The Fair Dealing Exception Explained: A 20 Year Retrospective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is intended for library practitioners and information professionals, presenting a deep dive into the Canadian case law that relates to fair dealing, a user’s right, with a particular focus on CCH and subsequent cases from 2004 to 2024. Readers will learn the importance of fair dealing, discovering how decisions from the courts can be used to help users of copyrighted works conduct fair dealing analyses by considering the six fair dealing factors prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH. This “paper” does not follow a typical structure expected of a research paper, and is not meant to be read as a complete work. Rather, the summaries and excerpts provided below are to be used as references for those researching fair dealing or conducting fair dealing analyses. The genesis of the 2024 ABC Copyright Conference presentation, available in the ABC 2024 collection and copies of all cases referenced in both our presentation and this paper are available in an open reading list.
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 | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".