martin they are both about... copyrights- I charge my client to use my copyright. Cuirrently I hold the copyright that I produce. I think that the wording I use goes a long the lines of "subject to goodfaith of payment". Its after that that the trail goes wonky. Just look at it from a competative edge say I have worked in a village which has had no previous "intervention". The next bunch -metropoo- in get the result of all my work for free. Why?
ShadowJack. Polluter pays is not my principle nor are the rules and rights of landownership. We can journey through history and countries and see how these concepts range and expect to change in the future. I suspect the word farmer ment something vastly different in Roman times than it does now. The english persons castle is now something that can be held in perpetuity by a act of parliament. Copyrights used to be renegotiated every 28 years in America now they give corporations 120 years rights over them. Why not 2000 years..
but we archaeologists somehow know something better about copyrights. Dinos example is one where the contracts probably did not say anything about copyright and now it might require permission from the council or the crown estates. Is that a committee representing all the political parties, a secretary of state. They will have to store this ownership- which costs, they will have to adjudicate over it which is messy- and costs. Out of rubbish we find buried in the ground they have generated something which has a value.
You have pointed out that what you do as a self employed person is get the right to your copyright sorted out in the contract. Lets do that at the contract stage. You do, I do. but I somehow dont think that the curators imagine that the diggers should do. But as dino has pointed out they are not so sure when the HER comes to allowing you to make a photocopy.
It sounds like if you draw a “popular” picture that you might have the “right” to charge for it to be reused. You presumably take your lead from the illustration industry and presumably have to keep an eye on current interpretation of the law. Why shouldn’t archaeologists be any different.
If for instance you create an image incorporating a branded item I image that you can get away with it if it is not for personal gain. Thing is if it is put up in a gallery and they charge people to see it I suspect that the brand might want some recompense and if the image is derogatory, removed. and thats because whilst they hold the copyrights they care, why cant I be alllowed to care for my own product for as long as I can according to the laws of the land. The pension farmers can pick the copyright up after then.70 years after I die.
ShadowJack. Polluter pays is not my principle nor are the rules and rights of landownership. We can journey through history and countries and see how these concepts range and expect to change in the future. I suspect the word farmer ment something vastly different in Roman times than it does now. The english persons castle is now something that can be held in perpetuity by a act of parliament. Copyrights used to be renegotiated every 28 years in America now they give corporations 120 years rights over them. Why not 2000 years..
but we archaeologists somehow know something better about copyrights. Dinos example is one where the contracts probably did not say anything about copyright and now it might require permission from the council or the crown estates. Is that a committee representing all the political parties, a secretary of state. They will have to store this ownership- which costs, they will have to adjudicate over it which is messy- and costs. Out of rubbish we find buried in the ground they have generated something which has a value.
You have pointed out that what you do as a self employed person is get the right to your copyright sorted out in the contract. Lets do that at the contract stage. You do, I do. but I somehow dont think that the curators imagine that the diggers should do. But as dino has pointed out they are not so sure when the HER comes to allowing you to make a photocopy.
It sounds like if you draw a “popular” picture that you might have the “right” to charge for it to be reused. You presumably take your lead from the illustration industry and presumably have to keep an eye on current interpretation of the law. Why shouldn’t archaeologists be any different.
If for instance you create an image incorporating a branded item I image that you can get away with it if it is not for personal gain. Thing is if it is put up in a gallery and they charge people to see it I suspect that the brand might want some recompense and if the image is derogatory, removed. and thats because whilst they hold the copyrights they care, why cant I be alllowed to care for my own product for as long as I can according to the laws of the land. The pension farmers can pick the copyright up after then.70 years after I die.
Reason: your past is my past