The Issue of Using Certain Copyrighted Iems Whose Right Holders are Unknown: Foreign Experience and Solutions
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
Introduction. The relevance of this work is due to a significant number of works whose author or right holder is unknown, the impossibility of legally using such works in civil circulation, the urgent need for normative fixation of the status of a work whose author or right holder is unknown, and establishing opportunities for legal use of such works, taking into account the analysis of foreign practice in regulating this issue. The aim of the study is to analyse foreign practice in regulating the use of works whose author or right holder is unknown, to identify the key features of this legal institution, and to evaluate its proposed incorporation into the Russian laws. The task of the study is to analyse the legal institution of using a work whose author or right holder is unknown, and to identify common features of this legal institution in different countries. The scientific problem that the research aims to solve is to establish legal regulation for the use of works whose author or right holder is unknown, taking into account the peculiarities of the Russian laws. Methods. The work used methods of analysis such as general scientific, formal and legal, comparative and legal and system and structural. Results and Discussion. The number of works whose author or copyright holder is unknown in the largest European libraries is estimated at 20—30 %, and some estimates suggest that the proportion of such works in Russia is even higher. The works whose author or right holder is unknown are not given in international treaties of a universal character, but is reflected in some regional (Directive 2012/28/EC of the European Parliament and Council of the European Union) and national regulations of about 30 countries. The legislation of each of the countries reviewed (France, Germany, Norway, Hungary, UK, US, Canada, India, Japan, Korea) has its own peculiarities. Draft Federal Law No. 411043-8 "On Amending Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (in terms of establishing a procedure for the use of certain objects of copyright and related rights whose right holders are unknown)" establishes the concept of an object of an unknown author (right holder), and sets up a mechanism for the use of these objects, the authors (right holders) of which, if identified, will be able to receive remuneration for such use. The proposed mechanism fits seamlessly into the existing system of collective rights management, contains provisions aimed at developing this system (the possibility of using a nominal account to collect and store funds owed to other right holders) and ensuring the interests of authors (right holders) of orphan works. Conclusion. There are no unified approaches in different national legal systems with regard to almost all elements of the works whose author or right holder is unknown, at the same time, the content of applicable laws reveals common ways in the development of regulation. In the absence of a universal international regulation of this issue, each country establishes its own mechanisms to provide the possibility of using orphan works, to return such works to the cultural, scientific and educational environment, to prevent their oblivion and loss, which from time to time make it possible to re-establish contact with their creators, authors or right holders.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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