MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

All the Game's a Stage: Machinima and Copyright in Canada

2010· article· en· W1723843820 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Intellectual Property · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopyright lawContext (archaeology)CreativityCopyright infringementFair useSociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawIntellectual propertyPublic relationsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which Canada's copyright laws permit the creation of machinima, an art form broadly defined as the creation of films within video games. This article is structured as follows. First, it will introduce machinima, discussing its origins, its development and its social importance. Second, it will examine whether the acts of creating and distributing machinima infringe copyright in Canada. Third, it will ask whether there are any defences to copyright infringement on which machinimators (those who create machinima) can rely. This article will demonstrate that, in many cases, the creation and distribution of machinima likely infringes Canadian copyright law. Furthermore, a large percentage of machinima that are found to infringe copyright will not be protected by the fair dealing defence as it is currently being applied by Canadian courts. This article will conclude by situating the narrow issue of machinima and copyright infringement within the broader context of creativity and copyright reform in the digital age.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it