Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME En 2020, plusieurs decisions interessantes en matiere de droit d’auteur ont ete rendues par les cours canadiennes. Cet article presente une selection editoriale de ces decisions, choisies en fonction des questions soulevees, de la nature des oeuvres impliquees et de la maniere dont les principes bien-etablis ont ete appliques par la Cour aux faits precis de la procedure. L’objectif de cet article est de fournir au lecteur un resume des questions soulevees dans les decisions choisies et de la maniere dont elles ont ete analysees par les cours, tout en couvrant une variete de themes lies au droit d’auteur, tels que les licences de logiciels, des politiques d’utilisation equitable, l’utilisation non autorisee de photographies sur Internet, les remedes disponibles aux societes de gestion collective et les plans architecturaux en tant que compilations d’elements connus et fonctionnels, pour en nommer quelques-uns. ABSTRACT In 2020, several interesting decisions relating to copyright law were rendered by Canadian courts. This article presents a selection of these decisions, chosen based on the novelty of the issues raised, the nature of the works in dispute and the noteworthy manner in which established principles were applied by the Court to the specific facts of the case. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an overview of the issues raised in the selected decisions and the courts’ analysis thereof, while covering a wide variety of copyright-related themes, including software licences, fair use policies, unauthorized use of photographs on the Internet, enforcement of rights by collective societies and architectural plans as compilations of known, functional design elements, to name a few.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".