The Evolution of Originality in Canadian Copyright Law: Authorship, Reward and the Public Interest
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originality is a foundational concept in copyright law: it defines the works to which copyright attaches and delineates the scope of protection they receive. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its recent ruling in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, appears to have settled the conflict between creativity and sweat-of-the-brow standards for originality, espousing a compromise position requiring "skill and judgment." In this paper, the author aims to locate the evolution of the originality doctrine within the context of a foundational shift in Canadian copyright theory. When "benefiting authors" was copyright's only recognized purpose, originality was determined with reference to the author's rights: the emergence of a creativity threshold in Canada was infused with a personality-based vision of the author's rights, the industriousness threshold was informed by a perceived need to reward an author's labour. However, the Supreme Court in Theberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain insisted that furthering the public interest in the production and dissemination of intellectual works is also a primary purpose of copyright. The CCH decision at the Supreme Court represents the first occasion on which a Canadian court has taken the public interest side of the copyright "balance" seriously when defining and applying the originality standard. The author argues that this elevation of public interest considerations provides a more suitable framework for developing copyright policy, particularly in the "information age." However, given the case-by-case nature of originality determinations and the tensions inherent in the Theberge balancing act, the author cautions that the actual consequences of this development remain to be seen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it