Editing Openai/6924739c-2300-800e-9743-65c152c213f1 (section)

==== 2. CCH is substantively mixed for TR ====

CCH is not just a “yay publishers” decision. It’s a carefully balanced, user-friendly opinion. TR would not control which parts the court focuses on.

===== a. Yes, CCH helps on originality in law reports =====

Good for TR:
* CCH recognizes that headnotes, case digests, indices, and other editorial enhancements are original works and protected by copyright.
* It rejects pure “sweat of the brow” but still finds sufficient “skill and judgment” in law-report editing.

That dovetails nicely with TR’s claim that Westlaw’s headnotes, key numbers, and editorial content are protectable, even though the underlying judicial opinions are public domain.

But…

===== b. CCH strongly emphasises user rights and research uses =====

Bad (or at least risky) for TR:
* CCH characterizes fair dealing as a “user’s right”, not merely a defence.
* It interprets “research” very broadly and analogizes fair dealing to a constitutional-style balancing of access and protection.
* It ultimately finds that the Law Society’s custom photocopy service for legal research was fair dealing, despite systematic copying.

That is a narrative ROSS would happily import:
* “Just as CCH treated the law library’s copying as user-oriented research, this AI system enables legal research; the real beneficiaries are lawyers and the public.”
* “CCH shows that even substantial copying of law-report material can be fair when it serves research and access-to-law purposes.”

Once CCH is on the table, the court will read the whole thing, not just the paragraph TR likes. TR may decide that the upside (more support for originality) is outweighed by the downside (comparative support for expansive research exceptions).

===== c. CCH’s originality standard can cut both ways =====

CCH adopts a “skill and judgment” standard for originality, which is consciously similar to what Feist actually requires in U.S. law.

From TR’s perspective:
* They already must confront Feist and argue: “Our headnotes and key-number system aren’t mere facts or mechanical edits; they reflect judgment and creativity.”
* CCH emphasises that not everything a law reporter does is protectable—there has to be intellectual effort beyond the inevitable and commonplace.

ROSS could seize on that:
* “Even Canada’s apex court, while recognizing some editorial copyright, warns against over-protecting routine editorial work that would lock up access to law.”
* “Under a Feist-like standard, much of the classification work is not protectable expression.”

So CCH may not give TR more originality mileage than they already get from U.S. cases, but it does give ROSS extra language about limiting protection.