Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in giving restrictive definition of “work of joint authorship” under s. 2 of Copyright Act and wrongly determined that that term does not include software ? Whether Court of Appeal erred in substituting its assessment of evidence for that of judge, and whether it erred in law (i) as regards nature and scope of “consent” required to find that authorization to do act in context of development of joint project and during negotiation of complete written agreement amounts to grant of [TRANSLATION] “non exclusive licence” for all reserved acts, (ii) in holding that owner did not formalize writing as required by Act, which is essential condition for granting copyright, (iii) in holding that “non exclusive licence” makes it possible, without writing, to do everything reserved for owner with respect to all of owner’s protected works for indefinite period — including new software — and without territory, language and financial conditions being specified, and to grant those rights to third parties without owner’s participation, and (iv) in holding, in absence of written agreement, that licence was not exclusive, without considering parties’ intention and factual reality of exploitation of works ? Whether Court of Appeal erred in law (i) in not giving effect to notices validly given in 2011 to terminate any authorization, (ii) in finding that “reasonable time” for ceasing use instead began on date of trial judgment, (iii) such that it incorrectly set aside award of material and exemplary damages for nearly seven years of use without entitlement and without agreement on payment ? Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 42, ss. 2, 13(4) and 27(1). — dismissed 03/18/2021 — Supreme Advocacy acted as agent for the Respondent.
Read the lower court decision from the QCCA here.