[Reposted from MichaelGeist.ca, Link (CC-BY)] The Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated Google v. Equustek decision today, upholding the validity of an injunction requiring Google to remove search results on an international basis. The 7-2 decision (Justices Côté and Rowe dissented, finding that there were alternatives available, the order is ineffective, and expressing concern that the “temporary” injunction was effectively permanent) is not a surprise – last week’s Facebook’s decision suggested a willingness to side with the weaker Canadian litigant against Internet giants – but the decision will ultimately grant Google more power, not less.
Tomasz Kasprzak, Olga Jurkowska, Alek Tarkowski and Anna Buchner
Communia Association (CC-0) | Full Report (PDF)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We asked thirty teachers from five European countries about copyright in schools. Our respondents included teachers implementing education innovations and actively using new technologies. These are our study’s key findings:
The best way for teachers to gain familiarity with copyright is to become creators of educational materials. Such creators have two options: either use copyright to protect their work or share it using a Creative Commons license.
Today’s New York Times features a story on a leaked draft outline the Trump Administration’s upcoming Executive Order on drug pricing. According to the Times, “the document directs the United States trade representative to conduct a study of price differences between the United States and other countries, and to review trade agreements that may need to be revised ‘to promote greater intellectual property protection and competition in the global market’.”
All over the world, copyright regimes have figured out how to write exceptions that don’t hurt the market for creators’ work but permit new work to be made without strangling costs. But Australia has one of the most rigid copyright regimes in the world. What happens here to creators who have to work under those conditions?
A team at the Queensland University of Technology, for which I am principal investigator, has been tackling that question. I’ve been talking to Australian creators – writers, filmmakers, musicians, visual artists, curators and more – and conducting a survey to find out how they deal with Australia’s copyright rigidities.
We are only asking questions about creators’ own practices, and we are still collecting data. But we’re already seeing patterns. And so far they are concerning for Australian national creativity, culture and identity.
Paving the way for parallel imports to exert downward pressure on domestic pharmaceutical (and other) prices
[Frederick M Abbott*, IP Watch, Link (CC-BY-SA)] The Supreme Court of the United States on May 30, 2017 adopted a rule of international exhaustion of patent rights for the United States in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, No. 15-1189. The near-unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts is unambiguous and unequivocal. The Court paid short shrift to contrary decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F. 3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and in this case on certiorari, Lexmark International v. Impression Products, 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
[michaelgeist.ca, Link (CC-BY)] The federal government placed a big bet in this year’s budget on Canada becoming a world leader in artificial intelligence (AI), investing millions of dollars on a national strategy to support research and commercialization. The hope is that by attracting high-profile talent and significant corporate support, the government can turn a strong AI research record into an economic powerhouse. Funding and personnel have been the top policy priorities, yet other barriers to success remain. For example, Canada’s restrictive copyright rules may hamper the ability of companies and researchers to test and ultimately bring new AI services to market.
[Joint comment endorsed by 14 organizations, listed below] We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to implement without further delay Department of Education Rule 2 C.F.R. § 3474.20 for “Open Licensing Requirement for Direct Grant Programs,” which ensures that educational resources and other copyrightable works created with Department discretionary grant funds are openly licensed. We strongly support this rule, and encourage you to move ahead with its implementation immediately upon conclusion of this extension period.
[Médecins Sans Frontières, Link] Treatment for hepatitis C using the key drug sofosbuvir could be vastly scaled up in Brazil after the decision by the National Agency of Health Surveillance (Anvisa) to reject a key patent application on the drug marketed by pharmaceutical corporation Gilead. The decision could pave the way to enable generic competition in Brazil, which should lead to price reductions, making it more affordable to scale up treatment.
[Originally posted on MichaelGeist.ca, (CC-BY) Link] Last month, I traveled to Australia and New Zealand as part of a group of experts to discuss copyright fair use and fair dealing. The trip included several public talks, meetings with government officials, a book launch on Reimagining Copyright, and the chance to discuss copyright policy directly with publishers, educators, and librarians. Videos of some of the panels are available online, including a New Zealand forum on copyright and innovation and a panel on comparative copyright limitations and exceptions at the Australian Digital Alliance annual conference.
Last month, the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, the Australian Digital Alliance and Internet NZ hosted a series of meetings and workshops on user rights in copyright reform in Australia and New Zealand. Both countries are debating copyright reform, and Australia is debating a proposal to add fair use to its copyright exceptions.
Participants in the events included Michael Geist, Bill Patry, Sang Jo Jong, Kimberlee Weatherall, Rebecca Giblin, Suzy Frankel, Jessica Coates, Heesob Nam, Peter Jaszi, Patricia Aufderheide, Sean Flynn and Meredith Jacob.
Below you will find video from two of the events, some of the follow up blogs and news stories from the trip.
Abstract: In 2014, the Supreme Court of Kenya had to determine whether the broadcast rights in free-to-air (FTA) programme-carrying signals were infringed by allowing the re-broadcasting of these signals pursuant to the so-called “must-carry” rule in the Broadcasting Regulations of the Kenya Information and Communication Act. In a unanimous decision, the apex court ruled that the ‘must -carry’ rule fell under the fair dealing provisions of the Kenya Copyright Act despite the fact that the dealing in question did not fit within one of the enumerated allowable purposes.
At the Australian Digital Alliance Forum, the first keynote from the Productivity Commission’s Deputy Chair Karen Chester busted myths about fair use. “Fair use has become not a nice-to-have, or even a good-to-have, but a policy must-have,” she said. She also charged in Q&A that those myths are being fecklessly promoted by industry actors.