ANALYSIS OF THE RELATION OF COPYRIGHT AND WORK CONTENT IN JUDICIAL VERDICTS OF USA, UK AND CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to copyright system, the normal standard for protecting literary and artistic works is originality hence the international copyright treaties such as Berne convention, while emphasizing on originality are avoiding imposing other mandatory standards for protecting such works. However, these works are different forms of expression of various ideas and accordingly, comprise different contents. In some cases, the works contents are inconsistent with religious and national values and norms or society custom and laws. There are conflicts between protecting copyright as an intellectual property right and other moral, religious and legal priorities in the society. For resolving this conflict and answering the question whether work content will affect copyright protection, countries have adopted different approaches. From the perspective of the work content, this article through a comparative study of approaches and judicial verdicts of the USA, the UK and Canada, infers two general views: the work content does not have any impacts on copyright protection and the work content have impacts on copyright protection. In addition, some supporters of second view believe in content impact on existence of copyright in a work and other supporters believe that content has impacts on some enforcements of copyright.
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 | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".