Linking on the Internet and Copyright Liability: A Clarion Call for Doctrinal Clarity and Legal Certainty
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by the decisions of the CJEU in Svensson and GS Media, this paper attempts to unmask the potential copyright liability of an internet user who engages in hyperlinking, framing and/or inline linking from a principled and conceptually coherent perspective. The overall discourse in this paper will be guided by the following two questions: 1. Do these forms of online activity constitute acts of communication (or making available) in the first instance? 2. Should they fall within the purview of Art. 3(1) of the EU Information Society Directive and be subject to potential primary/direct liability (as opposed to accessory/indirect liability)?It is hoped that this paper will offer a rational view of the ongoing debate (and provide sensible answers to these questions) by drawing on the established jurisprudence of the courts in Europe, the UK and elsewhere, as well as by having regard to the various interpretations of the concept of “publication” in the law of defamation (in particular, Canadian 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it