Copyright
Copyright is the body of law that protects original creative expression. It arises automatically — no registration is required for copyright to exist. That said, registration, proper ownership structures, and a clear understanding of what copyright does and does not protect are all matters that require attention in a well-managed business.
Copyright is also the automatic baseline layer of a broader IP portfolio. Where a feature is not novel enough to patent, or is not kept confidential enough to qualify as a trade secret, copyright still prevents unauthorized copying of the specific expression involved. For software-driven businesses in particular, copyright often ends up doing more practical work than clients initially expect.
What Copyright Protects
Copyright protects original literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works; computer programs; performer's performances; sound recordings; and communication signals. The threshold for originality in Canada is not high — a work must originate with the author and reflect the exercise of skill and judgment, but it need not be novel or inventive in the patent sense.
Copyright protects expression — not ideas. The underlying idea, concept, fact, or style is not protected; only the particular expression of it is. This distinction is often misunderstood and has significant practical implications.
For a software business, the range of copyrightable deliverables is broader than just the code itself: source code and object code, technical documentation and user manuals, original screen layouts and interface graphics, the creative selection or arrangement of a database (even where the underlying facts are not themselves protected), and marketing and branding materials can all carry independent copyright. Treating each of these as a distinct asset to inventory, rather than treating "the software" as a single undifferentiated thing, produces a more complete and more defensible protection picture.
Copyright and Open-Source Software
Software businesses increasingly build on open-source components, and that practice carries a copyright consequence that is easy to overlook until it matters. Before relying on code as a proprietary asset — whether to register it, to represent it as owned in a financing round or sale, or to protect it as a trade secret — it is worth confirming what open-source licenses, if any, govern the components incorporated into it.
Copyleft licenses, including the GPL, LGPL, and related licenses in the Open Source Initiative family, can carry obligations to disclose source code, to license derivative works on the same open terms, or to refrain from imposing use restrictions the client would otherwise want. Any of these obligations can undercut a business's ability to treat its own code as proprietary, even where the business wrote the majority of it. Confirming open-source license compliance is a precondition to relying on copyright, not an afterthought to be sorted out later, and it is a standing item we check before recommending registration or representing code as cleanly owned in any transaction.
Duration of Copyright
In Canada, copyright in a work generally subsists for the life of the author plus 70 years. Different terms apply to certain categories of subject matter, including sound recordings, performer's performances, and communication signals. Works in which copyright has expired are in the public domain and may be used freely.
Where a work has no identified human author — an increasingly common question with certain kinds of automated or collaborative output — the term calculation can be more complicated, and the ownership question generally needs to be resolved before the duration question can be answered with any confidence.
Ownership and Chain of Title
Copyright ownership is frequently more complicated than it appears. The general rule is that the author of a work is the first owner of copyright — but there are important exceptions, including works created by employees in the course of employment, which vest in the employer. Works created by independent contractors, however, do not automatically vest in the commissioning party; a written assignment is required. Many businesses discover ownership gaps only when they attempt to enforce their rights or when copyright ownership is scrutinized in a transaction.
The contractor gap is the single most common ownership problem we see. A business that has commissioned a logo, a website, custom software, or marketing content from a freelancer or agency — without a written assignment in place — may not actually own the copyright in that work, regardless of who paid for it. Securing a written assignment at the time the work is commissioned, rather than after a dispute or a due diligence request surfaces the gap, is materially cheaper and more reliable.
Registration
Copyright registration in Canada is voluntary, inexpensive, and provides certain evidentiary advantages — including a presumption that copyright subsists in the work and that the registered owner is the owner. For commercially significant works, registration is worth considering.
Registration also has practical value beyond litigation. A demonstrable, well-documented, registered copyright reassures investors and acquirers during due diligence and supports the valuation of IP assets in a financing or sale. In the United States, registration is additionally a prerequisite to statutory damages and fee recovery in an infringement action, which is worth keeping in mind for any work with a US commercial footprint.
Infringement and Enforcement
Copyright infringement occurs when a protected work is reproduced, communicated, performed, or otherwise dealt with in a manner that falls within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, without authorization. Moral rights — the right of an author to be associated with their work and to protect its integrity — exist independently of copyright and cannot be assigned, only waived.
Not every use of a copyrighted work is infringing. Fair dealing exceptions permit certain uses — for purposes such as research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting, and parody or satire — without the owner's authorization, subject to a fairness assessment. Where a use falls within one of these categories is a fact-specific question, and it is worth assessing before either asserting a claim or assuming a proposed use is exposed.