Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
27th February 2013, 02:33 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:...are you saying that there are no things that are are hosted on the web that get royalties?
I'm saying that the web hosts provide a service to you by making your material available to others. If they are charging people to access that material then you could expect some royalties, but that's down to the contract between you and the web host. They have every right to charge you for hosting your material on the site, a process which costs them money.
If you're not taking the cost of dissemination into account and charging accordingly, then you're undercharging and that's irresponsible.
Quote:Now where do they get their pensions from...
They get their pensions from the public. You know, the people who own the archaeology and heritage that you're trying to make money off describing.
Quote:...who is going around and photocopying my work and uploading it on the web without me getting a penny.
I'm not condoning that. Your permission should be sought and required. But I don't condone archaeology without dissemination.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
27th February 2013, 06:33 PM
where should this troll start
Quote:It isn't contractually my copyright, no, but since I'm afraid I regard my work as contributing (or getting trashed by future work) towards a greater and public whole, once it's production has been been paid for that's the end of any financial involvement as far as I'm concerned anyway. All I expect is some acknowledgement - if someone wants to use it thats fine as long as they ask first.
I will try and paraphrase what I think that you are saying: Your company what you work for sells the copyright that you create. The cost of production includes your pension; instead of paying you royalties the company possibly arranges for you a pension, a pension is a bit like royalties. the contribution towards a greater and public whole and someone wants to use it I think that you will find is no concern of yours but of the company that you work for because they are matters of copyrights which you dont retain as I understand it.
Quote:If you're not taking the cost of dissemination into account and charging accordingly, then you're undercharging and that's irresponsible.
Quote:But I don't condone archaeology without dissemination
the word publication has now become dissemination which I thinks is a bit of sticky word. Is that you have lumped archive, grey literature and publication into one and joined it with running a museum, liberay and of course putting something on the world wide web and come up with irresponsible. So what your saying is that all these firms in noddy isle are irrisponsible because they did not take into account publication in their charges for field work and post ex. Were the diggers also irrisponsible when they took on the jobs at the rates of pay that they were given for their copyrights and remind me what did they do about dissemination or even if they felt any concern at all. Its not as if there might be any royalties riding on it.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
27th February 2013, 06:38 PM
what I am thinking is what royalty should I ask of oasis to host one of my reports for one year. What would be fair? 1p, 10p, 50, £1? Have a think about it
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
27th February 2013, 08:59 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:So what your saying is that all these firms in noddy isle are irrisponsible because they did not take into account publication in their charges for field work and post ex.
Well, that's not what I said. I didn't read the article. But if they were required to publish and didn't take publication into account when charging their clients, then yes, that's irresponsible.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
27th February 2013, 10:43 PM
does irresponsible mean evasion of legal liability? Who should sue and who should be sued? The article seems to suggest that they archived and produced some report which does not seem to have satisfied bob as publication. Bob does not seem to have said if they had taken payments for publication or put any quantity to the amounts taken.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
28th February 2013, 09:49 AM
Unitof1 Wrote:...Your company what you work for sells the copyright that you create....
No they don't! They've never sold a copyright in the 23 years I've worked here. All copyright is retained,but permissions for reproduction generally either freely given or refused (not aware that's ever happened though). Receiving museums etc are licenced (for free) to reproduce stuff but copyright retained. You're living in some sort of fantasy world methinks?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th February 2013, 11:44 AM
I would like to say hurra although its probably a sad one because although you recognise that copyrights are involved you see absolutly no relevance in them to what you do and that your company and the museums and the curators like to imagine that they have sorted the copyrights out with licences (for free) to reproduce stuff mostly under the warm guise of it belongs to the public and for the good of knowledge.
I dont know where to take it next. Today you could go and clock in on site and do every thing that you normally do. Get your trowel out put a few bits of pot and bone in a bag and to many people you could look like an archaeologist and then come the end of the day clean up your loose and go home. send off the invoice: one day times day rate and do that for every day that we are on site. Then go on holiday with all the money that you was paid. Then one day the client says that they have just had a message from a enforcment officer of the local authority saying that they could not discharge the archaeology condition. The clients adiement that they saw you on site all day long and even noticed that you had a trowel. They have proof that they have paid you so what the hells going on? What does that client need from you to supply to this stupid enforcement officer?
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
28th February 2013, 12:08 PM
unit (shelob) unit
why dont you put tempting summaries on your web page and then charge people for you full masterpiece? that would be doing business utilising at least two of your favourite hobbies - archaeology and web-working
@d petts - a welcome deal of sense
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
28th February 2013, 01:53 PM
ah the free liecence recieving museum end of the sewer, probably got a "free" web" site as well.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
28th February 2013, 09:34 PM
Quote:why dont you put tempting summaries on your web page and then charge people for you full masterpiece? that would be doing business utilising at least two of your favourite hobbies - archaeology and web-working
@d petts - a welcome deal of sense
I think that is a sterling idea ... lets see how much the copyrighted wiffle is valued at
And yes to D Petts !
ps... was just using OASIS today... most useful. wish the reports were
