Graffiti, Street Art, Walls, and the Public in Canadian Copyright Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, I argue that while the scope of copyright protection of graffiti and street art may be on the whole, fairly easily ascertainable and may offer a desirable level of protection to their authors, the rights of the public with respect to graffiti and street art remain fragmented, somewhat unclear and likely too limited. This finding gives a sobering account of the extent to which Canadian copyright law succeeds in adequately addressing competing interests, such as where allowances for communication and access between the graffiti or street artist, their work of art and the public should be at their highest. I refer to “graffiti” for writings depicted in public spaces and to “street art” as a more general term encompassing graffiti and any other form of visual art (drawing, painting, sculpture, structure, object) located in public spaces. I refer to neither graffiti or street art with a connotation of legality or illegality and I will specifically refer to their (il)legality as the context may dictate from time to time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".