Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[BAJR]

Moved to satisfy Unit of Ones need to discuss this


Started here: with a discussion of what would happen to Exeter Archaeology's assets.

You need to define what you mean by assets...

Based on personal experience from the sell-off of another county unit a number of years ago:

As a local authority unit all their office equipment (workstations, software, furniture) will be owned/licenced to the authority not the unit.

Similarily, copyright/intellectual property right will, in the first instance, reside with the authority as the principal employer.

Archive - not sure

Backlog, not sure - but would image it remains the responsibility of the authority

[Unitof1]

always makes me smile when copyright is mentioned. thing is that most of the diggers who generated it were employed by the establishment on their ability not to give a monkies about it

[ShadowJack]

I only mention it because it seems to be a recurring theme in some of your posts. :face-huh:

As a professional illustrator, and someone who has had to give advice to fellow illustrators over the years on copyright issues as well as writing numerous briefing papers to management teams, I'm interested to know why you believe that the work undertaken by diggers is covered by copyright, which under the Copyright Act is defined as protecting:

1. Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works. Artistic works include graphic works, photographs, engravings, sculptures, collages, works of architecture including buildings or models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship.

2. Sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes and Typographical arrangements of published editions.


Photography would be covered - but as employees they/we have no right to copyright. As employees, we do not generate copyrighted material - our employer does.

Similarly with graphic work (site plans/sections etc) but do we really want our site plans classed as 'artistic works'?!

Mind you - with the state of some I've had to deal with over the years 'fantasy art' might be a better description!

Site Reports are a bit more complicated - they are not in themselves covered by the copyright act, unless they contain figure/plates/tables, but do incorporate intellectual property right issues.

[Unitof1]

I'm interested to know why you believe that the work undertaken by diggers is covered by copyright.

I believe that copyright should be taken seriously but isn?t taken very seriously. Currently the approach taken appears to be that of the photographer working for a company with the default that the copyright rests with the company. There are though photographers who retain their copyright and there are many who work for companies and have various contractual agreements. I think diggers should purely see what they produce as copyright (made to see actually). Maybe we need diggers to be differentiated as non copyright and copyright. There is a thread on at the moment considering what is an archaeologist. I think that they should be defined by what they produce. An obvious set of archaeologists are the academics and they most certainly bitch about copyright.

I currently have sitting in front of me some kind of contract that I am supposed to sign two copies of and send one back to something called the archaeology data service but which also has the address: Department of Archaeology, The king?s Manor, University of York. This thing also has on it the signature of a professor entitled the director of the ?Institution? Archaeology data service and for the University of York.

The document appears to make it clear that via a director institute professor that the University of York wants a non exclusive licence from me. Without it they will not make available my reports over the ether. Don?t worry as an expert in watching briefs for extensions for little old ladies (I like to yodel the last part) the world is not missing anything and in fact I have uploaded reports to the university. But they want my signature. And I am still thinking about it. might I like a specific clause that if at any time I want and for what ever reason I can remove from their university and all its whatevers all and every copy of my documents? Maybe it would be nice to sign it over to my old university -what ho. Also they clearly are not going to pay me any royalties why not. Do york university compete against me for work. Presumably they are going to charge students tuition fees?so much to ponder.

Now I am not sure that I had to sign something similar with the SMRs, HERs. There was a time quite recently when the main reason that I went to an HER was to browse the grey literature as it was the only place that they existed. I can remeber one or two times when photocopying and copyright was raised. Now there is gateway and pastscapes, oasis, presumably they all have people making a living out of them. It still stands that I don?t need any of these databanks to undertake an evaluation and I only need the evaluation to undertake an excavation. There has been for a long history of curators trying to make HERs statutory (after changing its name from smr) so that they can grow their pension pots, make themselves statutory?.

But I digress. I have done a bit of illustration in my time and have been everybody?s talking computer. And it was in a university. And the grey literature reports were defiantly used by those institutions when it came to research assessments and other inspections used to justify their statues and government funding. And did they pay me a 18% non contributory pension like the four directors of the so called unit were getting. But they wanted my illustrations and my context sheets. sorry still digressing. The key, the core, for field archaeology is the copyright generated in the field. It is the integrity, commercial and professional of an archaeologist. Curators particularly dont understand this or do they. They are awfully insistent that I sign my copyrights away.

[P Prentice]

if you dig up archaeology you are destroying my heritage. why should i allow you to steal my heritage? if in stealing my heritage you provide an adequate record of what you have destroyed, why should i allow you to prevent me from seeing that record. you dont own my heritage nor do you own the intellectual property rights to what you have destroyed

loveHeritage

[Unitof1]

and in the curators corner we have P Prentice making a personal claim on archaeology which appears to be on somebody else’s land and appears to want me to go and get it and do this for free.

[P Prentice]

your past is not my past then?

loveHeritage

[Jack]

Just coz someone 'owns' a patch of land doesn't mean they 'own' everything within that boundary.................nor should it.

[P Prentice]

and actually i dont want you to go and get any archaeology unit, but if you do i want a professional curator to make sure you do it right and i want to see the results, both of your work and that of the professional curator

loveHeritage

[ShadowJack]

[SIZE=3]I believe that copyright should be taken seriously but isn?t taken very seriously
[/SIZE]

Trust me - it is. Especially by Graphic Managers/Senior Illustrators.

Apart from the briefing papers I've already mentioned, I've also had to take the lead in negotiations with the OS to avoid legal actions when material was published using artwork supplied by an external sub-contracted designer.

In one company I worked for it was a disiplinary offence even to request using unauthorised copyrighted material.

In my experience, the ones who do not take it seriously are usually POs rushing to get their reports out - but most of this is simply stems from a lack of awarness or understanding of the copyright acts.

The 'I've just scanned the slide of this photograph, so I now own the copyright' response I once got kind of illustrates the problem.

Currently the approach taken appears to be that of the photographer working for a company with the default that the copyright rests with the company. There are though photographers who retain their copyright and there are many who work for companies and have various contractual agreements.

Surely this merely reflects nature of their employment with the company. If they are employed as staff of the company - the company owns both the copyright and intellectual property rights of any material they produce during the performance of their duties for the company.

No ifs, no buts - that is the law.

If, however, they are self-employed and have been sub-contracted to carry out specific duties, then as part of the negotiations of the terms and conditions for the work, ownership, licencing, etc of any copyright/intellectual property would/should be discussed and agreed.

Certainly, when employing external illustrators - these are exactly the areas I would expect to address. The same should be true for other specialists (diggers, geophysics, etc) who are self-employed.

I think diggers should purely see what they produce as copyright (made to see actually).

If they are self employed - yes. I would strongly suggest anyone setting themselves up as a freelance worker investigates their options on copyright/intellectual property rights.

If they are staff of the company - no. Why cloud the issue? Why raise something they have no say in or control over? You can make staff aware of copyright concerns in general - such as what you can or can't do with that really useful plan/map/photograph someone else has published.

Maybe we need diggers to be differentiated as non copyright and copyright.

We do already - employed or self-employed.

The key, the core, for field archaeology is the copyright generated in the field

What copyright?

From the 1988 Act:

1 Copyright and copyright works


(1)Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work?

• (a)original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
  
• (b)sound recordings, films [F1or broadcasts], and
  
• ©the typographical arrangement of published editions.
  

• (2)In this Part ?copyright work? means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists.
  
• (3)Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).
  

Plans/Sections ?!? Maybe
Photographs? Yes
Context Sheets - No

Look, I think you need to read the act itself, because there is a danger of the issue becoming even more confusing:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

Have fun with it....I know I didn't! xx(