While D&D is far from the first or only TTRPG system, it is undisputedly the most well-known. With great fame, however, comes great third-party content built atop this system. “Modules” — stand-alone settings and adventures which augment or expand upon D&D mechanics (the “rules” of the game) and features — the settings and adventures in which the game takes place — are the most popular form of external content. Nowadays, media franchises such as _Dimension 20_ and _Critical Role_ [have also built massive followings](https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2024/05/09/critical-role-dungeons-dragons/) for creating recorded performances using D&D mechanics and inspired settings. 

To manage this outpouring of third-party content, Wizards released [the Open Game License (OGL)](https://www.salon.com/2000/03/10/dungeons/) with the publication of D&D 3rd Edition in 2000. This OGL was structured under a [System Reference Document (SRD)](https://www.dndbeyond.com/resources/1781-systems-reference-document-srd), a then-innovative take on how copyright might work in the world of TTRPGs. In SRDs, the original license holders of a given work systemize and present a clear list of those parts of the original material third parties are allowed to reference or use in their own published content, an idea spawned from the [open gaming movement](https://web.archive.org/web/20020404235238/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e). With the release of OGL version 1.0, Wizards became the [first to exercise this philosophy](https://www.salon.com/2000/03/10/dungeons/) in the TTRPG space. 

_Wizards_ saw massive success after publishing their games under an OGL, with third-party content [drawing the eyes of a wider audience](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/dungeons-and-dragons-dimension-20-madison-square-garden-1235258992/) to their once-niche property. While Wizards has flirted with more stringent licenses since, the return of the OGL in D&D 5th Edition (now in shiny 1.0(a) mode) was, for many, a return to a much-appreciated norm – but one that proved temporary. 

With the announcement of the new _One D&D_ in 2022, rumours and leaks of an updated and much more restrictive OGL 1.1 [spread like wildfire](https://gamerant.com/dungeons-and-dragons-one-dnd-no-ogl-rumor/) among the TTRPG community. The rumours proved well-founded. OGL 1.1    

One of the most controversial updates required creators to [report and, in some cases, pay royalties](https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-srd-royalties/) when earning a certain amount of revenue. The new license also stated that it was the only “authorized license agreement,” implying that OGL 1.0(a) and prior, previously stated to be “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,” would [no longer be viable](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634). Even more infuriating to some was the limited scope of protected materials, which encompassed only “printed media and static electronic file formats” and leaving other forms of media confined to the realm of fanwork.    

Although Wizards claimed that these new regulations would only impact the most major D&D module publishers, [experts noted](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) that, in practice, it may have a much wider impact. In response to the extreme backlash, _Wizards_ eventually rolled back these preliminary changes. Ending with a whimper and not a bang, _Wizards_ eventually opted to quietly publish their SRD for the newest edition [under a _Creative Commons_ license](https://www.rascal.news/the-ogl-is-dead-long-live-the-ogl-dnd-5e/) rather than changing the substance of the OGL.  

This decision, made in light of content creators and fans alike uniting against the OGL 1.1, is bittersweet. After years of trying to create a model of copyright for TTRPGs, Wizards instead ended up fitting themselves under an existing copyright framework. Much like recent decisions such as [_Hachette v. Internet Archive_](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-1260/23-1260-2024-09-04.html), the OGL presents another example of unique copyright frameworks crumbling under practical stress tests. While copyright in TTRPG sphere doesn’t enjoy a broad body of legal precedent, more recent court decisions like [_DaVinci Editrice et al. v. Ziko Games_](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4:2013cv03415/1134359/44/0.pdf) imply that game mechanics are not protected under copyright laws, or at least must meet a high bar to prove their original character. These questions raise the questionL which aspects of the game are protected at all, and so subject to the Creative Commons license terms? Settings and characters, certainly, but mechanics (such as skill checks) still present a legal gray area. Fans and content creators might have feared the OGL’s potential to gatekeep the mechanical play style of D&D against third-party creators, but it seems unlikely that this licensing schema could have held up in court.  

Was the backlash pointless, then? I don’t believe so. While the OGL may have proved unenforceable, the underlying shift in priorities from creative freedom to stringent IP protection belies the philosophy that the OGL was founded on. While attempting to both keep the licensing standards they pioneered and adapt to shifting corporate priorities, _Wizards_ innovated themselves into a corner. To escape, they cut the Gordian knot by leaving the OGL behind altogether, unintentionally proving that permissive copyright frameworks created under proprietary control, regardless of intention, are unsustainable in the face of commercial corporate interests. 

_The opinion is the author's, and does not necessarily reflect CIPPIC's policy position._ 

medium_Untitled design (12).png

small_Untitled design (12).png

thumbnail_Untitled design (12).png

Untitled design (12).png

Open Game Licenses and Copyright in Tabletop Roleplaying Games: How Innovation Does(n’t) Breed Excellence 

large_Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 3.17.23 PM.png

medium_Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 3.17.23 PM.png

small_Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 3.17.23 PM.png

thumbnail_Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 3.17.23 PM.png

Screenshot 2025-02-20 at 3.17.23 PM.png

Digital Privacy and the Charter: 2024 Year-in-Review 

As part of its [Open Information Initiative](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/the-launch-of-cippic-s-open-information-initiative), CIPPIC has learned that some investigations recently completed by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the ombudsperson responsible for investigating complaints filed by persons using the Access to Information Act, have taken up to 11 years to complete. The Act is Canada’s main transparency legislation for obtaining records under the federal government’s control. 

CIPPIC obtained data for all investigations completed by the Commissioner during a three-year period from 2022-2024 using an access to information request filed with the Commissioner.[1] According to the records, the Commissioner completed 17,430 investigations during this time period. The average length of an investigation is unclear due to issues in the data CIPPIC received from the Commissioner, but appears to be between four and five months.[2] 

There were some notable exceptions to this average. During the time period, a total of 1,652 investigations took more than a year to reach an outcome. While the Commissioner completed approximately half of those investigations in under two years, one hundred investigations took five or more years. Eight took more than a decade to resolve. 

The longest wait time was for two investigations that took more than 11 years — specifically, 4,067 days between when the watchdog assigned the matters to an investigator on Jan. 19, 2011, and when the investigations resulted in an outcome on March 9, 2022. 

The Commissioner withheld from CIPPIC information showing when complaints were filed, only disclosing when complaints were assigned to investigators. While the processing time between filing a complaint to a final outcome is necessarily longer, the total duration cannot be determined from the available data. (CIPPIC has filed an appeal to obtain this information). 

The records do not account for the processing time of access requests made to federal institutions prior to filing of a complaint. According to the Globe and Mail’s 2023 [Secret Canada project](https://www.secretcanada.com/), only 50 per cent of federal access requests are completed within legislative timelines. 

Shortly after responding to CIPPIC’s request for the information, the Commissioner [began posting](https://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/en/information-commissioners-guidance/quarterly-statistics) some new general statistics pertaining to the timelines of her investigations. These materials do not mention the time periods revealed in the documents obtained by CIPPIC. 

### How the complaint process works

Under the Access to Information Act, complainants have 60 days after receiving a response to their access request to file a complaint about the processing of that request with the Commissioner. This may be due to the institution improperly refusing the access request or failing to meet a legislated deadline for responding to the request. After the Commissioner receives a complaint, an investigator reviews the complaint for admissibility. If the complaint is admissible, the Commissioner’s staff will issue a notice of intention to investigate to the complainant and the government. 

The complaint then moves into the information-gathering stage, where investigators collect the necessary documents. After gathering the information, the complaint moves into the analysis stage. The Commissioner’s investigator may follow up with either the complainant or the government institution for more information. There are no mandatory caps on the length of the Commissioner’s investigations.

During the course of an investigation, the file might be reassigned to a new investigator. The records obtained by CIPPIC show that the Commissioner frequently reassigned files during the three-year period in question. The time between the date the file is first assigned and when it is reassigned ranged widely, from a matter of days to multiple years. 

Based on an investigator’s analysis, the investigator will recommend an outcome. If the complaint is well-founded and the allegations have merit, the Commissioner can order the government institution to take action to resolve the matter or make a recommendation—for example, requiring the federal institution to disclose a record. The Commissioner does not have the power to release records directly.

If the complaint is not well-founded, the Commissioner can either refuse to investigate or cease an in-progress investigation. This can happen in two cases: when the complaint is trivial, vexatious, or made in bad faith, or when an investigation becomes unnecessary. An investigation may become unnecessary when an institution responds to an access request after the complaint is filed or when there is no practical benefit in continuing the investigation. 

The Commissioner must report to the complainant, the government institution, and any affected third parties when an investigation is finished and the Commissioner has made a recommendation. When the complaint is well-founded, the Commissioner will send an initial report to the institution, including any findings. The Commissioner will also send out the final report, which includes the findings of the investigation and any orders. 

Under the Access to Information Act, complainants cannot challenge in Federal Court the federal government’s response to their request until the Commissioner has finished her investigations. 

### Why are investigations so long? 

The length of an investigation depends on the type of complaint and the original request, the Commissioner said in a statement in response to CIPPIC’s questions. 

There are a variety of factors that affect the length of an investigation, including the volume of documents to process, the classification of the documents, and the question of whether the government applied any legislative exceptions to releasing documents. The Commissioner stated that they can generally complete an investigation in between three and 12 months. The records obtained by CIPPIC corroborate this range.

“Reducing the amount of time the [Commissioner] takes to assign a complaint, as well as reducing the time it takes to complete an investigation once assigned, are key priorities, but it is also important to note that the [Commissioner] has no control over the number of complaints it receives,” the emailed statement reads. 

Funding is also an issue. The Commissioner’s funding for her contingent of 135 employees is provided through the Treasury Board Secretariat. According to the Commissioner’s 2023-2024 annual report, the Commissioner started the fiscal year in a deficit. The Commissioner has a budget of approximately $18.5 million for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. 

“In the past, the Commissioner has sought funding through the Government for additional resources when circumstances dictated. Unfortunately, the [Commissioner] currently lacks an independent funding model. Such a funding model would both reflect the Commissioner’s independence as an Agent of Parliament, and align the [Commissioner’s] annual budget with its workload, providing greater efficiency in assigning and investigating complaints,” the Commissioner said in the email.

The Commissioner also saw a massive increase in the number of complaints filed during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the data obtained by CIPPIC, the number of complaints filed ticked up between 2021 and 2024. The Commissioner’s annual report shows approximately 4,000 open complaints in the Office’s inventory each year between 2020 and 2022, compared to 3,340 in 2019. 

Despite this, the Commissioner says she has reduced the number of open complaints. According to the data made public by the Commissioner after CIPPIC obtained a response to its request, as of Jan. 6, 2025, there were 2,481 open complaints. The Commissioner states that this is 31 per cent less than when the Commissioner started her first term on March 1, 2018. (The Commissioner was recently reappointed to a second seven-year term, starting on March 1, 2025).

“By the end of the current fiscal year, this inventory will overwhelmingly consist of complaints under investigation or recently submitted complaints awaiting investigation,” the Commissioner stated. 

### Entrenched delays

Delays and long waits are not new in Canada’s notoriously slow and dysfunctional access to information system. According to the Globe and Mail’s 2023 [Secret Canada project](https://www.secretcanada.com/) led by Tom Cardoso and Robyn Doolittle, in 2021, federal government institutions only completed approximately 50 percent of access requests within the 30-day statutory timeline. 

Canada’s highest court has already called out delays in other parts of the justice system. In [R v Jordan](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16057/index.do), which dealt with delays in the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of Canada zeroed in on the impact of delays in the justice system. 

“Timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society,” said the majority decision in that judgment.

While the Jordan decision only applies to the criminal system, the emphasis on problematic delays applies more broadly to other aspects of the legal system, including the access to information system. When Commissioner’s investigations take years, it can leave complainants in a state of uncertainty and erode public confidence in a system whose purpose is “to enhance the accountability and transparency of federal institutions in order to promote an open and democratic society and to enable public debate on the conduct of those institutions.”

The current Commissioner has repeatedly called out government institutions for failing to respect the legislated 30-day response time to requests. For example, in a joint release in late 2024 between Canada’s Information Commissioners and Ombuds, she called for public institutions to commit to responding to access requests within legislated timelines.

The current Commissioner also addressed these issues in her 2023-2024 annual report, writing that a properly functioning access to information system is a collective responsibility for government institutions. 

“This is a collective responsibility shared by all public servants,” she wrote. 

A legislative review of the Access to Information Act is currently scheduled to begin by June 2025. 

***

[1] CIPPIC’s access to information request was for: “Three lists of all investigations finally concluded in 2022, 2023, and 2024, identifying: the file number that the OIC assigned to each of the listed complaint investigation; complaint receipt date;
investigation start date; investigation conclusion date; and, if available, the date the investigative
reports went to parties. Preferably in XLSX or an Excel-readable file.”
Despite this request, CIPPIC received the data in PDF format. CIPPIC converted the data into .XLSX format to analyze it.

[2] The data CIPPIC received contained three dates: the date the Commissioner assigned the complaint to an investigator, the date the Commissioner reassigned the complaint file, and the date the investigation reached an outcome. In the Excel file, the column with the date the Commissioner assigned the file is blank after line 15,255, while the column with the date the investigation reached an outcome still contains a date. This means that CIPPIC does not have a complete picture of the length of the 2,177 complaint investigations that do not list the date the Commissioner assigned the investigation. When taking into consideration all entries in the spreadsheet where CIPPIC knows how long the investigation took, the average length was approximately 152 days. When taking an average of every single entry in the data the average length of an investigation is 133 days. 

_The opinion is the author's, and does not necessarily reflect CIPPIC's policy position._


medium_Delays.png

small_Delays.png

thumbnail_Delays.png

Delays.png

Some investigations recently completed by the Information Commissioner of Canada have stretched over a decade long

Recent Commentary / Blogs 

Perspectives

Les programmes de stage de CIPPIC offrent aux étudiants la possibilité de travailler avec des avocats expérimentés sur des problèmes juridiques réels et de pointe résultant de l'utilisation de nouvelles technologies

Travail étudiant

Thèmes

CIPPIC has filed its [Memorandum of Fact and Law](https://cms.cippic.ca/uploads/A_267_24_1395804_ONTARIO_LTD_v_AG_Canada_Intervener_Memorandum_of_Fact_and_Law_3e8eead498.pdf) in the appeal of [_1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General_), 2024 FC 829]( https://canlii.ca/t/k4zfr), arguing that the _Copyright Act_’s anti-circumvention provisions do not override fair dealing. CIPPIC’s argument focuses on reconciling user rights with Parliament’s enactment of remedies for circumventing digital locks. This intervention follows CIPPIC’s successful participation in the hearing in the Court below, where CIPPIC’s interpretation of the digital lock provisions prevailed. 


**The Decision: Fair Dealing and Anti-Circumvention Provisions**

In the decision under appeal, [_1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)_, 2024 FC 829]( https://canlii.ca/t/k4zfr), the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Canada’s anti-circumvention provisions do not override fair dealing. The plaintiff, a paywalled news service, sued Parks Canada, arguing that employees had improperly accessed and shared its articles, violating copyright and technological protection measures. The court rejected this claim, holding that using a validly obtained password is not circumvention and, regardless, copyright owners cannot use digital locks to negate fair dealing rights.
The unsuccessful plaintiff appealed.

**CIPPIC’s Argument on Appeal**

CIPPIC has been granted leave to intervene in the appeal. It has intervened to defend the balanced interpretation of the relationship between user and digital locks in copyright law. We argued that:
- Anti-circumvention provisions must align with fair dealing. Copyright owners cannot use technological protection measures to eliminate legally protected user rights.
- A valid password is not circumvention. The Copyright Act targets hacking, not legitimate access.
- The Act must remain technologically neutral. A user’s fair dealing rights do not disappear when content is digital rather than physical.

CIPPIC thanks [James Plotkin](https://gowlingwlg.com/en-ca/people/james-plotkin) and his team at Gowling WLG for their outstanding work on our intervention.

**Next Steps**

The Federal Court of Appeal will schedule a hearing. CIPPIC will continue defending fair dealing and ensuring technological protection measures do not become tools for erasing user rights.
- CIPPIC’s Memorandum of Fact and Law](https://cms.cippic.ca/uploads/A_267_24_1395804_ONTARIO_LTD_v_AG_Canada_Intervener_Memorandum_of_Fact_and_Law_3e8eead498.pdf)
- [Intervention Order](https://cms.cippic.ca/uploads/A_267_24_20241220_O_E_O_OTT_20241220091845_LB_2_c79d6cd3bf.pdf)
- Decision under review [_1395804 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)_, 2024 FC 829](https://canlii.ca/t/k4zfr)	

Fair Dealing and Digital Locks: CIPPIC’s Intervention at the FCA

On February 14, 2024, CIPPIC submitted an intervention on behalf of [OpenMedia](https://openmedia.org/) in [Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-293](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/2024-293.htm) to advocate for enhanced transparency and fairness in Canada’s telecom market.

The submission was inspired by Ontario Commissioner Bram Abramson’s dissenting opinion, which argued that the current consultation misses key opportunities to enhance consumer information. Commissioner Abramson advocated for a more comprehensive, data-driven approach to consumer protection. CIPPIC was glad to support OpenMedia’s position that the CRTC’s current approach does not go far enough in addressing the transparency issues that prevent Canadians from making informed decisions about their mobile wireless services.

In a [parallel proceeding](https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2024/2024-318.htm), the CRTC is considering “nutrition labels” to help Canadians better understand and compare Internet service plans. However, the proposed labels do not include mobile wireless services—a significant oversight given that mobile consumers face the same challenges as Internet users. Confusing and inconsistent plan information leaves many Canadians struggling to make informed choices. Worse, mobile wireless complaints accounted for over half of all telecom complaints last year, highlighting the urgent need for better transparency.

CIPPIC’s submission on behalf of OpenMedia calls on the CRTC to expand standardized “nutrition labels” to include mobile wireless services. By adopting clear, machine-readable labels, the Commission can empower consumers, reduce confusion, and foster a more competitive telecom marketplace. Labelling should not stop at service plans. Consumers deserve transparency about the environmental impact and durability of the mobile devices they purchase.


Read the full submission [here](https://cms.cippic.ca/uploads/Open_Media_Intervention_CRTC_2024_293_3ed7018aeb.pdf).

Championing Consumer Rights: OpenMedia’s Submission on Telecom Transparency

CIPPIC is excited to announce a renewed focus on its open government work through its new Open Information Initiative. With the next mandated review of Canada's _Access to Information Act_ commencing by June 2025, CIPPIC hopes to draw attention to the worrying state of access to information in Canada.

During this time, CIPPIC will be sharing the results of its access to information requests with journalists working in open-access publications to emphasize the importance of access to information-driven journalism. CIPPIC will also publish its own short articles, draft policy briefs, partner with stakeholders, comment on transparency issues, and publish a comprehensive report on the current system. 

Contact: admin@cippic.ca.

***

Some of this work: 

- Darren Major, "[Elections watchdog warned AI presents 'high' risk in current campaign: internal documents](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ai-elections-rules-1.7499383)," CBC, April 2, 2025.
- Samantha Edwards, "[Everyone’s personal data is being extracted, and no one seems to care](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article-big-tech-collecting-our-personal-data-a-sense-of-defeat-then-a-shrug/)", Globe and Mail, March 18, 2025.
- Drew May, "[Some investigations recently completed by the Information Commissioner of Canada have stretched over a decade long](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/some-investigations-recently-completed-by-the-information-commissioner-of-canada-stretched-over-a-decade-long)," CIPPIC, Feb. 28, 2025. 
- Joe Castaldo, "[Changing U.S. relationship has thrust Canada’s data sovereignty into the spotlight](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-changing-us-relationship-has-thrust-canadas-data-sovereignty-into-the/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)," Globe and Mail, Feb. 27, 2025. 
- Warren Kinsella, "[Rising antisemitism puts Canada at risk of terror attack, feds told](https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-rising-antisemitism-puts-canada-at-risk-of-terror-attack-feds-told)," Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2025.
- Elizabeth Thompson, "[Violent extremists are using antisemitism to recruit in Canada: CSIS report](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-antisemitism-violent-extremists-1.7463398)," CBC, Feb. 20, 2025. 
- Bill Curry and Mahima Singh, "[Ottawa spent record amount on outsourcing despite vow to rein in practice](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-spent-record-amount-on-outsourcing-despite-vow-to-rein-in/)," Globe and Mail, Feb. 18, 2025. 

The Launch of CIPPIC's Open Information Initiative

#### Prior Work:

- For a list of CIPPIC's past work, see [here](https://preview.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-s-past-work). 

#### Ongoing Matters:

- _CIPPIC v Sahni_ (more [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-v-sahni-ai-s-role-in-copyright-law)) (seeking to expunge registration of copyright by an AI “author”). 
- _Blacklock’s Reporter v Attorney General of Canada_ (more [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/fair-dealing-and-digital-locks-cippic-s-intervention-at-the-federal-court-of-appeal), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-granted-leave-to-intervene-in-blacklock-s-reporter-appeal), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/federal-court-rules-that-digital-locks-do-not-restrain-fair-dealing-using-a-validly-obtained-password), and [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-discusses-digital-locks-case-on-michael-geist-s-law-bytes-podcast)) (balancing copyright enforcement with user rights).
- _Voltage_ Matters (more [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-voltage-v-doe2), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-granted-leave-to-be-added-as-a-party-by-the-supreme-court), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/cippic-files-respondent-factum-voltage-v-doe-scc-proceeding), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/appeals-court-affirms-denial-of-default-judgement-in-file-sharing-case), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/voltage-reverse-class-lawsuit-denied-certification-again), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/voltage-reverse-class-proceeding-denied), [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/federal-court-of-canada-sets-rogers-reasonable-costs-in-norwich-orders), and [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/supreme-court-of-canada-decision-in-rogers-v-voltage-clarifies-role-of-is-ps-in-copyright-infringement)) (protecting Internet subscriber privacy rights). 
- Various CRTC Matters (more [here](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/championing-consumer-rights)) (making information for Internet and mobile consumers easier to access and understand).
- _Malone v Library and Archives Canada_ (preventing the destruction of copies of records released under the _Access to Information Act_). 

#### Recent / Commentary / Blogs / Media:

- March 13, 2025 - Director Matt Malone on [Repairing Canada's Transparency Legislation](https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/03/12/ten-steps-trudeau-should-take-before-leaving-office-to-improve-canadas-transparency-laws/453847/).
- March 7, 2025 - Student Sean Cousins on [Privacy and the Charter in 2024](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/digital-privacy-and-the-charter-2024-year-in-review).
- February 27, 2025 - Student Drew May on [Delays in the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/some-investigations-recently-completed-by-the-information-commissioner-of-canada-stretched-over-a-decade-long).
- February 20, 2025 - Student Tina Derak on [Upcycling in Trademark Infringement](https://preview.cippic.ca/articles/fashion-upcycling-and-trademark-infringement). 
- February 14, 2025 – Articling Student Gareth Spanglett on [AI and Copyright](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/the-ai-copyright-conundrum).  
- January 15, 2025 – Director Matt Malone on [TikTok in the United States](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-while-the-us-supreme-court-deliberates-a-tiktok-ban-canadas-own-tiktok/). 

#### Mentorship:

- CIPPIC is working with a talented group of law students this 2025 winter term. 
- CIPPIC is helping coach law students for three moots during this 2025 winter term (building on some [record-setting success](https://www.uottawa.ca/research-innovation/news-all/law-students-repeat-winner-oxford-international-intellectual-property-moot)).

#### Ongoing Initiatives:

- CIPPIC’s [Open Information Initiative](https://www.cippic.ca/articles/the-launch-of-cippic-s-open-information-initiative).  

#### New Research:

- Secret. More soon 😊 

#### Questions:

- Any questions? Contact admin@cippic.ca.  


medium_Untitled design (8).png

small_Untitled design (8).png

thumbnail_Untitled design (8).png

Untitled design (8).png