Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[kevin wooldridge]

I think that this is how most other creative data is handled in the real world. I don?t think that archaeological data should be any different to music, pictures, video, or geographic data. I think that the creators of the data should understand it that way.

It might also help the outside world view archaeological data

It's seems an unlikely way to endear oneself to the outside world....'I've already been paid to collect this data - and if you want to find out what it is - pay me some more!!'.

The only way I can see such a scheme work in the real world would be to further reduce the wages of archaeologists, in return for the 'gift' of allowing them to generate income through 'selling' access to their context sheets. Think I'd prefer to see the money in the bank and let my employers enjoy the 'rights' to collecting copyright royalties.....

[ShadowJack]

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.

at least recognising that it is the archaeologist that creates the archaeological copyright.

Don't think anyone is questioning that, although...

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.

I think that this is how most other creative data is handled in the real world

No it isn't

I don?t think that archaeological data should be any different to music, pictures, video, or geographic data.

Currently - it isn't

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!"

[Unitof1]

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.

but thats just it -I dont support these examples

[ShadowJack]

If you don't support the examples - why are you arguing for the same thing to happen in archaeology?

Are you trying to say that the relationship between employee and employer in archaeology is somehow fundamentally different from other professions?

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]The only way I can see such a scheme work in the real world would be to further reduce the wages of archaeologists, in return for the 'gift' of allowing them to generate income through 'selling' access to their context sheets. Think I'd prefer to see the money in the bank and let my employers enjoy the 'rights' to collecting copyright royalties
[/SIZE]

Kevin there are a lot of session musicians who may regret that they took the money and ran. I* am interested in how much do you think that it would reduce the wages by?

Shadowjack you have lost me. In the example of the sound engineer I see the archaeologists as the musician, with the publishers I see the archaeologists as the author. In both those industries they have examples where the sound engineers or the publishers take control of the copyright as well as examples where the musician or the authors do. The critical point is that both industries realise that it is the copyrights that matter and also virtually anybody, you and me, outside those industries knows that as well. Right now those copyrights are being stretched to the limits on the internet but because we all understand copyright we can kind of work out if something?s legitimate or not.

I am asking why are we any different. If we dont know or make a demand on how the copyrights should work why should anybody like the public give a monkeys. What do the museums do with your context sheets? does anybody care at all.

I think that I have tried to explain how the current system without any major statutory authority has come about. We have evolved too rapidly out of a civil service rescue ethos into educational trusts through the last forty years. I don?t think that the academics work the same way and I don?t think the original concepts of the ifa thought that there was no such thing as copyright. They tried to fight them with the ten year primacy clause but unfortunately because they were mostly civil servants they were clueless about copyright implications. In the process the name archaeologist has been contorted until the people who produce the archaeology are called ?diggers?, ?site assistants? supervisors project officers and if any body has the word archaeologist associated with their profession they are not on site or anywhere near the creation of archaeology.

We are on ludicrously low wages, the thing is they have got most of you thinking that a few pence more makes all the difference. Take control of what you produce, its not the report , it?s the context sheet, lets see what its worth the next time someone tries in your area to do an eia under numerous eu directives after the Valletta convention.

[ShadowJack]

The point I was trying to make was that if, as individual archaeologists, we suddenly acquire the right to copyright the information we generate through our work regardless of whether we work for ourselves or an employer (which is what you seem to be indicating) how would such a change be reflected in the wider work, hence the example of the sound engineer who works for a record label acquiring copyright to a song written and performed by someone else. Or the publisher, commissioned by an author to publish his book acquiring through the act of publication, copyright to the author's work.

But on a practical level...if you have a group of archaeologists, working for a company, yet each having the right to the copyright of the information they have recorded - what happens when one of them decides not to give consent to his/her context records being utilised for the publication of the site?

Who acquires copyright to the images created for the report - the field archaeologist who drew up the section drawing, or the illustrator who produced the report figure?

Who acquires copyright to the context record? The field archaeologist who picked out some key words from a pre-determined selection (learned through experience) and ticked a few boxes - or the office Jonny who spent hours inputting the records into the database?

Who owns the copyright to the original design of the context record form? Who takes ownership of the design for the database?

What you seem to be proposing - that we all as individuals, regardless of our employment status, take ownership/control of the copyright of the information we create (textual and/or visual) and somehow use this as a bargaining chip is both naive and irresponsible.

Under the present situation, you, as an independent archaeological contractor, have far more control over the information you create from your work than I do, including copyright.

However, I accept the current legislation and see no need to change it - perhaps, because I understand it.

[P Prentice]

unit - isnt the real reason we are on ludicrously low wages down to somebody always doing it for less?

so without banging on about chariteethieves and skimming directors why dont you campaign for 'fixing' fees?

[Marcus Brody]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Apart from one exception (whose posts I no longer read) there appeared to be a general consensus about six pages ago. Wouldn't it be simpler to just agree that Unitof1 has his interpretation of copyright law, which presumably works for him, and that the rest of the world adheres to a different understanding? At this point, I don't see any real possibility of Unit changing his opinion, and for everyone else, the realities of copyright law have surely been established, so what can now be gained by persisting with this?

[Unitof1]

prentise I think that you will find that archaeologists (if they exist) competing against each other for the last scraps of archaeology will come under a different high noon set of rules instead of the nonsensical one that we have now.

possibly Shadowjack as a consequence of my daytime drinking habits and my suspicions of hostys Post deleting habits we are currently robbed of my last post specifically to you on this thread. I thought that I had a certain amount of sanctity in this thread but it appears that I have hit a nerve. Eh pha come-ae ssta (gives him grounds to ban me for funny language) (yet again)

[SIZE=3]But on a practical level...if you have a group of archaeologists, working for a company,
[/SIZE]

This is the paradigm that I am suggesting that you shadowjack need to get out of. Those companies do not have a group of archaeologists working together-that has been my contention for a very long time.

It appears shadowjack that you have no problem imagining that I unitof1, a sole trader, can hold on to my copyright-but that it would be very messy in the real world of the company (and that might need a bit of qualification in the world of charity trusts).

You shadowjack give a few out of many examples where in the world that archaeologists have been brought up in, where who had what bit of copyright would make what it appears that we do- a bit messy. I agree. And to further add grist to the mill, would like to add, what do I get out of it, me the wondrous sole trader, a sole trader who goes around masquerading as an archaeologist, who holds on to the copyright. But does that make the company model right.

The answer so far to holding onto copyright is

NOTHING

Nobody has given me a monkey. I take that to mean they are not giving monkies to the company archaeolgists apparently working as a group (lets not call them the beetles but I would like to use them as an example in copyright)

Is it because people working in archaeology dont understand, don’t know how it works or can they get away with it because they don’t need my wonderful copyright.

Its like I am living in my own museum. Here am I surrounded by all my context sheets. But nobody comes to see them.

I must admit I have never been forced to look at anybody else’s. It appears Dino might look at some from the 70ties but only out of his sense of wanting to “publish properly” the “whole” site.”!””!”

I do though reference a few reports in my scheme of works to make it look like I am a real archaeologist.

what ever real is hay broody

[ShadowJack]

Sorry Unit - but I'm done with this thread.

..........I've had enough of your inane drivel