Copyright in the Public Interest: Canada’s Perceptual Disability Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the lawfulness, under the current Canadian copyright regime, of making and displaying of 3D reproductions of works of visual art for the benefit of persons with disabilities. For the purposes of this chapter, the authors posit that such reproductions would typically be performed either by a person with a disability or, more likely, by a museum, art gallery or other third party on behalf of such persons. Since this issue has yet to be examined by the courts, any assessment remains speculative. The creation and public exhibition of a three-dimensional reproduction of visual art would undoubtedly impact the rights granted under the Copyright Act. Nevertheless, the authors believe that non-profit organisations such as a museum would probably be able to invoke two mechanisms: the defense of fair dealing for the purpose of research and private study; or the application of the statutory exception for the benefit of persons with perceptual disabilities. The authors propose that this interpretation of Canada’s Copyright Act gives the greatest meaning to the country’s ambition to create an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, which includes their participation in cultural and artistic life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".