Reputation as the Key Link Amongst Moral Rights, Prohibited Marks, and Geographical Indications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moral rights, prohibited marks, and geographical indications (GI) appear in Canadian intellectual property (IP) statutes and international IP instruments – but do not mirror the characteristics of the classic IP triad (patents, copyrights, and trademarks). The classic triad are alienable (tradeable, licensable, able to be transferred away by their owners). Moral rights, prohibited marks, and GI are inalienable (not able to be transferred to others by the persons entitled to them) and thus distinguishable from classic IP. This research demonstrates another characteristic setting moral rights, prohibited marks, and GI apart from classic IP: a common preoccupation with reputation or esteem.\nThe Copyright Act’s moral rights exist in performances and literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, linking works and performances to their creators’ identities (rights of paternity) and giving creators non-transferable rights to maintain their works’ and performances’ integrity. Listed in the Trademarks Act, prohibited marks are not to be used as trademarks, being reserved for designated persons, institutions, and governments to use.\nFound in the Trademarks Act, GI are not trademarks but symbols linked to quality and reputation which indicate place of origin on certain types of products.\nProtecting people’s reputations is the tort of defamation’s historic role, however, studying reputation in defamation is hampered by the continuing role of juries in Canadian civil and criminal defamation proceedings. Because Canadian jury deliberations are secret, even judges presiding over jury trials do not learn how juries use evidence when making findings involving reputation. The preponderance of Canadian defamation decisions arise from jury trials and discuss reputation only in generalities and abstract terms. In the judge-alone trials studied, no more specific reputation findings were found than in jury trials. Theoretical work on reputation in defamation (including that of Robert C. Post), then, was found not transferable to moral rights, prohibited marks or GI. Analyzing reputation in defamation, therefore, is not helpful to understanding reputation across moral rights, prohibited marks, and GI. Nonetheless, examination of moral rights, prohibited marks. and GI themselves demonstrates reputation in the sense of esteem and uniquely distinguishes the set of moral rights, prohibited marks, and GI from classic IP.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".