Copyright Infringement Research with Casey

Courts evaluate whether an allegedly infringing work copies a substantial part of the original. This is not purely quantitative — even a small portion can be substantial if it represents the essence of the work. The analysis is highly fact-specific.

Casey returns decisions where courts applied qualitative and quantitative tests for copying, how judges distinguished inspired-by works from infringing reproductions, and what expert evidence was considered.

Fair dealing permits limited use of copyrighted material for purposes like research, criticism, or news reporting. The defence requires both a permissible purpose and fairness in the dealing. Courts weigh multiple factors to determine if the use was fair.

Casey surfaces rulings applying the CCH Canadian six-factor fairness test, how courts balanced the purpose of the dealing against the effect on the market for the original, and what types of use were found fair or unfair.

Successful copyright holders may recover actual damages, profits earned by the infringer, or statutory damages. Courts also grant injunctions to prevent ongoing infringement. Choosing the right remedy and proving the amount requires careful legal analysis.

Casey retrieves decisions awarding statutory damages, how courts determined amounts within the prescribed range, factors that increased or reduced awards, and when injunctions were granted alongside monetary relief.

Canada uses a notice-and-notice regime rather than notice-and-takedown. Internet service providers must forward infringement notices to subscribers but are not required to remove content. Disputes arise over compliance, liability, and the effectiveness of this system.

Casey returns cases examining ISP obligations under the notice-and-notice regime, what constitutes proper compliance, when ISPs faced liability for non-compliance, and how courts treated evidence from forwarded notices.

Online distribution has made copyright enforcement more complex. Courts address peer-to-peer file sharing, streaming, website blocking orders, and the liability of platforms that host infringing content. Identifying anonymous infringers adds another layer of difficulty.

Casey surfaces decisions on site-blocking injunctions, how courts balanced copyright enforcement against freedom of expression, what evidence proved that blocking was justified, and the role of ISPs in implementing orders.

A party can be liable for authorizing infringement even without directly copying. This includes providing the means to infringe or failing to prevent it when able. Courts distinguish between enabling infringement and merely providing neutral tools.

Casey retrieves rulings on authorization liability, how courts applied the test from CCH Canadian requiring a genuine act of authorization rather than mere facilitation, and what steps platforms took that shielded or exposed them to liability.