MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408328726 · doi:10.1111/jwip.12350

The common law tort of appropriation of personality in Ontario.using legal transplant to solve the problem of the image rights lacuna in UK law.

2025· article· en· W4408328726 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of World Intellectual Property · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortAppropriationLawCommon lawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The image rights of athletes and celebrities are worth considerable sums of money to celebrities, brands, and sponsors alike. The desire to have celebrities endorse goods or services has meant that celebrities can benefit financially from selling and promoting their image. However, there is no image right in UK law. This is in spite of the fact that image rights exist in the practical sense, for example, in standard sports contracts. Thus, the courts have used varying degrees of judicial creativity to provide remedy when faced with image rights invasions, namely through passing off and breach of confidence actions. However, in the absence of image rights legislation in Ontario, the courts have also employed a degree of creativity, this time creating a free standing tort of appropriation of personality, specifically designed to deal with image rights invasions. Thus, in the absence of UK Parliamentary desire to legislate for image rights, this paper analyses whether it is possible to employ a ‘common law legal transplant’ by adopting the Ontario approach within the UK common law. This would provide a specific remedy, rather than circumventing the traditional intellectual property remedies which were not designed to deal with the issues image rights invasions create.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it