IP lawyer says current copyright framework enough to tackle AI issues, though Miller suggests changes ‘may’ be needed

Canada’s existing copyright law is still capable of tackling the legal problems that artificial intelligence (AI) can generate, according to intellectual property lawyer Christian Leblanc. But Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller said legislative changes “may” be required to help prevent judicial disputes in the space. Speaking at an event hosted by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in the nation’s capital, Leblanc, a partner at the Canadian law firm Fasken, said the country’s current framework on copyright infringement should be sufficient for regulating how AI developers feed their large language models (LLMs) copyrighted material. Section three of the Copyright Act defines ‘copyright,’ in relation to a work, as “the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part thereof in any material form.” “One thing about ‘substantial part,’ it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s only quantitative,” Leblanc said on Feb. 11. “Quality is important. ‘To be or not to be’ is not long, but we all know where it’s coming from,” he added, acknowledging his example is flawed, given Shakespeare’s work is public domain. He said the short sentence is an example of how only a few words can be representative of a substantial part of a work. IP lawyer Christian Leblanc speaking in Ottawa on Feb. 11, 2026. Dany Lepage/CDCE Leblanc also said the reproduction of a work by an LLM can occur on either the input side, where reproductions of work are used to train the model, or on the output phase, where a reproduction of work occurs as the answer to a user prompt. Leblanc added there are CEOs of AI companies that admit they are reproducing work with their LLMs, but argue they are using reproductions within the parameters of the Copyright Act’s exceptions. Currently, he said, the biggest point of debate about whether these companies are violating copyright laws is whether their activities fall under the fair dealing exception. Section 29 of the Copyright Act defines fair dealing as “for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire.” Leblanc said the main argument made by AI companies is that the reproduction falls under fair dealing for the purpose of research. Leblanc explained that Germany has decided the reproduction of work in both the input and output phases constitutes a violation of copyright, but no such decisions have yet been made in Canada. Following an appearance before the House heritage committee on Feb. 12, Miller ( Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs, Que.) told The Wire Report his office is working on AI-related copyright issues in tandem with AI Minister Evan Solomon (Toronto Centre, Ont.). In December, AI Minister Evan Solomon told the House science and research committee that his forthcoming AI legislation will not include any copyright provisions, and Miller’s office will be responsible for any changes. “It's a concern, particularly with the ongoing lawsuits related to AI,” said Miller, adding that a legislative update might be required. “But it’s still TBD (to be determined) on that.” Under the current Canadian framework, even if generative AI software is determined to fall under the research exception, it then must prove it is using work in a fair manner, which covers the purpose, nature, and magnitude of the use, alternative solutions, nature of the work, and impact of the use. In terms of nature and purpose of the use, Leblanc said courts look at why a company is using the copyrighted material, and whether it has been used for commercial purposes. “I think that for some generative AI tools, that question can be answered fairly easily,” he said, adding that there is a large amount of money involved for many AI developers. Courts will also look at if the same results could have been achieved through alternative solutions, and what kind of impact it has on the market. “Are you destroying that market?,” he said. “Are you making it so that market will go towards your solution and will disappear elsewhere?” Leblanc said it is a problem if reproductions lead to reduced market value for the creator, and increased value for the company that reproduced the work. But the issue with enforcing copyright infringement? “You need evidence,” he said. “And, sometimes, it’s not that easy.” Leblanc demonstrated the ongoing legal debate surrounding AI and copyright by quoting an American court case, Kadrey v. Meta Platforms Inc., which was ultimately dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The case involved 13 authors who sued Meta for copyright infringement. “You can see that the judge struggling with a lot of things,” Leblanc said. In his verdict, California District Judge Vince Chhabria said, “no matter how transformative LLM training may be, it’s hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyright books to develop a tool to make billions or trillions of dollars while enabling the creation of a potentially endless stream of competing works that could significantly harm the market for those books.” Leblanc said the judge went on to predict that, in most cases, using copyrighted material to train LLMs will most likely be considered illegal. Notably, fair use is defined differently in the U.S. than in Canada, but Leblanc still thinks it is relevant. Leblanc said he does not know the ultimate results of judgments that will be rendered on this issue, but said it is clear that courts across the world will have to apply their own versions of copyright legislation. He also said any cases on the issue will prove to be a significant test for the law’s exceptions within the context of innovation “We’re back at square one,” he said. “Copyright is there, the law is there, and if there’s a technology that comes in, that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean that our laws are disappearing.” mcollins@thewirereport.ca

IP lawyer says current copyright framework enough to tackle AI issues, though Miller suggests changes ‘may’ be needed

Regulatory |
By Maria Collins
|February 12, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

IP lawyer says current copyright framework enough to tackle AI issues, though Miller suggests changes ‘may’ be needed

Regulatory | By Maria Collins |February 12, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

CRTC sets guidelines for dedicated consultations with official language minorities

Solomon says Grok issue is ‘not over,’ as New Brunswick government joins federal Liberal MPs ditching X/Twitter

Bell to sunset emergency landline service after split CRTC decision

Related Stories

Solomon says Grok issue is ‘not over,’ as New Brunswick government joins federal Liberal MPs ditching X/Twitter

Canadians concerned about AI’s impact on environment, children: federal consultation

Canada-U.S. trade, AI top concerns for media industry players at Prime Time

‘Adoption will happen’: Solomon tells cultural industry to brace for AI revolution

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Regulatory |
By Maria Collins
|February 12, 2026