Not true, it is a visual reference of the incompetence of bureaucracy, and possibly a evocative protest of copyright laws as well as maybe a work of conceptual art.

Well, okay, maybe you’re right.

I suspect that he thinks they are utterly ridiculous.  As, indeed, they are.  

I believe a few years ago, though, that several major British museums announced they would no longer pursue copyright on their art, which included modern pieces within the “death of artist + 70 years” rule?  So why not include those British-held artworks in the textbook? Or did they later do away with their largesse?

Perhaps some other BB readers will enlighten us on these issues.

http://youtu.be/gFueCN3r8SM

However if we’re talking about, say, a textbook that’s used for a subject like introduction to calculus, or even an introduction to art history, it’s unlikely the university library will purchase a copy of it. This is especially true for textbooks that publishers purposely update every few years, which is why the “cash for textbooks” guys usually won’t touch ‘em.

Similarly, such content challenges the limits of black and white copy machines.

But, to charge for the glossy hiqh quality paper stock, the color, the large page size, the high quality binding and not use them for what they were intended to reproduce is just absurd.

That’s blatantly pulling at the student short hairs when what is on display is their own incompetence negotiating or substituting.