Keyword: Auteursrecht

Increasingly the digital content used in everyday life has little or no human intervention in its creation. Typically, when such content is delivered to consumers it comes with attached claims of copyright. However, depending on the jurisdiction, approaches to ownership of computer-generated works vary from legislated to uncertain. In this paper we look at the various approaches taken by the common law, such as in Canada, and the legislative approach taken in the United Kingdom. The options for how computer-generated works may be treated and suggestions for their best placement in copyright are discussed.

Despite the lack of unanimity among European nations on how to treat so-called scientific and critical editions, most of these nations agree on the major proposition that this kind of work should attract some kind of protection under neighbouring rights doctrines in their copyright codes. Canada has no such provisions. This article explores the neighbouring rights protection in some European nations and shows that Canadian publishers of such editions should be aware of the diverse range of protection that they are given in Europe and the potential liability of Canadian publishers.

Copyright legislation, at least in its implementation, can be seen as a triumph of international harmonisation. However, in the area of joint works this is not the case. In the comparison of a North American and a European country this article observes very different outcomes, despite the similar statutory definitions in copyright legislation. However, the explanation for the divergence of application is not to be found in copyright law, but rather the parts of property law that deal with tenancy in common. Starting from this observation, the article uses comparative analysis of rules and remedies available in both systems and concludes with recommendations towards a more fair and efficient framework.