MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015216390 · doi:10.33731/12020.200227

LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OF ECONOMIC COPYRIGHT: BALANCE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTERESTS

2020· article· en· W3015216390 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Practice of Intellectual Property · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Social Development in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationBalance (ability)UkrainianContext (archaeology)Relevance (law)Law and economicsLegislaturePublic interestConventionLawPolitical scienceBalance of interestsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the research of the balance between private and public interests through the concept of exceptions and limitations on economic rights of author. The concept of free use of works applied in the legislation of Ukraine is analyzed, as well as exceptions and limitations on copyrights inherent in the copyright of the European Union. It is concluded that the concept of «free use» in the context of copyright is not used in the legislation of most countries of the world, and is inherent in the Ukrainian Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights». Copyright limitations and exceptions in the specific cases are envisaged in the laws of different countries of the world by the following two main systems: a system of general abstract principles implemented in common law countries ('fair use' in the US and 'fair dealing' in the UK, Canada). The first approach is characterized by the fact that a generally exhaustive list of ways of free use of works is provided for in a legislative act and does not allow for the consideration of additional general principles. The second, implies that the court applies the general principles (first and foremost the principle of fair use) and pre-established criteria to determine the lawfulness of a use. The three-step test of the Berne Convention and its relevance to the copyright of Ukraine and the EU are being analyzed. The three-step test, as one of the means of ensuring a balance of private and public interest in copyright, can be used both in law-making and in court-specific dispute resolution. The different approaches to copyright exceptions proposed in the draft Wittem Group's copyright code are explored compared to those existing in the European Union Directive on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is noted that the draft Wittem Group's Copyright Code differs from that adopted in the EU and Ukraine in that it provides for an open list of cases of use of copyright objects, thereby altering the existing balance of interests towards the public. Copyright restrictions in the said Directive apply to specific proprietary rights under certain conditions, which may include the purpose, subjects and specific scope, which provides for a list of exceptions and restrictions that are considered to be closed and not subject to extended interpretation in their content.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it