Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parodies have been created throughout times and cultures. A glimpse at the judicial latitude generally afforded to parodies, satires, caricatures, and pastiches demonstrates the social and cultural value of this particular form of artistic expression. With the advent of technologies and the evolution of copyright legislation, creative endeavours in the form of parody were rejuvenated but became unlawful. While copyright law grants exclusive rights to right-holders, these rights are not absolute. Legislation includes specific exceptions, which preclude right-holders from exercising their prerogatives in particular cases which foster creativity and cultural diversity within that society. The parody exception pertains to this ultimate objective by permitting users to reproduce copyright-protected materials for the purpose of parody. To understand the meaning and scope of the parody exception, this book examines and compares five jurisdictions which differ in their protection of parodies: France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is concerned with finding an appropriate balance between the protection awarded to right-holders and the public interest. This is achieved by analysing the parody exception to the economic rights of right-holders, the preservation of moral rights, and the interaction of the parody exception with contract law. As parodies constitute an artistic expression protected under the right to freedom of expression, this book also considers the influence of freedom of expression on the interpretation of this specific copyright exception. Furthermore, this book aims at providing guidance on how to resolve disputes where fundamental rights are in conflict.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".