In the interest of encouraging a free and open exchange of ideas and creativity in the public commons, the work Pictorial Propaganda has been licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.
In the case of citations reproduced from other sources, the original authors retain their copyright. These references have been made for the purpose of research and the furthering of knowledge.
Pictorial Propaganda // Propagande picturale by
Felicity Tayler is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License.
…the figure of the author in the open source and creative commons movements is no longer that of the romantic author traditionally associated with copyright, but is closer to the post modern author described by Barthes or Foucault. Foucault used the terminology of the “founder of discursivity,” referring to those creators who initiate, by their works, a discursive practice that sets in motion a number of possible applications in a chain of creation. The initial work gives the opportunity to other creators to pursue the creative process.” — Séverine Dusollier, “The Master’s Tools v. The Master’s House : Creative Commons vs. Copyright” in Propriété intellectuel : Entre l’art et l’argent = Intellectual Property : Bridging Aesthetics and Economics. Ed. Ysolde Gendreau (Montréal : Les Éditions Thémis, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, 2006), 37.
…visual artists in Canada who practice what is called appropriation may be at risk of persecution… Appropriation, a term understood in the art community but not much outside it, is the use of existing artworks in the making of art that comments – often by way of parody or criticism – on some aspect of art or culture.” – “Copyright law and the visual artist.” CARFAC News and events <http://www.carfac.ca/news-en.php#copyright> (Accessed 23 August 2006)
…Canadian law unfairly favours copyright holders over users and creators; …the law’s Fair Dealing legal provision is inadequate and should be enlarged…” – Jonathan Culp “Cutting out collage” Fuse Magazine 30, no 2 (2007).
There is a history of just such a property system that is well-known in the Anglo-American tradition. It is called “feudalism.” Under feudalism, not only was property held by a relatively small number of individuals and entities. And not only were the rights that ran with that property powerful and extensive. But the feudal system had a strong interest in assuring that property holders within that system not weaken feudalism by liberating people or property within their control to the free market. Feudalism depended upon maximum control and concentration. It fought any freedom that might interfere with that control…this is precisely the choice we are now making about intellectual property. We will have an information society… Our only choice now is whether that information society will be free or feudal. – Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture : The Nature and Future of Creativity. (New York : Penguin Books, 2004), 267. Also available at www.lessig.org
