[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Putting pictures on websites
for myself, I would say that the displaying of a mounted skeleton is the
display of someone's INTERPRETATION of a naturally occuring thing, and
would then be considered to be copywriteable by the creators.
Especially if you consider a mount in one museum might not match the
interpretations of a mount in another museum in stance, leg
articulation, or even proper attribution-all of which are items
considereably of interest and part of why mounted specimens draw
attention from science.
Jonathan and Mary Frances Miller wrote:
> So, where is a reconstructed dinosaur skeleton? I would argue (and so would
> many lawyers, for a fee) that, despite being put together by a person or
> persons, it is a naturally occurring thing and you own the copyright and can
> whatever you want.
> The opposite viewpoint is that the creator of the complete (or incomplete)
> skeleton owns the right to make copies. Or, possibly, the employer or museum.
> Don't ever underestimate the creative ability of lawyers to get judge or jury
> accept this argument.