Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[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.