Authorship as Public Address: On the Specificity of Copyright vis-à-vis Patent and Trade-Mark
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
This paper develops the proposition that authorship in copyright law is a mode of public address. The paper unfolds two central implications from the concept of authorship as public address. One is that copyright is less an exclusive right of reproduction than an exclusive right of public presentation. Copying for personal use, for example, falls outside the purview of an author's copyright. The other is that what we know as fair dealing in Canada or fair use in the U.S. is less an exception to copyright infringement than a user's right unambiguously integral to copyright law. Once reproduction is no longer grasped as the core of copyright, the uses involved in fair dealing or fair use no longer appear as prima facie infringements to be excused by appeal to considerations external to that core. Fair dealing or fair use are not mere exceptions but rather user rights constitutive of copyright. On this basis, the paper formulates the specificity of copyright vis-à-vis patent and trade-mark. As regards the distinction between patent and copyright, the paper argues that whereas patentable inventions are modes of manipulating nature (i.e. human productions found in the technological space between self and world), works of authorship are modes of communication addressed to others (i.e. human productions found in the cultural space between persons). As regards the distinction between trade-mark and copyright, the paper argues that while works of authorship share with trade-marks the characteristic of being addressed to others, works of authorship are modes of communication addressed to others that, unlike trade-marks, invite and elicit dialogic responses from these others. The paper broaches the specificity of copyright by developing a reinterpretation of the legal test for copyright infringement, offering thereby novel approaches to the legality of copying for personal use, of Internet browsing and caching, and of certain unauthorized uses of copyrighted works affixed by copyright holders to consumer goods as trademarked logos.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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