JUSTICE JUDSON for the Court:Registration ... is permissive in character and the subsistence of copyright in no way depends
upon registration, but its proof and proof of ownership are plainly intended to be facilitated by
the enactment of [the current s. 53(2) of the Canadian Act]. ... In a case where there is evidence
to contradict the certificate, then its weight may be affected, but in the absence of any such
evidence, its weight is not to be minimized because no proof of title is required in the application
for registration and because the Copyright Office assumes no responsibility for the truth of the
facts asserted in the application and conducts no independent examination. A plaintiff who
produces this certificate has adduced some evidence in support of his case, sufficient to compel
the tribunal of fact to act in his favour in the absence of any evidence to contradict it.In my opinion, therefore, by the production of this certificate and in the absence of any evidence
to the contrary, the plaintiff in this case has satisfied the burden of proof, both the primary
burden – that which rests upon a plaintiff as a matter of substantive law and is sometimes
referred to as the risk of non-persuasion – and also the secondary burden, that of adducing
evidence. ... On this ground ... judgment [should be] entered for the plaintiff.- ORIGINALITY
Most copyright laws insist that a work be “original” before it qualifies for
copyright protection. “Unoriginal” works do not have copyright.A number of questions may arise on the meaning of originality:(a) Is personal creativity required or is it enough that the work came from
the author, was not copied, and involved some judgment, skill or
labour?(b) Does only a particular sort of judgment, skill or labour qualify, or will
any sort do?(c) How much work is required: a little or a substantial amount (and what
is meant by “substantial”?). Must the work exhibit some other quality?(d) Does the test or standard of originality differ from one class of work to
another? For example, is the same standard required of a business
letter or ordinary photograph as is required of a compilation or
computer program?The United Kingdom and systems of law derived from it (e.g., Australia and New
Zealand) generally require a lower standard of originality (see the University of
London case, below) than European countries and the United States
(especially since the Feistcase (below)), which often require some creativity.Sometimes the same result occurs, whichever test is applied. Other times, the
different tests lead to different results in different jurisdictions. For example, in
the Australian case of Roland Corp. v. Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd (1991) 105
A.L.R. 623, affirmed (1992) 23 I.P.R. 376 (Australia: Full Federal Court), two
trademarks depicting the letters “R” and “B” were each held to be an original(^30) artistic work having copyright. The court said: