Une revue des décisions d’intérêt en matière de droit d’auteur pour l’année 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME Cet article offre une analyse subjective de quatre decisions canadiennes d’importance en matiere de droit d’auteur pour l’annee 2019 : Keatley Surveying Ltd. c. Teranet Inc., 2019 CSC 43, qui est la premiere occurrence d’un examen par la Cour supreme d’un droit d’auteur de la Couronne ; Drouin (Succession de Cote-Drouin) c. Pepin, 2019 QCCS 848, qui est quant a elle la premiere decision d’une Cour superieure concernant la violation continue d’une oeuvre et son delai de prescription consequent pour ester en justice ; Pyrrha Design Inc. c. Plum and Posey Inc., 2019 CF 129, ensuite, qui consacre les bijoux comme oeuvres artistiques au sens de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur et Bell Media Inc. c. GoldTV.Biz, 2019 CF 1432, enfin, qui est de son cote la premiere occurrence d’octroi par une Cour federale d’une injonction interlocutoire de blocage de site Web (en l’occurrence, un site de diffusion en continu [streaming]) pour des raisons de violation de droit d’auteur. ABSTRACT This article provides a subjective analysis of four important Canadian copyright decisions for the year 2019: Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc., 2019 SCC 43, which is the first occurrence of a Supreme Court review of Crown copyright; Drouin (Succession de Cote-Drouin) v. Pepin, 2019 QCCS 848, the first decision of a Superior Court regarding the continued infringement of a work and its consequent limitation period for bringing an action; Pyrrha Design Inc. v. Plum and Posey Inc., 2019 FC 129, which establishes jewellery as an artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, and Bell Media Inc. v. GoldTV.Biz, 2019 FC 1432, the first time that a Federal Court has granted an interlocutory injunction to block a website (in this case, a streaming site) on the grounds of copyright infringement.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".