Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court granted default judgment in part, finding Matsumoto owned copyright in two photographs reproduced without authorization and awarding damages, punitive damages, costs, and a permanent injunction.
Because moral rights under s.14.1(1) are confined to acts connected to the copyright (rights under s.3), the defence in s.64(2) applies to bar the appellant’s moral rights claim: either the impugned statement was connected to a reproduction/use contemplated by s.64(2)(d) or, if not, there was no actionable infringement of moral rights because no act in connection with copyright occurred; the Federal Court’s factual identification of the Poppy Puppy as the protected design was not palpably or overridingly wrong, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Federal Court dismissed Leonard B French’s copyright and moral rights action over the Poppy Puppy, holding subsection 64(2) of the Copyright Act shielded the Legion.
Federal Court holds Afterlife infringed copyright by reproducing obituaries and photos without permission, grants a permanent injunction, and awards $20 million in aggregate damages.
The Federal Court found copyright and moral rights infringement by Northland Art Company in some photographic works, awarded damages, and granted a permanent injunction.
The Federal Court dismissed a copyright and moral rights application over a novel said to have copied a Holocaust documentary, finding only unprotected facts were taken.
On balance of the CPR presumptions and factors, the court found the Application in Court remained the appropriate procedure because the parties could identify key witnesses, expert issues were capable of affidavit-based presentation, the hearing could be readied in months and be of predictable scope, and the application route would be faster and less costly; furthermore, the challenged pleadings were not plainly unsustainable and the applicants could not be required at this stage to provide further particulars for matters largely in respondents' control. Therefore the respondents' motions to…
Source excerpt
Explore more
