Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of whether copyright disputes may be submitted to arbitration is still controversial amongst civil law scholars, though it is no longer debated in common law jurisdictions. Given the benefits of arbitration in resolving copyrights disputes – especially in an international context – the author argues that French courts should set out a broad principle of arbitrability in this field. Despite some theoretical issues, the current trend in arbitral practice is to allow the arbitrability of economic rights. In domestic arbitration, however, the validity of arbitration clauses in settling moral rights disputes is still uncertain. In international arbitration, the author highlights, on the one hand, the recognition in the Paris Court of Appeal’s case law of a material rule of private international law giving validity to the international arbitration agreement and, on the other hand, the implicit rejection of an overriding mandatory provision restricting arbitrability. The author also suggests that French courts should take inspiration from the Supreme Court of Canada’s case law and allow for disputes related to the validity or ownership of copyright to be submitted to arbitration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".