Source: http://www.ipblog.ca/?m=201108
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:05:39+00:00

Document:
Check out this interesting summary of Art Law concepts: Art Law TV, a series of videos which explores copyright and other legal issues faced by artists, presented through the lens of artistic practice.
Canadian Copyright: The Canadian Copyright Act gives authors the right to control their creative works, such as books and pictures. Under copyright law, the concept of “author” is understood broadly and includes software programmers, photographers, musicians, mobile-app developers, animators, graphic designers, artists, dancers, writers, cinematographers, painters and poets. Original creative works are protected automatically under the Copyright Act, which gives authors the right to make copies for the term of copyright. Copyright generally lasts for 50 years after the death of the author. It is an infringement of copyright to makes unauthorized copies of a work that is protected by copyright. One important point to remember is that copyright law does not protect ideas or concepts, but protects the expression of the idea – as expressed in written or fixed form, such as a book, a sound recording, a photo or a painting.
Notation – A standard copyright notation is “© ABC Company Inc. 2011, all rights reserved.” A notation of this type is not required by the Copyright Act but it is recommended on copyright protected works.
Register Copyright – Registration is relatively easy and inexpensive, and provides the owner with proof of ownership of copyright . In Canada, you are not required to submit a copy of the work with your application for registration.
Public Domain – Just because something is publicly available on the internet does not mean that it’s in the “public domain” for copyright purposes. The concept of “public domain” refers to the expiry of copyright protection. So, for example, the original works of Shakespeare or an 18th century painting can be said to be in the public domain since the term of copyright has lapsed.
Copyright in Software: Software, even open source software, is subject to copyright. The owner of the software could be the author of the code, or a company employing the author. To protect the intellectual property rights in software of any kind – whether it’s sold on a disc at the retail level, or is downloadable, whether an operating system or a mobile app – the owner should use proper copyright notations and implement a well-drafted license agreement. An end-user software license is a contract between the owner and the user that deals with topics such as ownership, use restrictions, warranties, liability, tech support, and related terms.
Copyright Outside Canada: Under the Copyright Act and international copyright conventions, Canadians enjoy copyright protection in countries who are parties to treaties such as the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention and the Rome Convention. Even with this legal framework in place, enforcement of copyright is challenging in the context of the internet, since infringement can occur easily and anonymously in multiple jurisdictions on multiple servers. Specialized assistance is usually required in combatting copyright infringement outside Canada.
For more information and assistance with your copyright and software licensing needs, visit Field’s Intellectual Property & Technology Group.
In our earlier posts [Amazon Business Method Case to be Appealed] we reveiwed the case of the (infamous) Amazon 1-click patent, a case which is currently on appeal. The appeal was heard in Toronto this summer and a decision may come down in late 2011. In light of the Federal Court decision in Amazon.com Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents 2010 FC 1011 , the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has revised its practices. New practice guidelines are now in effect, replacing the contrary guidance in the MOPOP…. until the Federal Court of Appeal hands down its own decision. Stay tuned.
Copyright: Fantasy Flight Publishing has sued a European app-developer, Puffin Software, for alleged infringement of copyright in a medieval-themed game (Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. v. Puffin Software et al. U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota Case No. 11-cv-01928, Filed July 15, 2011). Fantasy Flight claims that Puffin’s iPad title “Viking Lords” is an infringement of copyright in the board game BattleLore owned by Fantasy Flight. In the claim, Puffin allegedly approached Fantasy Flight to pitch an iPad version of BattleLore, and when there was no uptake, Puffin decided to go ahead and publish the game under its own title. The case will involve an analysis of the elements of each game, and a breakdown of functional and original elements, as in the Sony case (below).
Patent: App-developer Zynga has been sued in Segan LLC v. Zyna Inc. for alleged infringement of Segan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,054,928, which was issued for a system for accessing “enhancement content” on the internet. The claim alleges that Zynga titles such as FarmVille, PetVille, and FrontierVille infringe the patent.
Copyright: In Dath v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court decision in a copyright infringement case involving the Sony PS2 and PSP title “God of War”. The plaintiffs alleged that Sony infringed copyright in their written works about war between Sparta and Athens. The plaintiffs could not show actual copying, so they had to rely on the US concept of access and substantial similarity. Remember, copyright does not protect ideas, but merely the form and expression of ideas. In this case, there was no substantial similarity of expression of ideas. In this analysis, the court reviewed elements of expression such as plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings and characters, and concluded that the works were not similar and no infringement occurred.
In our earlier post (Myriad Issues: Patentability of Isolated DNA), we reviewed the US decision which causes ripples through the life sciences world by deciding that isolated DNA sequences were not patentable subject matter since they were “products of nature”. Myriad’s invention covers two isolated human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, and mutations in these genes are associated with a predisposition to breast and ovarian cancers. The recent decision by the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in The Association For Molecular Pathology v. USPTO & Myriad has reversed the lower court’s finding. The appeals court held last week that isolated DNA can be proper subject matter for patentability, provided the invention meets other criteria such as novelty and non-obviousness. Here, the inventors had isolated the DNA sequences and in doing so had changed the DNA through inherently transformative steps, thus bringing the invention into patent-eligible subject matter.
Can you get a trade-mark for .doc, .pdf or other file extensions? To follow up on our earlier post (Can File Extensions be Trade-marked?), in the US, the answer is “No”, as the makers of AutoCAD software discovered in 2009, when they tried to enforce a trade-mark for the file extension .dwg (referring to “drawing”), which is the file format for the AutoCAD software product. There, the Court made it clear that file extensions are functional and thus cannot be enforced as trade-marks. Autodesk has also failed to obtain a registration for the mark DWG at the USPTO because DWG is descriptive of software which assists in the creation of drawings which use a .dwg file extension. So far, their application to register DWG has been denied for these reasons.
In Canada, the answer is apparently “Yes” since Autodesk has obtained a registered trade-mark for the mark DWG for use in association with “Computer programs and software in the field of computer aided design and instruction manuals sold as a unit.” Canadian law generally accords with US law on the subject of descriptiveness and functionality. In the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65 (CanLII), (the Lego case), the Court was clear that Lego building blocks are not protectable as trade-marks in Canada, on the grounds that the shape of the blocks is purely functional in nature, and the Trade-marks Act is clear that descriptive marks are not registrable. Why this analysis does not apply to file extensions is not clear, but any attempt by Autodesk to assert a trade-mark infringement claim against a functional or descriptive use of .dwg as a file extension would likely run into that defence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.