Reuses other publishers' content, in Canada

R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, s. 29.2 · Read the law's page

• You may deal fairly with any copyrighted work for the purpose of news reporting, if you mention the source and, if given in the source, the name of the author, performer, maker or broadcaster, as the case may be.
• Judge fairness by the six-factor analysis from CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004 SCC 13).
• Keep aggregation to limited news excerpts or snippets: the exception may shield a news aggregator that reproduces them, subject to that fairness analysis.

S.C. 2000, c. 5, Part 1 · Read the law's page

• Obtain knowing, meaningful consent before collecting, using or disclosing personal information, and limit collection to what a reasonable person would consider appropriate for the stated purpose.
• Comply with the ten Schedule 1 fair information principles, including limiting use and disclosure to the purposes for which information was collected and keeping it only as long as necessary.
• Remain accountable for personal information transferred to a third party for processing, in Canada or abroad, and use contractual or other means to ensure a comparable level of protection.
• Give individuals access to their own personal information on request and a way to challenge the organization's compliance with these obligations.

S.C. 2000, c. 5, Part 1 · Read the law's page

• Do not assume a public web page's personal information falls outside PIPEDA merely because it was publicly accessible; the no-consent carve-out applies only to information specified as publicly available by regulation.
• Apply PIPEDA's purpose-limitation and accountability obligations to personal information collected by crawling, the same as personal information collected any other way.

2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 SCR 269

• A court's reading: the Supreme Court of Canada held that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as publication of the content it refers to, so do not treat a bare link as publishing the linked content.
• When a reader follows a hyperlink to defamatory content, it is the creator or poster of the defamatory words who publishes the libel, not the person who linked.
• Expect a hyperlinker to be treated as publishing the content only where it presents content from the linked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content.

R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29 · Read the law's page

• A use of a copyrighted work must fall within an enumerated fair-dealing purpose (research, private study, education, parody or satire, or another statutory dealing elsewhere in the Act) to avoid infringement; collecting or reproducing text to train a generative model is not itself an enumerated purpose.

2017 SCC 34, [2017] 1 SCR 824

• If you run a search engine or another service that lists or links to third-party websites, comply with a Canadian court's interlocutory order to stop listing the websites it names, even though you are not a party to the underlying lawsuit: the Supreme Court of Canada held that injunctive relief can be ordered against someone who is not a party.
• Apply the order to your search results worldwide when the order is worldwide: the Court held that a court with in personam jurisdiction can grant an injunction enjoining a person's conduct anywhere in the world where that is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness, and upheld an order covering all of Google's search results.
• Do not read such an order as a finding of liability or a monitoring duty: the Court held that the injunction does not require Google to monitor content on the Internet and is not a finding of any sort of liability against Google for facilitating access to the impugned websites.
• If complying with the order would require you to violate the law of another jurisdiction, apply to the issuing court to vary it: the Court noted that Google was free to apply to the British Columbia courts and had made no such application.

S.C. 2023, c. 23 · Read the law's page

• Applies only to operators of designated digital news intermediaries: large search engines and social media platforms that meet the revenue and user thresholds set in regulations.
• If designated, bargain with eligible Canadian news businesses and reach compensation agreements with them.
• If you do not reach an agreement, expect mandatory mediation and then final offer arbitration.

SOR/2023-276 · Read the law's page

• Applies to a search engine or social media platform with global revenue exceeding C$1 billion and at least 20 million Canadian monthly unique visitors (search) or active users (social media).
• If you are the largest search engine by Canadian advertising market share, provide at least C$100 million per year (indexed to CPI by formula) to news businesses as a condition of exemption eligibility.

CRTC 2024-262 · Read the law's page

• This order binds Google rather than apps generally: it is the CRTC's grant to Google of a five-year exemption from the Online News Act's mandatory bargaining requirements, on conditions.
• If you are Google, contribute C$100 million annually to the Canadian Journalism Collective for distribution to eligible Canadian news businesses; payment was required within 60 days of the decision.
• Admit new eligible news businesses to the Collective each year, observe a 2% cap on indemnity claims, and give notice of any agreement changes or breaches.

CRTC 2024-327 · Read the law's page

• Applies only to platforms subject to mandatory bargaining under the Online News Act; it sets the operational procedures for that bargaining.
• Bargain within a 90-day bargaining period, followed by a 120-day mediation phase and a 45-day final offer arbitration period.
• Expect undue-preference complaints, which eligible news businesses may file against platforms under the framework.
• Provide the data the framework mandates from platforms, which supports annual auditor reports.

Bill C-36, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts, 45th Parliament, 1st Session · Read the law's page

• Would require organizations to be transparent about their use of automated decision making for significant decisions about individuals, set higher standards for handling children's information, and obtain meaningful consent supported by plain-language explanations.

R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 342.1 · Read the law's page

• Do not obtain a computer service, or cause a function of a computer system to be intercepted, fraudulently and without colour of right.
• Do not use, possess, traffic in, or permit another person to have access to a computer password to commit either of the above.