The Inadequacy of UK Moral Rights Protection: A Comparative Study on the Waivability of Rights and Recontextualisation of Works in Copyright and Droit D’auteurs Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examines two aspects of UK moral rights protection, namely the waiver of rights provided for under section 87(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’) and the protection of copyright works from recontextualisation, in a comparative study. The jurisdictions compared are the UK, Canada, and the Nordic Countries. The paper argues that UK protection of authors’ moral rights are insufficient, chiefly due to the operation of section 87(2) CDPA and the lack of protection against recontextualisation (‘the spirit of the Convention’). The purpose of comparison is to furnish alternative solutions existing under the same international framework as the CDPA. In concluding, the paper finds that comparing the copyright law system of the UK to the Canadian hybrid system and the Nordic droit d’auteurs systems reveals a scale from least to most substantial protection of moral rights, with a greater emphasis on protection of the spirit of the work in droit d’auteurs jurisdictions, as illustrated by Swedish case law.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".