Canadian lawyers have launched a copyright class action lawsuit against Thomson Reuters. The lawsuit stems from the use of legal documents filed in court proceedings in a database marketed by the company.
Lawyers Launch Copyright Class Action Against Thomson Reuters
May 27, 2010
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada's Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
byMichael Geist

June 22, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Why the Answers to Hateful Content Online are Hiding in the Platforms’ Own Rules
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention

And yet, their CCH victory allowing them to copy other people’s material without permission and payment would seem to argue against them on this!
Copyright on court records?
Perhaps something should be done to prevent a private company from profiting from court records, but suing for copyright infringement puts the transparency and accessiblity of the judicial system in jeopardy. Scan and post all court documents on the web. Problem solved.
@Democrat
To a point I agree with you. I would argue, however, that court documents related to anything other than the charges themselves should not be publicly available until after the trial. The reason is to try to ensure jury neutrality. Posting prior to trial could lead to making it more difficult to get a jury.
@Bob: agreed. However, if the publishers of the books in the Law Society library get permission from the legal firms in the first place prior to publishing the references, then arguably the CCH decision doesn’t apply.