8/17/2019 CCH case

1/8

Defendant provided a custom photocopy service to members of thelegal profession and judges, which was within the limits of theexception for "fair use" - Defendant did not authorize infringementof copyright by providing self-service photocopiers - Defendanthaving been successful in respect of the appeal and cross-appeal, it

was entitled to costs in all instances.

 The lainti!s ere #anadian publishers of law reports, lawtextboo$s, and --other legal publications. The defendant as a non-pro%t corporation &overned That the legal profession of 'ntariopursuant to statutory authority. The defendant maintained andoperated a reference library for members icts and the (udiciary. Thedefendant )*D free-standing photocopiers for the use of librarypatrons using coins and prepaid cards. +ach photocopy *bove, thedefendant posted a notice tating That #ertain $inds of copyingmight infringe copyright law and disclaiming liability by thedefendant for infringing copies made by library patrons. Thedefendant has aussi rovided custom photocopying services byma$ing copies available in person, by email or by facsimiletransmission machines. The defendants "*ccess to the aw olicy"provided That, for a fee, single copies of library materials re/uiredfor research, review, private study, and criticism as well as for use incourt, tribunal and government proceedings #ould 0e rovided topatrons of the library.

 The lainti!s *lleged /ue la defendant infringed copyright by ict

photocopying Their policies and activities in the legal profession forupplying the (udiciary and limited copies of legal materialspublished by the lainti!s and )eld in the defendants referencelibrary. 1n articular, the lainti!s 2eferred to the defendantscustom photocopying service and its free-standing photocopiers.

 The lainti!s 0rought action for injunctive 2elief 2egarding thestatements and for subsistence and ownership of copyright,infringement of copyright and in speci%c publications or portions ofpublications in the /ui *llegedly lainti!s owned copyrights. Thedefendant counterclaimed for a declaration That copyright is notinfringed hen * single copy of a 2eported decision, case summary,

statute, regulation or limited selection of text from a treatise ismade by ict sta! or a boss of the free-standing photocopiers for thepurpose of research. The defendant aussi ought solicitor-and-customer costs, and injunctive 2elief.

 The shares ere allowed in hand and the counterclaims ereDismissed. * statement as &ranted That copyright subsisted in thelainti!s annotated statute, textboo$, and monograph published asa chapter in a textboo$, and /ue la defendant infringed thelainti!s copyright in the textboo$ and the monograph by

photocopying has substantial businesses portion and by distributingthe copy. The lainti!s ere 1n Their unsuccessful claim for a

8/17/2019 CCH case

2/8

declaration That copyright subsisted in the lainti!s three 2eported judicial decisions, the three )eadnotes To Those decisions, a casesummary, topical and a law report index. * general declaration andpermanent injunction ere refused. The declaration ought by thedefendant in icts counterclaim as refused as overly broad.

 The lainti!s appeal as allowed in hand and the defendantscross-appeal as Dismissed. #opyright as )eld to subsist in all ofthe lainti!s items. The defendant appealed and the plainti! cross-appealed.

)eld3 The appeal and the cross as allowed as Dismissed appealwith costs to the defendant Throughout.

 The purpose of copyright law is to balance the public interest in theencouragement and dissemination romoting of wor$s of the artsand intellect and has 'btaining just reward for the creator. The"sweat of the brow" approach to originality is too low a standard. Tobe "original" under the #opyright *ct, the wor$ must originate froman author, not be copied from 2eviews another wor$, and must bethe product of an authors exercise of s$ill and judgment. Theexercise of s$ill and judgment re/uired to roduce the wor$ mustnot be so trivial That 1t #ould 0e caract4ris4 urely as a mechanicalexercise. #reative wor$s are by de%nition "original" and protected bycopyright, creativity goal is not re/uired in order to render a wor$"original." The )eadnotes, case summary, topical index and

compilation of judicial decisions are 2eported in original wor$s /uicopyright subsists. *lthough the 2eported judicial decisions, henroperly 5nderstood as a compilation of the headnote and the*ccompanying edited judicial 2easons are original wor$s covered bycopyright, the judicial 2easons in and of Themselves, without the)eadnotes, are not original wor$s in /ui the lainti!s can claimcopyright.

 The defendant *bout did not authorize copyright infringement by6aintaining self-service photocopiers for use by library patrons andposting a warning notice disclaiming liability for copies made in

infringement of copyright. *lthough authorization inferred from acts#ould 0e That ere less than Direct and positive, a person *boutdid not authorize infringement by *uthorizing the mere use ofe/uipment That #ould be used to infringe copyright. The shortshoulds presume That a person authorizes an activity ho Does soonly insofar as it is in according with the law. This presumptionrebutted if #ould 0e That 1t was shown in some relationship ordegree of control +xisted entre les *lleged authorizer and thepersons ho commitment committed the copyright infringement.

 There as 7o evidence /ue la photocopiers )*D beens used in a

6anner inconsistent with copyright law. The defendants posting of anotice warning That 1t ould not 0e 2esponsible for *ny copies

8/17/2019 CCH case

3/8

made in infringement of copyright *bout did not #onstitute anexpress *c$nowledgment /ue la photocopiers ould 0e used in anillegal 6anner. &iven defendant is responsible /ue le for regulatingthe legal profession in 'ntario, it is more logical to #onclude as/ue la notice posted to library patrons That 2emind copyright law

&overned the ma$ing of photocopies in the library. +ven if Thereere evidence /ue la copies ere used to infringe copyright, thedefendant lac$ed u8cient control of the library patrons to permitthe conclusion of That 1t sanctioned, approved, or countenanced theinfringement.

9air dealing under s. :; of the *ct for the purpose of research orprivate study Does not infringe copyright. "2esearch" must be &ivena broad and liberal interpretation in order to +nsure That usersrights are not unduly constrained. 1t is not limited to non-commercialor private contexts. 2esearch for the purpose of *dvising clients,giving opinions, arguing cases, prepaid briefs and factums is"research". awyers carrying on the business of law for pro%t are#onducting research ithin The 6eaning of s. :;. hethersomething is fair is a /uestion of fact and depends on the facts of+ach box. 2eporting factoring in Determining whether a dealing isfair include3

8/17/2019 CCH case

4/8

public in infringement of copyright, There as no evidence That'ccurred in this this box.

 The defendant *bout did not infringe copyright by selling copies ofthe lainti!s wor$s. There as no primary infringement na There

#ould 0e 7o secondary infringement. * statement as &ranted /uela defendant Does not infringe copyright hen a single copy of a2eported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or limitedselection of text from a treatise is made by the defendant inaccording with its "*ccess to the aw olicy" and /ue la defendant*bout did not authorize copyright infringement by 6aintaining acopy in the library and posting a notice warning That 1t ould not 0e2esponsible for *ny copies made in infringement of copyright. 7oinjunctive 2elief as *22*7T+D. &iven /ue la defendant wassuccessful on the appeal and cross-appeal, 1t was *warded

 Throughout costs.

*pplicants were caseboo$s publishers, law treaties and other legalpublications. The defendant was a non-pro%t corporation thatgoverned the legal profession in 'ntario, pursuant to the powersthat were granted to him by law. )e operated and managed areference library for its members and for judges. 1t was providingself-service photocopiers users to the library using coin or prepaidcards. The defendant as$ed above each copier notice that certaintypes of photocopies could violate the copyright and he declined allresponsibility for copies that could be made in violation of copyright

by users of the library. 1t also provided a custom photocopy servicethat distributed photocopies in person, by mail or fax. Thedefendant had a "policy of access to legal information" which, for acertain amount, provided to library users individual copies of librarymaterials for research purposes, revision, study and criticism, andalso for use in a court or a hearing before a government agency.

 The plainti!s alleged that the defendant violated their copyright byits policies photocopy and its activities consisting of the provision,the legal profession and judges, copies of legal documents issued bythe applicants and detained in reference library of the defendant.

peci%cally, applicants have referred to the custom photocopyservice of the defendant and self-service photocopiers. They broughtactions for injunction and declaratory judgment with respect toownership and existence of copyright as well as the violation ofcopyright that the plainti!s alleged holding in respect of certainpublications or portions of publications. The defendantcounterclaimed for a declaration that copyright is not infringed by asingle copy of a reported decision, a summary of cases of a law,regulation or an extract of a treaty made by an employee or by auser self-service photocopiers for research purposes. The defendant

also as$ed for solicitor-client costs in addition to an injunction.

8/17/2019 CCH case

5/8

 The shares were granted in part and counterclaims were rejected. 1twas stated that the plainti!s had a copyright in respect of theannotated law, the manual and the monograph constituting a boo$chapter> it was also stated that the defendant had infringed thecopyright of applicants with regard to the manual and the

monograph by photocopying a large part of them and distributingcopies made. *pplicants have also been denied the statement thatthey enjoyed a copyright in respect of the three decisions published,added to the summary of the three decisions, the summary and thetopical index of the caseboo$. The general declaration andpermanent injunction were refused. e refused to pay thedefendants statement that he was loo$ing in his counterclaim onthe grounds that it was too general.

 The appeal of the plainti!s was allowed in part and the defendantscross-appeal was dismissed. *ll wor$s of the applicants gave them acopyright. The defendant appealed and the applicants have made across-appeal.

)eld3 The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissedwith costs throughout.

#opyright aims to stri$e a balance between, on the one handpromotion in the public interest, the creation and dissemination ofartistic and intellectual wor$s and on the other hand, obtaining a

 just reward for the creator. *ssociate the criterion of originality in

the concept of wor$ gives too low a standard. To be "original" underthe #opyright *ct, the wor$ must come from an author, not be acopy of another wor$ and it must be the product of s$ill and

 judgment of author. The s$ill and judgment exercised to produce awor$ must not be insigni%cant as to be classi%ed as a purelymechanical exercise. The creative wor$s are by de%nition "original?s@" and protected by copyright> however it is not necessary to becreative for a wor$ to be "original". ummary, summary, topicalindex and compilation of reported judicial decisions are originalwor$s that confer copyright. hile the reported judicial decisions areoriginal wor$s protected by copyright when viewed as a compilation

of the summary and edited judicial reasons, legal reasons in itself,unaccompanied summary, not an original wor$ in respect of whichthe applicants can claim a copyright.

 The defendant did not authorize violations of copyright by providingself-service photocopiers in library users or by posting a notice thathe declined all responsibility for any copies made in violation of theright author. +ven if permission could be inferred from acts not reallydirect and positive, a person could not authorize a violation simplyby allowing the use of e/uipment that can be used to violate

copyright. The court must presume that a person who authorizes anactivity does so in so far as it complies with the law. This

8/17/2019 CCH case

6/8

presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating the existence of arelationship or degree of control between the person who grantedthe authorization and persons who violated the copyright. There wasno evidence that the copiers had been used in an improper mannerto copyright. The notice posted by the defendant that he was not

responsible for any copies made in violation of copyright could notbe an express ac$nowledgment that the copiers would be usedillegally. ince the defendant has the responsibility to regulate thelegal profession in 'ntario, it is logical to conclude that the noticehad been posted to remind users of the library #opyright governedthe photocopies made in the library . +ven if there were proof thatthe copies were used to infringe copyright, the defendant did nothave su8cient control over the library users to conclude that he hadsanctioned, approved or supported violation.

5nder *rt. :; of the #opyright *ct, fair use made of research orprivate study does not infringe copyright. The term "research"should be given a large and liberal interpretation in order not tounduly restrict the rights of users. The search is not limited toprivate or non-commercial contexts. The research for advisingclients, giving opinions, arguing cases and preparing briefs andfactums remains of "research." awyers practicing law for pro%t aredoing research within the meaning of art. :;. The /uestion ofwhether something is fair is a /uestion of fact that depends on thefacts of each case. The determination of what is fair includesconsideration of the following factors3 a= the purpose of use> b= the

nature of the use> c= the amount of the dealing> d= alternatives tothe dealing> e= the nature of the wor$> f= the e!ect of the dealing onthe wor$.

 The use that the defendant was the wor$s of applicants, through itspersonalized copy service, was made for purposes of research andwas fair. "olicy of access to legal information" of the defendantappropriately limited the type of photocopies made. The defendantdid not infringe copyright when, in accordance with its access policy,it was a single copy of a reported decision, a summary of a law,regulation or extract limited treaty. 1f the application does not

appear to have been made for research, criticism, review or privatestudy, they refused to ma$e the copy. 1f in doubt about thelegitimacy of the stated goal, the reference librarian would decide.

 The access policy limited the amount of wor$ that could be copied. The reference librarian examined applications generally exceedingwhat could be considered reasonable and he could refuse anapplication.

8/17/2019 CCH case

7/8

8/17/2019 CCH case

8/8