Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[mpoole]

Miasma. Excellent word. On the other hand, I like to live without knowing the underbelly of the world as I'm a simple kind of person. To have someone as an enemy, you have to give them power over your life in some way..... so I'd decline that as a definition of Unit.

[P Prentice]

Miasma. Excellent word. On the other hand, I like to live without knowing the underbelly of the world as I'm a simple kind of person. To have someone as an enemy, you have to give them power over your life in some way..... so I'd decline that as a definition of Unit.

i was using unit as a metaphor for the omnipresent neo-conservatist dogma of greed and exploitation

[Dinosaur]

dino from what I want and from what I understand, you are attempting to enhance your publication with the work of others you found laying around. You possibly see this incorporation in your publication as an act of archaeological preservation of the record particularly due to the fact that you cannot find them. One day no one will be able to find you, wow. The question is whether you see the Acts and international conventions on copyright as an infringement or whether they should be used by archaeologists. I think that if people valued archaeological information as copyright they would be more concerned with the preservation of archaeological data than they currently are. Hence your situation.

Don?t ask me what to do.(don?t use it) I think the answer is that archaeology should embrace copyright, push it on even more than it is- get an extra special 500 years for archaeological data or something like that but I don?t know how to make it pay big time..yet. Currently I have not signed the oasis forms. Gave up smoking years ago but still not feeling the benifits?

Seems a bit lame publishing everything else that's ever been dug in a quarry but not the barrow "cos we couldn't find the author of the report to get his permission". Plan B is of course to hunt down the archive (which I may have located) and gratuitously re-write it from scratch to a modern standard....gets around the copyright issue?

[Dinosaur]

....oh, sorry to those of you who are blocking Unit's posts, will try to remember not to quote them in mine, or you can block me too? }

[mpoole]

i was using unit as a metaphor for the omnipresent neo-conservatist dogma of greed and exploitation

Ah, I see, but I was busy trying to establish routes of communication through a mode of gesture habituated by overuse of irony. Or something.

[P Prentice]

Seems a bit lame publishing everything else that's ever been dug in a quarry but not the barrow "cos we couldn't find the author of the report to get his permission". Plan B is of course to hunt down the archive (which I may have located) and gratuitously re-write it from scratch to a modern standard....gets around the copyright issue?

why would you ever want to do it any other way? what would be the point of regurgitating anachronisms?

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]if you wish to ensure maximum access to your archaeological data in the long run, then you should attach Creative Commons licences to your material allowing others to re-use it without the need for further permission. And make it acccesible to others through resources like the ADS / OASIS ratehr than rely on a handful of paper copies and electronic versions held only by you.
[/SIZE]

Martin I almost agree, put a creative licence on it but whats wrong with putting it on at the digger level.

Dino wishes to purloin somebody else’s publication. The people who produced the publication have left their intensions ambiguous. Which seems is all they have to do in modern copyright law. Copyright has moved on since the 70s and will move on from now. we should embrace it rather than have faith that some wonderful ethos in archaeology as a charity would suffice.

Dino sees the archive as a way round an ambiguity. To my mind the archive is also riddled with copyrights-the diggers. No doubt an analysis to modern standards justifies dino. I would suggest that it wont be that “modern”. The web/computers have massively changed the future possibilities of “data” since the “70s” and how it can be tracked and treated and how the creator can create.

[SIZE=2]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=2]martin said -You seem to think that diggers can 'use copyright' if only they knew how in order to achieve something - could you clarify what you envisage?[/SIZE]

[/SIZE] A digger with a cheap mobile can easily write their contexts straight to the web. These diggers could be looking for fifty different people/dinos now or in a hundred years time to write up the site or the whole quarry. Why is dino hanging around with “70s” exploitation of the diggers copyrights. Is it because the diggers were amateurs. Is it because the diggers were ripped off and copyright never mentioned in the none existent contract. It sounds to me that dino is just producing another retro publication. Probably end up on the web as a pdf looky likey wooky booky in the style of the “70s” grey literature which we are all still producing..[/SIZE]

maybe we should be very wary that things like oasis is not trying to contain us in a neat little box, mean while the universities charge their students ?9000 a year to hand around the authority over our data- sorry creative licences-looks like peer review but is it really?

FFS I thought that LMGTFY may have not taken into account http://www.google.com/permissions/ which is what the webmaster copyright thing was suggesting. The lgtmft page with the google logo and ads is not the google page it a spoof. It possibly redeems itself because it does eventually end up as the google page.

[Martin Locock]

The copyright of material produced when employed does not belong to the employee, regardless of where it is posted. It is in nobody's interest to make the rights situation more complex than it is. If you don't want to hand over 'you' copyright, simply decline to work for employers.

[mpoole]

Unit, every time you address me as FFS, it's the biggest laugh of my day. Do you even know what it means?

:face-huh:

}

[Unitof1]

Yes Martin it does not belong automatically, I agree and I agree again, but it can be by contract or by being a sole trader.
http://legal-news.ashbycohen.co.uk/employment-law/copyright-ownership-in-the-work-of-an-employee/

You are missing my points.

Dino may well use the archive with the defence that the copyrights of the diggers automatically passed to the “employer” and he is back to requiring permissions from the employer.

The truth is that I am not sure that when I worked for any unit that copyright was mentioned in the contracts. Possibly because the default was that the copyright rested with the employers. Let me say that for a first level that all “archaeological” digger contracts should specifically say that the digger will not retain any copyright produced in the course of the employment.

why you ask if you still are awake

I think copyright is important for the definition of an “archaeologist”. Archaeologists produce copyright in the context sheet from unique observations made in the act of discovering and then destroying the context that cannot be made by anybody else. Or can it? The Southport mentality see archaeology as something that can be done by volnuteers, by the community, by big sociaty. And they dont mention how the copyright works for them. By missing out the copyright they can get to talk about

[SIZE=3]“all those with the power to shape England’s historic environment.... the emerging vision for public involvement and participation, research, the use of archived and published results, how historic environment sector professionals operate and what the property and development sector should gain. Based on the vision, it makes a series of recommendations which, the Group believes, will provide the sector with the tools it needs to implement the principles of PPS5.

[/SIZE]
Whats professional commercial copyright got to do with it?