On February 22, 2024 the Federal Court of Canada delivered its decision in a 2018 suit launched by 10 provincial and territorial K-12 education ministries and all Ontario school boards (the Consortium), who sought a refund from Access Copyright (AC) for royalty over-payments. The Consortium's over-payments, totalling more than $25 million, were made in the period 2010 to 2012 during which Consortium members were licensees under a continuation of the terms of the 2005-2009 tariff while the Copyright Board reviewed AC's tariff proposals for the 2010 to 2015 period.
AC did not dispute the over-payment amount. However, AC counterclaimed that a refund was not required because, among other things, it claimed the Consortium continued to be licensees from 2013 to 2015 but paid no licensing fees.
The central questions before the Court included whether the Consortium members were licensees after 2012, and if not, whether AC is entitled to keep the Consortium's over-payment of licensing fees. On both of these issues the Court ruled in favour of the Consortium: that its members were not licensees during the disputed time frame and AC may not retain the over-payment amount.
This post has no comments.
Commenting on blog posts requires an account.
Login is required to interact with this comment. Please and try again.
On February 22, 2024 the Federal Court of Canada delivered its decision in a 2018 suit launched by 10 provincial and territorial K-12 education ministries and all Ontario school boards (the Consortium), who sought a refund from Access Copyright (AC) for royalty over-payments. The Consortium's over-payments, totalling more than $25 million, were made in the period 2010 to 2012 during which Consortium members were licensees under a continuation of the terms of the 2005-2009 tariff while the Copyright Board reviewed AC's tariff proposals for the 2010 to 2015 period.
AC did not dispute the over-payment amount. However, AC counterclaimed that a refund was not required because, among other things, it claimed the Consortium continued to be licensees from 2013 to 2015 but paid no licensing fees.
The central questions before the Court included whether the Consortium members were licensees after 2012, and if not, whether AC is entitled to keep the Consortium's over-payment of licensing fees. On both of these issues the Court ruled in favour of the Consortium: that its members were not licensees during the disputed time frame and AC may not retain the over-payment amount.
Commenting on blog posts requires an account.
Login is required to interact with this comment. Please and try again.
If you do not have an account, Register Now.