L’interaction du droit d’auteur avec la sanction des manoeuvres de confusion ou de parasitisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME Au Quebec, les tribunaux reconnaissent depuis longtemps que les titulaires de droits de propriete intellectuelle peuvent cumuler les recours prevus par les lois federales et l’action en concurrence deloyale, l’une des actions en responsabilite extracontractuelle fondee sur l’article 1457 du Code civil du Quebec. Mais comment se dessine la frontiere entre les deux domaines ? Le droit commun se superpose-t-il a la propriete intellectuelle, dupliquant ou elargissant les recours des titulaires de droits de propriete intellectuelle ? Ou alors, faut-il departager le role de l’un et de l’autre pour eviter les chevauchements? Plus precisement, une personne qui reprend un element d’une oeuvre commet-elle en soi un acte de concurrence deloyale ou de parasitisme ? Nous presenterons l’etat du droit quebecois sur cette question et expliquerons certaines evolutions de la common law, du droit francais et du droit europeen qui pourraient illustrer des developpements possibles en droit quebecois. ABSTRACT In Quebec, the courts have long recognized that holders of intellectual property rights can combine the remedies provided by federal laws and unfair competition actions based on the extra-contractual liability under article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec. But where is the line between these two areas of law? Does the jus commune overlap with intellectual property, duplicating or expanding the remedies of intellectual property owners? Or should there be a clear delineation of their roles to avoid overlapping? More specifically, does a person who uses an element of a copyrighted work commits, by that fact alone, an act of unfair competition or parasitism? We will present the state of Quebec law on this issue and explain some decisions in common law, French and European laws that could illustrate possible developments in Quebec 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".