Two recent articles have highlighted a novel privacy issue regarding the legal implications of wearable technologies in Major League Baseball (MLB). Rian Watt first addressed the issue for Vice Sports, and Associate Professor Nathaniel Grow followed up with a post on Fangraphs about the American implications of MLB franchises collecting biometric data about their players. However, given that the Toronto Blue Jays operate in Canada, a perspective on this from north of the border is warranted.
For almost a decade, the rise in popularity of social media platforms has created new methods for organizations, brands and celebrities to target their audience. Whether through promotional tweets, posts on Instagram, or Periscope shopping excursions, there are countless ways to engage with millions of individuals around the world. However, obtaining content for social media can tread into murky copyright waters. This issue is illustrated by a recent dispute between Toronto photographer Jake Kivanç and Drake, where Kivanç has accused Drake of playing dirty not clean.
Voltage Pictures LLC has been busy in the Federal Court of Canada. As illustrated by the proposed class proceeding filed April 26, 2016, the movie production company is showing no sign of slowing down.
On February 25, 2016, Hayes eLaw LLP founding partner Mark Hayes spoke on the “Reproduction Rights” panel at Osgoode Hall Law School’s Unpack SODRAC: Technological Change and Copyright Tariffs after CBC v SODRAC (SCC 2015). The video can be found below.
Although notices of appeal are common place in intellectual property matters, three recent filings at the Federal Court of Appeal are, at least in this author’s opinion, noteworthy to those in the copyright and trade-mark communities.
On February 18, 2016, the Federal Court, in Specialty Software Inc. v. BEWATEC Kommunikationstechnik GmbH, 2016 FC 223 (“Specialty”), overturned a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks. In doing so, the Court may have broadened the scope of “goods” under the Trade-Marks Act (the “Act”) and called into question many software-related marks relating to services.
In a late December decision, Netflix, Inc v SOCAN et al, 2015 FCA 289, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”), perhaps binge-writing decisions prior to the holidays, granted Netflix’s application for judicial review of the Copyright Board’s decision in Tariff 22.D.1 – royalties for audiovisual webcasts for the years 2007 to 2013 (“Tariff 22.D.1 Decision”).