The IP Innovation Clinic, the first student-based clinic of its kind in Canada, is seeking law students from Osgoode Hall Law School to provide assistance to under-resourced inventors, entrepreneurs and start-up companies with their innovation and commercialization activities.

IP Innovation Clinic Fellows

It is expected that the majority of the work done by students will relate to patent or trademark law.�� The remaining time would be spent working on other IP-related and start-up business related needs as they arise.�� The students’ work will be supervised by lawyers from Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Bereskin & Parr LLP, and OWN Innovation and may include:

• Performing prior art searches
• Performing trademark searches
• Conducting legal research and drafting legal memos
• Possibly assisting with other steps in the patent prosecution process (i.e. reviewing patent specifications, etc.)
• Client intake and consultations

Note:�� Please note the position is a part-time volunteer position. ��Students may claim OPIR hours for work done at the IP Innovation Clinic.

���ϳܲ������ھ������پ��DzԲ�:

• an interest in IP law, technology and commercialization issues
• responsiveness and a commitment to client service
• attention to detail and ability to write clearly and concisely
• excellent time-management, organizational, and interpersonal skills
• you must be entering your 2L or 3L year at Osgoode Hall Law School
• completion of the Legal Values: IP Commercialization Seminar course is not required but would be considered an asset
• completion of the Intellectual Property or Patents course is not required but would be considered an asset

Application Process:

�ٱ𲹻�����Ա�:��Thursday, April 13, 2023

Please provide the following materials via email to��ipinnovationclinic@osgoode.yorku.ca:

• One page cover letter (briefly outlining your interests in IP law)
• Copy of your resume and unofficial grades
• A sample of your written work (max. 750 words)

We thank all applicants for their interest in the positions, but will only contact those selected for an interview.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: IP Innovation Clinic Fellows (Summer 2023) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Prof. Pina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Innovation Clinic, and the IP Intensive Program, and the Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue.

As 2022 comes to an end, I would like to thank everyone who has worked with IP Osgoode and made it as successful as it has become over the past year and since its very beginning in 2008.

When I first joined Osgoode Hall Law School as a professor in 2006, I dreamed of building closer bridges between academia, government, industry and expert hubs in Canada and around the world. I dreamed of engaging students, academics, legal professionals, and global community members in a meaningful, balanced, respectful, evidence-based and forward-thinking dialogue over IP and tech issues. With the support and partnership of some of my most treasured colleagues and mentors, this vision became IP Osgoode, the university’s flagship IP & Tech program that I founded in 2008.

In 14 years, IP Osgoode has engaged thousands of students, hundreds of partnerships across academia, government and industry, and has attracted over $3 million in public and private funding. We have hosted 101 events, including the first ever legal hackathon of its kind, and welcomed leaders from academia, industry, government, the judiciary, and private practice from around the world. The award-winning IPilogue has published over 3000 original blog posts and 1400 comments, written by over 200 IPilogue Team members, as well as guest writers from Osgoode and the broader IP community. With support from IP Osgoode, Osgoode has reached 7 IP moot finals, with one big win, 5 second place finishes, and one third place finish, and winning 4 further awards.

IP Osgoode has supported the development of my two other passion projects. Through the IP Innovation Clinic that I founded in 2010, over 200 students have helped almost 500 under-resourced clients to realize, protect, and commercialize their IP, saving cash-strapped clients over $2 million in legal costs that would have otherwise been billable and helping them secure funds that supported global operations and created new jobs. Through the IP Intensive program that I founded in 2010, 133 students have completed 10-week internships for academic credit with 26 partner organizations, a feat yet unparalleled by any other program.

Our countless student internships and graduate research opportunities have diversified the international IP law dialogue, and I am so proud of our alumni who have leveraged their experiences into successful careers and now give back to our programming and the wider community. I constantly hear students citing that they accepted offers from Osgoode so that they could join the IP Intensive and IP Innovation Clinic, and stories about prospective law students around the world being drawn to the force that is IP Osgoode.

As 2022 comes to an end, I share that my own tenure as Director of IP Osgoode also ends as I transition to my new role as the Founding Co-Director of the newly minted �첥��Ƶ Centre for AI & Society (CAIS). I will continue to work on the IP Innovation Clinic and the IP Intensive and look ahead with excitement to continuing to grow these initiatives. I will cherish the lessons I have learned and the relationships I have built at IP Osgoode and will continue to empower my students and community to make their mark in the innovation ecosystem.

As of January 1, 2023, I am delighted that my colleague, Prof. Carys Craig, will take over as Director of IP Osgoode, and I wish her all the best in guiding our students forward and lifting IP Osgoode to new heights.

I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, a Happy Holiday Season, and a healthy, successful, and creative New Year!

Warmest wishes,

Prof Pina D’Agostino

Founding Director, IP Osgoode

The post Happy Holidays and Wishing Everyone a Bright New Year! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Applications for all openings will now be due at 5 PM on Friday 16 September 2022. All other requirements remain the same.

For more information about applying to join the IP Innovation Clinic as a Clinic Fellow, click .

For more information about applying to join the IPilogue as an IPilogue Writer, click .

For more information about applying to be a Research Assistant with Prof. D'Agostino and Prof. Vaver, click .

As with before, we thank all interested applicants and will only contact those selected for an interview.

��

The post Deadlines Extended for IP Osgoode & IP Innovation Clinic Openings appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Prof. Giuseppina D'Agostino is the Founder & Director of IP Osgoode and the IP Innovation Clinic, an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue and the Intellectual Property Journal.

IP Osgoode and the IP Innovation Clinic are thrilled to welcome you back on campus for the new school year! After almost 2 full years of completely virtual operations, we look forward to finally seeing our students and colleagues live in person! Here’s a preview of some of the activities you can get involved in over the next 8 months:

“IP Osgoode Speaks Series” is back in person!

Since 2008, we’ve hosted regular IP Osgoode Speaks lectures with guests from industry, academia, and the judiciary (including the Supreme Court of Canada) from Canada and around the world. After over 2 years in lockdown, we are proud to share that the IP Osgoode Speaks Series returned on 31 August 2022, welcoming Dan Bereskin to speak on “Balancing Freedom of Expression with Copyright and Trademark Rights: Art or Science?”

We look forward to hosting Dr. Lior Zemer, Dean of the Harry Radzyner Law School at Reichman University in Israel, in November to discuss “Art and Authorship in Extreme Circumstance: The Case for Nazi Ghettos.” ��

Please stay tuned for more details about ��on our website and by subscribing to our weekly e-Newsletter, the��.��You can also find recordings of our on our website.

IPilogue

Our����is one of Canada’s leading IP Blogs with an enthusiastic international following. To date,��we have published almost 3000 original posts and over 1400 comments.

The number of visitors to our website and our weekly newsletter () readership continue to grow and span the globe. Our diverse����continued to blog throughout the summer and constitute an important part of IP Osgoode’s team and vision to foster diverse views on intellectual property and technology matters. In order to keep abreast of the latest issues in IP and technology in Canada and around the world, and to learn more about IP Osgoode’s events and activities, please to the IPIGRAM��and follow us on��,��, and��.

We are����for this academic year. If you are interested in joining the IPilogue Team, please send your cover letter, CV, law school transcripts, and a writing sample to iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca��by��Friday 9 September 2022.

We will also continue to accept submissions on a guest basis.��For more information about submitting articles to the IPilogue, click��.

IP Innovation Clinic

Now in its twelfth year of operation, the IP Innovation Clinic continues to complement Osgoode’s rich history of clinical offerings by providing students with an opportunity to gain hands-on, practical experience while learning about some common early-stage IP and business-related issues facing under-resourced inventors, entrepreneurs, and start-up companies.

To this end, we����our AI-powered��, a free online service offering IP law information to users and further empowering creators with the tools to protect their IP. We look forward to continue to develop the IP Innovation ChatBot by expanding its knowledge base and making it more accessible, particularly to members of communities traditionally underrepresented in the IP innovation ecosystem. In the meantime,��we encourage you to ask our����as many questions as possible. The more questions it receives, the better it becomes at answering them. You can learn more about it by watching the recording of our launch event��.

The����continues to expand our client base and provide our students with a valuable and unique experiential learning opportunity.��We are currently��for the 2022-2023 academic term. If you are interested, please send your completed application to ipinnovationclinic@osgoode.yorku.ca by��Wednesday 7 September 2022.

To stay up to date with Clinic activities, please follow us on , and .

Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot & USPTO National Patent Application Drafting Competition

Following from the momentum of our��third-place finish at last year’s Patent Application Drafting Competition, we will soon host tryouts for this year’s competition, as well as the Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot. Look out for our emails and social media posts to learn about how you can get involved in either competition.

Our Writing Competitions

Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law & Technology Prize

Each year, through the sponsorship of Gowling WLG, four prizes are awarded to full-time Osgoode students. The recipients for the 2021-2022 academic year were����on the IP Osgoode website.��Eligibility for the����is officially open. All submissions by Osgoode JD students between now and the end of the Winter term will be considered for the prize.

Canada’s IP Writing Challenge

IP Osgoode, together with the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC), runs����to further enhance intellectual property public policy research and discussion. This competition is open to three categories of entrants: JD students, LLM and PhD students, and practitioners.

The submission deadline is July 1 every year. This year, we received a wide range of entries from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and institutions across Canada. We thank all those who participated in the Writing Challenge. We are grateful to Dan Bereskin, Professor Ikechi Mgbeoji and Justice Roger Hughes for agreeing to judge the articles again this year. Stay tuned, as��we will announce the Challenge winners in late October��and��open our next competition early next year, among various other initiatives.

A community is only as vibrant as its contributors. As we work and live amidst concerns about COVID-19, even while emerging from the lockdowns, we continue to confront complex and challenging debates in intellectual property and related areas of technology.��Please share with us your ideas to enrich our program and to do our part to make a difference during these unprecedented times. Let us know if you would like to get more involved or if you would like to announce any IP & tech-related research projects or activities.

A community is only as strong and vibrant as its members, I welcome your ideas, projects and anything else you would like to see us do at IP Osgoode for more IP and tech fun!

The post Welcome Back to Osgoode! What to Expect from IP Osgoode & the IP Innovation Clinic in the New Year appeared first on IPOsgoode.

IP Innovation Clinic Fellows (3-5 positions)

It is expected that the majority of the work done by students will relate to patent and/or trademark law. The remaining time would be spent working on other IP-related and start-up business related needs as they arise. The students’ work will be supervised by lawyers from Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Bereskin & Parr LLP, and OWN Innovation and may include:

• Reviewing business transactions involving IP
• Assisting with various steps in the patent prosecution process (i.e.: conducting prior art searches, reviewing patent specifications, etc.)
• Performing freedom-to-operate and clearance searches
• Performing trademark searches
• Reviewing IP Agreements and licensing assistance
• Conducting legal research

Term: September 2022 – April 2023, with a possibility to continue on for the 2023 summer term.

Note: Please note the position is a part-time volunteer position. Students may claim OPIR hours for work done at the IP Innovation Clinic.

���ϳܲ������ھ������پ��DzԲ�:

• an interest in IP law, technology and commercialization issues
• responsiveness and a commitment to client service
• attention to detail and ability to write clearly and concisely
• excellent time-management, organizational, and interpersonal skills
• you must be a 1L, 2L, 3L, or LL.M student at Osgoode Hall Law School
• completion of the Legal Values: IP Commercialization Seminar course is not required but would be considered an asset
• completion of the Intellectual Property or Patents course is not required but would be considered an asset

Application Process:

�ٱ𲹻�����Ա�:��Wednesday, September 7, 2022

Please provide the following materials via email to��ipinnovationclinic@osgoode.yorku.ca:

• One-page cover letter (briefly outlining your interests in IP law)
• Copy of your resume and unofficial grades
• A sample of your written work (max. 750 words)

Only those selected for an interview will be contacted.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: IP Innovation Clinic Fellows (2022/23 Academic Year) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Jaime Zorrilla is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 2L JD/MBA Student at Osgoode Hall Law School & the Schulich School of Business. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

After inviting public and stakeholder feedback in 2020, the Ontario Government commissioned the . The Report found significant deficits in IP related outcomes. While the Ontario government has introduced courses to raise IP awareness, making these courses at least partially mandatory might better address the Panel’s Recommendations.

The report identified several issues in Ontario’s attempt to become a hub for IP creation. Further, of the patents that are assigned to Canadian inventors, a significant percentage are subsequently assigned to foreign entities. ��

So far, the province has taken meaningful steps to address these deficits in education and governance contexts. Notably, . The Ontario Government has worked with the University of Toronto and the Centre for International Governance Innovation to launch . Missing, however, is the second part of the Expert Panel’s recommendations – that engaging with these modules or curricula be “”.

On the one hand, requiring founders to take a course can delay and complicate the launch of a successful venture. Failing a module could play a detrimental role in determining whether a particular venture gets access to additional resources from universities, accelerators or even funding partners. Additionally, the length of such a module could dissuade innovators from seeking out resources or help from these institutions.

Still, the potential payoffs are significant. The report identified benefits in proliferating IP in the province:

• Canadian small/medium enterprises (SMEs) holding registered IP rights are .
• SMEs that are aware of IP at all are .

The easiest way to promote IP awareness would be ensuring the module is simple to take; however, a course which is too rudimentary may prevent innovators and SMEs from being well appraised to best spot opportunities to commercialize new IP within their own businesses.

A two-pronged strategy might be preferable. Requiring that SMEs who receive government funding from grants or loans or who participate in commercialization aides such as accelerators or university programs take the existing module could meaningfully promote a baseline level of IP awareness. In addition, the Ontario Government could promote even greater familiarity with IP concepts by setting and enforcing targets for completion of levels two and three of these modules, potentially contingent on some degree of support by the province and its related agencies. The module established at the University of Toronto has, for example, developed additional modules on the value of various types of IP and the process of actually applying for a patent.

The latest development from the Expert Panel’s Report came in March when based in no small part from a recommendation by the panel’s Report. The new agency has so far identified IP education and awareness as one of its priorities. By working alone or with the province, implementing some form of mandatory training can go a long way to promoting IP awareness among inventors.

The post Promoting IP Awareness Through Mandatory Modules appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Ryan Erdman is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

In October of 2020, India and South Africa submitted a proposal to the WTO for a waiver of provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) Agreement in a response to global inequities in access to COVID-19 interventions. Namely, they intended to ensure that essential vaccines, medicines, and equipment would be made available “promptly, in sufficient quantities, and at affordable prices” on a global scale by eliminating both established and anticipated barriers created by intellectual property rights. In May 2021, after a long period of steady opposition from high income countries, the Biden Administration changed course and signaled support for a waiver of certain intellectual property protections. At the time, I on these developments, noting how the scope of a waiver that countries like the United States (and the others that would now come to the table) would agree to remained a key and complex issue. Critically, the Biden Administration’s announcement did not directly support the waiver initially proposed 7 months prior, which was purposefully broad, and many took this as a sign any waiver eventually agreed upon would be much narrower.

Almost 18 months later, the first real development in terms of an agreement has been reported with the US, EU, India and South Africa close to agreeing on a significant “compromise.” Where the original waiver proposal also looked to eliminate barriers created by IP protections related to accessibility to necessary technology in the areas of diagnostics, P.P.E., and other therapeutic drugs, the leaked text shows that the potential agreement will only immediately cover COVID-19 vaccine patents. While the text is said to have a provision where WTO members will vote on the inclusion of these additional interventions within 6 months, given how the negotiations have proceeded thus far, there are many reasons to doubt that the additional aspects to the agreement will come to fruition. While they note that no official agreement has been reached, the US that the leaked text offers “the most promising path toward achieving a concrete and meaningful outcome."

Immediate reaction from both sides of the “waiver debate” have been somewhat negative, and continue to represent the complex balancing act between exclusive protection for IP and the need for appropriate and timely public access to health technology during a pandemic. Those in favour of a complete waiver have continued to express that these technologies, which include rapid and affordable testing and novel anti-viral treatments are becoming equally important in the short and long-term global effort against COVID-19 and emerging strains. Further, some have how the leaked text creates novel barriers in relation to the use of compulsory licenses, as point 3(a) of the compromised text notes that while eligible WTO members may issue a single authorization for individual products, countries are required to “list all patents necessary” for production and supply. As this would include patents for all underlying fragments and processes related to the vaccine, it would be far more burdensome than what is currently required under the TRIPS agreement. ��

Those in opposition of the waiver remain with the view that the waiver does little practically (in addition to current flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement) to support greater accessibility to vaccines. Where there are also questions about whether supply is even a key issue at this time, a waiver of patent protections still does little to close key information gaps in technical processes and restrictions on use of trial data. The fear remains that the waiver would only serve to negatively impact the foundational incentive structure for research and development into vaccines, especially those targeting emerging pathogens.

While positive sentiment has been given by those like WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who has the leaked text a “breakthrough,” the true impact of any waiver remains uncertain. Certainly, the true effects on future use and liability of significant technological innovation created during the “COVID period” remains immeasurable.

The post TRIPS COVID-19 Intellectual Property Waiver: Response to Reported Compromise appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Tanzim Rashid is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 2L JD/MBA Student at Osgoode Hall Law School & the Schulich School of Business. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

Taylor Swift’s dispute with Big Machine Records shines a spotlight on the legal and business considerations artists should keep in mind when making decisions about how to manage their catalogue.��

Sparks Fly

In , Ithaca Holdings acquired Big Machine Records for an estimated $300 million, including the master recordings for one of the most popular and successful musicians in the world:��Taylor Swift. Swift, in being denied an opportunity to bid for her masters, in late 2020 that she would re-record her entire pre-2019 catalogue in order to regain control of her music and limit the profitability of Ithaca’s asset. Over the next year, Swift released re-recorded versions of both her Fearless (2008) and Red (2012) albums, receiving widespread commercial and critical success.

Look What You Made Me Do

At the heart of Taylor’s decision was an often overlooked but significant legal distinction in the copyright law governing the music industry. All music can be subdivided into categories of copyright: lyrical, compositional, and sound.��The former (‘recording rights’) are generally retained by an artist, while the (‘master rights’) – as part of a record contract signed by musicians in the formative stages of their career – is owned by the record company (including prohibitions on re-recordings for a set number of years) with certain vetoes the artist can assert with respect to how they are licensed.��Swift, in deciding to re-record her albums, ensured that her new (Taylor’s) versions gave her all three types of intellectual property right over her catalogue, guaranteeing full ownership.

While many artists both past and present have record contracts that follow this same structure (and provide for a legal avenue by which to circumvent the record company’s ownership of the master recordings), it was Swift, at the height of her popularity, who decided to invest the time, energy, and cash in order to take advantage of this technicality. These circumstances are noteworthy: artists in similar positions to Swift often either lack the time, the financial resources, or the industry power to pull off a move like this. It is in Swift’s confidence in her fans adopting the newer versions of her recordings, and thus giving effect to the technicality she is leveraging, that her decision was made and her temporal and financial investment was put forward.

Everything Has Changed

Shamrock Investments, who acquired Swift’s master recordings from Ithaca in 2020, are in an increasingly tenuous position: Swift has them from licensing to ad agencies, films, and tv shows, and where they do license, Swift receives royalties in those cases. On top of all that, their investment in the original recordings depreciates in value every time Swift releases another one of her re-recordings or a company licenses them instead of the originals.

Major players in the music industry (including Swift’s own Universal Music Group) have responded in light of Taylor’s shrewd business moves, doubling or tripling the length of re-recording prohibitions in their most recently signed record .��Artists are now for up to ten years after commercial release before re-recording their music, which also happens to be the period when their works are at their highest monetization potential. The music industry is now acutely aware of how digital streaming platforms provide artists with a never-before-seen ability to sidestep large traditional record companies when attempting to publish their re-recordings, creating a much-heightened potential for Swift’s precedent setting move to be seized upon by other successful artists looking to take back control of their creative output. From a legal perspective, Swift’s ability to resolve this dispute without reliance on costly, time intensive litigation or a protracted negotiations process has also put the music industry on notice, including their in-house counsel, who will be much more meticulous in drafting new agreements to best protect their company’s investment.

End Game

Looking to the future, it appears that beyond her personal dispute with the owners of her original masters, Swift is looking to inaugurate a major shift in the music industry at large, relocating bargaining power to artists from record companies. However, in capitalizing on the legal technicality available hitherto her dispute, with the unique power she wields in the industry, it may be the case that Swift’s maneuver may end up disempowering less powerful artists, who will now face stricter terms on their freshman record deals and an army of legal counsel prepared to respond to strategies similar to those deployed by Swift. As record companies fortify their defences, most upcoming artists may not be in a position to fight back against The Man.

The post The Music Industry (Taylor’s Version) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Jenny Peng is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

In an age of increasing globalization, the ripple effect of a single event resulting in unintended consequences is nothing new. Amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Russian government has recently announced a series of measures related to IP rights and payments in response to sanctions from foreign governments and corporations. One such measure was a , which stated that patent holders of foreign countries that commit unfriendly actions against Russia would be subjected to a compulsory licence of their inventions, utility models and industrial designs with 0% royalty to the owner of the intellectual property.

What is compulsory licencing?

is when a government permits another party to produce a patented product without the consent of the patent owner.

Under the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”), compulsory licencing is a flexibility in the field of patent protection. lists out conditions under which a compulsory licence may be granted, and specifically under Article 31(b), member nations are allowed to do so “in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency”. has further loosened this provision and confirmed that “each member [nation of the WTO] has the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted”.

What does this mean in the current context of the world?

In most cases, compulsory licences are granted to meet the demand for a patented product in a domestic market. During a global health crisis, compulsory licences would facilitate knowledge sharing across nations and maximize efficiency in R&D and production.

, India and South Africa have led the proposal for a TRIPS Waiver that would temporarily suspend IP protection on medical products required to treat COVID-19. Fast forward to present day, these talks are still ongoing with no resolution to be reached between the push for scaling up production and increasing access to critical medicines on one side of the table, and the desire to protect intellectual property on the basis of sufficient production on the other.

Conclusion

Russia’s compulsory licence policy seems to be a direct response to international sanctions, and while it does not particularly target the pharmaceutical industry, this decision has certainly affected discussions of the COVID TRIPS Waiver. International cooperation is weakening, and Russia has set an example of its own national enforcement of compulsory licencing. As events continue to unfold, the “emergency” context surrounding compulsory licencing will likely continue to be a source of ambiguity and a point of debate.

The post War and Pandemic: Collateral Damage on IP Rights appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Junghi Woo is a former IPilogue Content Manager, an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s Directed Reading: IP Innovation Program course.

In 2020, a South Korean television and radio network,����that revealed one family’s journey in recreating their 7-year-old deceased daughter, Na-Yeon, through the technology of virtual reality (“VR”). VIVE Studios, a VR technology studio, used����to create this VR character.����

While this technology may not be as common in Canada, we should nonetheless consider the implications of introducing such innovations, especially when it involves minors. In fact, there exist several legal implications within Intellectual Property law (“IP”), such as the common law principle of personality rights.����In the case of Na-Yeon, her personality rights were used to recreate her VR persona.��

In Ontario, there exists a lack of legislation regarding the protection of both non-celebrity minors’ and adults’ personality rights. This presents a concern with the growing posthumous market and the commercialization of personality rights and potentially, of individuals’ digital assets used to “revive” the dead.��

Such technology is not novel. For example,����through his past text messages with his friends and family members. By using artificial neural networks,��. The result was fairly accurate and allegedly helped Mazureko’s loved ones’ grieving process. Companies such as����already have a patent that could create a digital clone that embodies people’s “mental attributes”.����a New Zealand-based software company, markets “digital humans” for enhanced online customer service.��

With Kanye West’s gift to his ex-wife Kim Kardashian��, and a��” industry derived from the pandemic, the posthumous artificial intelligence market is not too far from our futures. Firms such as����offer online chat bots based on one’s digital footprint to keep the bereaved to “stay in touch” with the deceased.��

Along with significant privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of individuals’ digital assets, the commercialization of such IP brings us additional questions regarding the safety of its target market. Mainly targeting grieving people, it is questionable as to whether companies will avoid exploiting the vulnerability of their emotional states and if they are able to deliver their services and products without risking their customers’ mental health. Those who grieve may seek to reconnect with the deceased and companies can monetize this vulnerability not only through their products, but their targeted advertisements. The possibility of the bereaved becoming attached to these recreations is another danger to consider. Without proactive legislation, we leave not only the deceased unprotected but the bereaved as well.����

The real question is, what would you risk to see your lost one once more?��

The post Commercializing the Personalities of the Dead: The Dangers of the Posthumous Market appeared first on IPOsgoode.