Scientific and Critical Editions of Public Domain Works: An Example of European Copyright Law (Dis)Harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the lack of unanimity among European nations on how to treat so-called scientific and critical editions, most of these nations agree on the major proposition that this kind of work should attract some kind of protection under neighbouring rights doctrines in their copyright codes. Canada has no such provisions. This article explores the neighbouring rights protection in some European nations and shows that Canadian publishers of such editions should be aware of the diverse range of protection that they are given in Europe and the potential liability of Canadian publishers. En dépit de l’absence d’unanimité au sein des nations européennes quant à la façon de traiter les soi-disant "éditions scientifiques et critiques", la majorité de ces nations s’entendent sur la proposition principale voulant que ce type de travail mérite de faire l’objet d’une certaine forme de protection en vertu des doctrines des droits voisins contenues dans leurs codes sur le droit d’auteur. Le Canada ne possède pas de telles dispositions. Cet article explore la protection qu’accordent les droits voisins de certaines nations européennes et démontre que les éditeurs canadiens de ce type de publication devraient connaître les différents types de protection dont ils bénéficient en Europe ainsi que des obligations potentielles que les éditeurs doivent remplir.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".