De l’holographie en divertissement : quelle protection pour l’artiste-interprète ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’artiste-interprete (incluant le musicien ou l’artiste-executant) beneficie certes au Canada d’un droit d’auteur et d’un droit moral a l’egard de ses prestations, que celles-ci soient executees sur scene ou fixees a des enregistrements sonores. L’on pourrait aussi mentionner les fixations audiovisuelles de ses prestations faites sans son consentement. L’artiste pourrait-il en vertu de ces protections empecher l’exploitation sur scene, a l’ecran ou dans une publicite, de prestations executees par une replique ou un double virtuel de sa personne ? Par ailleurs, le droit a « l’hologramme » ou au « doppelganger numerique » serait-il inclusif des droits de la personnalite, dont le « droit a l’image » ? Et dans l’affirmative, ce droit prevaudrait-il a l’egard de l’image d’artistes decedes ? Ce sont les questions que j’examinerai dans ce texte au regard du regime canadien en matiere de droit d’auteur et de la protection des droits de la personnalite en vertu du droit civil au Quebec.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".