Revering irreverence: A fair dealing exception for both weapon and target parodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the seminal decision Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc, the United States ('US') Supreme Court found that 2 Live Crew's rap parody was a fair use of Roy Orbison's song, 'Pretty Woman'. Since that time, parody has been well recognised as a form of fair use in the US, provided that the parody 'targets' the original work, rather than use the work as a weapon to attack a third party or as part of wider social criticism. The latter is often referred to in US cases as 'satire'. This distinction between 'weapon' or 'target' parodies has often been applied as a threshold test in the US. However, there may be a growing international trend towards an acceptance of weapon parodies as a form of fair dealing. In 2006, Australia enacted a fair dealing exception for both parody and satire. Canada proposed a similar exception in 20105 and the United Kingdom ('UK') Government announced in August 2011 that it would introduce a parody exception. Whereas the target parody exception is generally justified on criticism and free speech grounds, the policy justifications behind the new Australian, UK and Canadian exceptions have included recognition of the inherent value to society of weapon parodies through the dissemination of new works of social commentary and comic and creative value.
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 | 0.030 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".