27th April 2011, 11:38 AM
Quote:Currently that is the case. But that is what I am saying has to change.
That will require a change to the current act. Presumably, if this were the case, you would also support the following:
1. That sound engineers acquire copyright to the songs they record for a record label and not the artist who sings/wrote the song.
2. That publishers are granted copyright to the books they publish and not the author.
3. That cameramen/women acquire copyright to the images/films they record and not the film studio.
Quote:at least recognising that it is the archaeologist that creates the archaeological copyright.
Don't think anyone is questioning that, although...
Quote:archaeological copyright
There is no such thing.
Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about copyright? The only time I've ever seen it become an issue within archaeology, outside of the illustration world, was to use it to prevent a unit publishing the results of another unit's work - before they themselves had an opportunity to do so.
Quote:I think that this is how most other creative data is handled in the real world
No it isn't
Quote:I don?t think that archaeological data should be any different to music, pictures, video, or geographic data.
Currently - it isn't
Quote:It might also help the outside world view archaeological data
What - you mean Joe Public is suddenly going to come along and say 'Hey guys - do you know archaeological stuff is covered and protected by the states copyright regulations? Wow! That must be some really heavy and interesting stuff - must go to the library and get me some of that!"
ShadowJack