Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[Martin Locock]

Unit, you have confused two separate strands: the charge that might be payable for an archaeologist wishing to re-use copyright material produced by public money in order to enhance the publication of a commercial site, which was Dinosaur's question, and the more general one where you invent a new form of copyright that allows archaeologists to charge their clients for access to the results of the work they commission.

[Unitof1]

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.

[Martin Locock]

Your context sheets are your copyright (if you are an independent contractor), and so another contractor could not reproduce your context sheets without your permission. Copyright does not cover the ideas, so they are free to read them and summarise them. In Dinoasaur's example they were intending ot reproduce someone's text, hence that would not apply (they could produce a summary or re-written version without it becoming an issue).

[Unitof1]

So could I charge subsequent people required by the "system" to read my copyright-poeple trying to show competance in dbas or scheme of works, and also read my reports like what HERs charge, considering that this is deemed reasonable by law

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/...tents/made

whats more to the point- is who reads the archive and that isnt a small point.

[Martin Locock]

No you can't charge people to read: that's not what copyright does.

The IPO website has got clear guidance on copyright.

If it's an accessible archive anyone can read it. If it's not accessible and preserved it's not an archive.

Incidentally many museums require transfer of an archives copyright to them when they accept it.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]No you can't charge people to read: that's not what copyright does.
[/SIZE]

but I can charge them to reference it in their bibliography of their dba, scheme of works?

like sampling in music..

[SIZE=3]The IPO website has got clear guidance on copyright.
[/SIZE]

good for ipo

[SIZE=3]If it's an accessible archive anyone can read it. If it's not accessible and preserved it's not an archive.
[/SIZE]

What is it then? It seems to me that there are levels of accessibility-accessibility and preserved are not inclusive. The internet has given us new concepts of preserved and accessibility

[SIZE=3]Incidentally many museums require transfer of an archives copyright to them when they accept it.

[/SIZE]

yes they do-why do they do that? why do they accept my archive which is forced on them by the curators. I was in a museum down Reggio di Calabria and tried to take a picture of some bronze statues (sans flash) and you should have seen the rash of jobsworth all over me..They had-have control over copyright. Good on them. They charge me entrance fee. Good on them.should they have taxed the good citzens of naples or the developers/tourists to preserve the record?

[Martin Locock]

The reason I mentioned the IPO guidance is that it would clarify for you whether copyright covers mentioning the existence of a report in a bibliography (No). It's not like sampling in music.

PPS5 says "Local planning authorities should require any archive generated to be deposited with a local museum or other
public depository willing to receive it." If your archive is not deposited there it's not an archive.

[Odinn]

but I can charge them to reference it in their bibliography of their dba, scheme of works?

Good luck trying to get that one through. Way to kill the golden goose if you do. Having to pay to reference works in a bibliography would kill research, especially that done at PhD level. Can you imagine a PhD student having to fork out for the hundreds of texts that they reference in their bibliography out of their student loan? What about all the sites that are meant to be published with reference to other sites in the area? Either sites would be published in isolation, making the work undertaken largely meaningless or the cost of the work would go through the roof and development would not go ahead. Where then would be your nice little earner sites? You would ensure that you had no more work. It's a bloody stupid idea and it is a good job that you cannot do this.

[ShadowJack]

@Unitof1

My User ID is ShadowJack - not any other comical spelling.
We all take the time to ensure we get each other's name correct - I'd appreciate the same from yourself, as I'm sure would the others.

Anything else I consider disrespectful.

[BAJR]

Thanks to all for being patient with the child that is Uo1.

I am happy to let this thread run its course, as there is quite a bit of information within it, from the grown ups whose knowledge and experience does make a difference.

I know one illustrator that for his reconstructions, retains copyright. Thus, the charge is for the piece of work to be used for a specific purpose ( say an interpretation board) if they (the client) want to create postcards, they would have to pay again... OR could buy the copyright straight off. thought this may be expensive in the short term, being judged on what the drawing may produce in revenue in later years.

As an illustrator, without a specific agreement to the ownership of my work.. they remain my copyright. THe payment received is for the specific work I was contracted to do. Others wish to fully 'own' my work. in which case I have to judge whether the remuneration recompenses ...

AS to charging for bibliographic references... I guess you may be quite alone there. and with the batty weirdness about the outrage that others may read your work and reference it... I would not be too worried. !
Seriously though, the way it works is that you get to reference their work. There is also a custom called fair usage. This is something that in teh internet age however is going by the wayside.

Many websites tart themselves up as news sites for example, but just copy and paste from news producers. slap a few adverts on and don't forget to put some copyrighted images and photographs. That is real copyright theft... not this concept that somebody reading your report without payment is somehow robbing you of a hefty royalties fee.

:face-huh: