada for years and decades ahead. It was certainly a successful inaugural seminar presentation by the Copyright Society, and I wish them the best on their continuing and much-needed presence in our legal community.

Written by Sebastian Romanutti, who is in his third year at Osgoode Hall Law School. This semester Sebastian was enrolled in Professors D’Agostino and Vaver 2020/2021 IP & Technology Law Intensive Program at Osgoode Hall Law School and was a Legal Intern at SOCAN.

The post The Copyright Society’s Inaugural Bang: A Panel on �ճ�é�� and the Fundamentals of Copyright Balance appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Law School Admission Council Demands Removal of Free LSAT Online Tutoring Videos

ccraig — Tue, 19 May 2020 14:51:27 +0000

There may only be one thing that most past and present lawyers and law students in Canada and the US have in common. We have all studied for and taken the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). But have we broken the law while preparing for it?

The greatest burden for those brave enough to take on the LSAT may have been the cost of preparatory textbooks, past tests, and tutoring services required to achieve a competitive score. Luckily, the internet provides many avenues for those seeking other forms of assistance.

a popular American-based online tutoring service for the LSAT, understood this need. One of its most admirable deeds was to post free, accessible tutoring videos for many past questions from the Logic Games section of old LSAT tests. The problem with free videos is, of course, copyright law.

Last November, the (LSAC) requested that 7Sage remove all of these free videos offered online due to copyright infringement. After considering the high costs of litigation, 7Sage had no choice but

The LSAT is published by LSAC, a non-profit corporation that asserts its copyright in all past tests, including every question ever made (with very few exceptions). LSAC states the following on its products: “No part of this work, including information, […] may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means… without permission of the publisher.” So, you cannot copy and paste a question and post it online without permission; this would be infringing .

For eight years, 7Sage has been posting these YouTube videos (like ) of a blank screen with some sketches of what a particular question might be about, without outright posting the question verbatim. Then, the video proceeds to sketch how to use diagrams to help answer that question, and discusses some of the multiple-choice options, again, without displaying the question itself.

In Canada, and similarly in the US, a defence against copyright infringement is the which states that people can infringe a copyright without permission as long as it is for education or private study, among other purposes. So, this raises a few questions, such as, is explaining a past LSAT question online a situation that falls under educational use or private study? If so, would it be “fair”, and if not, is it reasonable to limit online tutors from freely assisting test takers on particular LSAT questions?

In Alberta (Education) v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), , a split court held by majority that instructors who copied textbook questions for their students “are there to facilitate the students’ research and private study and to enable the students to have the material they need for the purpose of studying”. By this reasoning, it is likely that a video explaining a past LSAT question might be an exception to copyright infringement in Canada. Unfortunately, online LSAT tutors in Canada who freely explain LSAT questions through videos, blogs, or pictures to students may still be required to have special permission by LSAC to discuss LSAT material. Without this permission, they are probably not going to proceed with the high cost of litigation if LSAC delivers a similar letter asking for the material’s removal.

Written by Sebastian Romanutti, a second year JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.