Bibliographic record
Abstract
In CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ostensibly settled the debate between the "sweat school" and the "creativity school" regarding the meaning of copyright's originality requirement. While rejecting a labour-based formulation of the originality standard, the Supreme Court also refused to adopt the "minimal degree of creativity" test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the famous Feist case. The appropriate threshold for originality, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, "falls between these two extremes" and requires "an exercise of skill and judgment." This paper explores the significance of the "skill and judgment" test by contrasting it with previous articulations of the standard in Canadian jurisprudence, and against the current approach to originality in the United Kingdom and the United States. In particular, it examines the theoretical, political, and pragmatic considerations that may explain the Court's reluctance to explicitly include either "labour" or "creativity" among the relevant ingredients of original authorship. It suggests that the absence of these concepts is the key to understanding the nature and role of Canada's new originality standard in copyright policy: When assessing copyrightability, Canadian courts should put aside both labour- and personality-based theories of entitlement. In this way, the CCH decision has the potential to clear the path for an instrumental application of the originality doctrine that furthers the public policy goals of the copyright system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".