The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 26th, 2021, 11:22pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
   Copyright Forum
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Canadian Copyright law
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Canadian Copyright law  (Read 1702 times)
Re: Canadian Copyright law
« Reply #5 on: Jun 19th, 2007, 10:56am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

Thank you, Isaac, for clarifying that. Your analysis is enlightening and appreciated.  
If I may, I would like to pose several more questions:
Would generally accepted rules of English usage, such as
—A prepositional phrase that follows the subject does not affect the number of the verb
—When the antecedent is a singular noun of common gender, the masculine pronoun should be used unless it is clear that the noun refers to a girl or a woman    
—After such verbs as appear, be, become, feel, look, seem, smell, taste, the modifier should be an adjective if it refers to the subject, an adverb if it describes or defines the verb  
fall under the rubric of “facts” or “ideas” or information considered to be in the “public domain,” and thus not copyrightable. If so, would the number of such “infringed” excerpts have any bearing; for instance, could one appropriate all the rules to be found in a book of English usage verbatim in a book of one’s own, and would this be considered fair use/dealing?  
Also, I have read that  
“Fact-based works, which can be expressed in limited ways, receive less protection than fanciful works that can be expressed in a multitude of ways.”
Yet, as Samuel Johnson observed, “no man can do any amount of writing and escape a style.” How much protective consideration then does the law accord to facts stated in a unique or creative way, for instance, weaving such into a verse or work of fiction that then can be recognized as having the author’s unique stamp upon it. Would such a work be copyrightable, but not the facts it consists of?
The impression I am left with is that copyright law is not cut and dried and that each case must be considered individually, balacing the rights of the copyright holder with those of the user, and that in many, if not all, cases it comes down to degree weighing progressively more and more, or less and less, in favor of one or the other.  
Any insights anyone can offer as to how the law tends to look upon and assess the questions posed would be received with gratitude.
Many thanks,
IP Logged
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board