10th August 2009, 02:35 PM
I do think Unit has a point with this IFA guideance - I think it would be very optimistic to expect liquidators/administrators and their agents to turn up with a group of big lads with a van and a skip and then start spending their valuable time going through each piece of paper - as if they would even know what was part of a site archive and what wasn't. There are plenty of archaeologists who would struggle to make that distinction with some records!
Surely the emphasis would be on the archaeologist getting this sort of thing sorted out in advance, especially if they were an IFA member. Although obviously if it happened very quickly that might be difficult.
I'm a bit puzzled by the mentions of copyright of the archive or report belonging to the client/developer (and I'm sure this discussion has come up before). I was under the impression that legally the copyright automatically belongs to the person or organisation that produced the document. Just because they do the work for someone else it does not mean they own the copyright, unless it has been specifically agreed. Even when jobs are supposed to be quiet and hush-hush it doesn't mean the developer owns the copyright.
Surely the emphasis would be on the archaeologist getting this sort of thing sorted out in advance, especially if they were an IFA member. Although obviously if it happened very quickly that might be difficult.
I'm a bit puzzled by the mentions of copyright of the archive or report belonging to the client/developer (and I'm sure this discussion has come up before). I was under the impression that legally the copyright automatically belongs to the person or organisation that produced the document. Just because they do the work for someone else it does not mean they own the copyright, unless it has been specifically agreed. Even when jobs are supposed to be quiet and hush-hush it doesn't mean the developer owns the copyright.