Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[Dinosaur]

why would you ever want to do it any other way? what would be the point of regurgitating anachronisms?

Seeing a site through the eyes of the person who actually dug it always has value - can think of any number of sites where what was originally written has been trashed by more 'up-to-date-thinking' but then it's turned out the original excavator was spot-on...plus of course it's just plain rude and disrespectful although those seem to be gradually disappearing as considerations with the youth of today.... :0

On the copyright, good news! If the site was funded by the DoE and dug under the auspices of the local County Council (both of whom were/are unlikely to object to [free] publication of 'their' work) then sounds like I'm in the clear

[Wax]

.plus of course it's just plain rude and disrespectful although those seem to be gradually disappearing as considerations with the youth of today.... :0

Thanks Dinosaur I wondered what it was that was bugging me about P Prentice. great debate here I am learning a lot (even enjoy Unit of 1 different take on things)

[Martin Locock]

Dinosaur: if you know who funded the work then it would be simple for you to actually get their permission, rather than rely on them not objecting.

[Dinosaur]

Dinosaur: if you know who funded the work then it would be simple for you to actually get their permission, rather than rely on them not objecting.

Eeerm, not sure the DoE still exists....luckily the County Council are OK :face-approve:

-although finding the original excavator might resolve the issue of where the rest of the finds have gone

[Martin Locock]

DoE responsibility for archaeology passed on to English Heritage - the regional inspector would presumably be the relevant contact.

Excavations funded prior to 1972 were covered by a backlog programme which aimed to complete publication for them, or failing that at least locate the archive and encourage its deposition somewhere suitable. The summary report of this programme was issued by EH in 1994, with a complete list of sites involved, but I can't find a copy online.

[Unitof1]

Eeerm, not sure the DoE still exists....luckily the County Council are OK :face-approve:

-although finding the original excavator might resolve the issue of where the rest of the finds have gone

So now we have crown copyright or is it data protection. Who do you ask in the council?

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


and quite right too- there should be a charge, just like there is for discharging a condition. Wasnt like this when I was little, wonder what it will be like when I grow up.

Charging

This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum
15.?(1) A public sector body may charge for allowing re-use.
(2) The total income from any charge shall not exceed the sum of ?
(a)the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents; and
(b)a reasonable return on investment.
(3) Any charges for re-use shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be calculated?
(a)in accordance with the accounting principles applicable to the public sector body from time to time; and
(b)on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the demand for documents over the appropriate accounting period.
(4) A public sector body shall not charge an applicant for costs incurred in respect of activities mentioned under paragraph (2)(a) in respect of a request for re-use, if the same applicant had been charged in respect of those same activities by that public sector body for access to the same document under information access legislation.
(5) Where a public sector body charges for re-use, so far as is reasonably practicable, it shall establish standard charges.
(6) A public sector body shall specify in writing the basis on which a standard charge has been calculated if requested to do so by an applicant.
(7) Where a standard charge for re-use has not been established, the public sector body shall specify in writing the factors that will be taken into account in calculating the charge if requested to do so by an applicant.

And this is what it might look like in noddy land (its what it looks like in county council land)

(1) An archaeologist may charge for allowing re-use.

(2) The total income from any charge shall not exceed the sum of ?

(a)the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents; and

(b)a reasonable return on investment.

(3) Any charges for re-use shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be calculated?

(a)in accordance with the accounting principles applicable to the archaeologist from time to time; and

(b)on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the demand for documents over the appropriate accounting period.

[Martin Locock]

there is no charge for discharging a condition - oh, yes there is a nominal charge

[Martin Locock]

the key word is 'may' - a charge makes sense if the re-user will be making money as a result, which is not the case here.

[Unitof1]

65 squids a pop round my way. And thats the price they thought up first time round. The HER has to cost something, the curators as well. The polluter is supposed to pay for it all. The councils have started this ?500+ transparancy thing http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...r-500-list. I have tried tickling out whos pay for what but I can only imagine that the costs for archaeology will get more apparent and push the prices up.

a charge makes sense if the re-user will be making money as a result, which is not the case here

. -polluter pays are you saying that there should be a development tax..

[ShadowJack]

So, in your world the landowner, who you seemed to be championing has now become a polluter?

The councils are required to publish items of spending of over ?500 of public money - why would you believe that:

1. the trading activities of a local authority archaeological unit would be covered by this. (they don't spend the publics money)
2. That commercially sensitive information relating to the costings such a unit prices it's work at such be released to you.
3. That the fees charged by specialists to such a unit should also be made public.

Or in trying to tickle out such information are you actively seeking to gain an unfair commercial advantage over such units?

polluter pays are you saying that there should be a development tax..

No he wasn't...and you know that.