[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: GSP statement on use of my dinosaur restorations (follow up)



On 7 March 2011 16:18,  <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> The basic rule needs to be that that an artist produce their own skeletal
> restoration based on original research. This would include using photos of
> the skeleton, or an illustrated technical paper on the particular taxon. This
> then goes into your files as documentation of originality, and you can
> publish it.

Some interesting stuff here, Greg, and I certainly understand your
frustration at the way your style, which 20 years ago was unique, has
increased its influence to the point where it's one of the standard
styles of palaeoart.  I am sure Charles Knight felt much the same.

Still, I'm not sure I see why it should be unreasonable for other
artists to use your reconstructions as a basis for their restorations.
 (Note: basis.  I am certainly not advocating the kind of wholesale
ripping off that gave rise to the "Krzyzanowskisaurus"
reconstruction.)  Would you, in the same way, advocate that
palaeoartists making skeletal reconstructions should go and take their
own photographs of the bones, rather than re-using those taken by
other scientists and prepared as figures?

To pick a topical example, if for some reason you wanted to
reconstruct Brontomerus, would you feel obliged to take your own
photographs of the ilium, scapula, etc. rather than using those at
        http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/brontomerus/extras.html
?  Of, if you feel the manipulated photographs should be exempt, then
what about using prepared artwork of individual elements such as those
of the Argentinosaurus vertebrae in Bonaparte and Coria (1993), as
shown at
        
http://svpow.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/the-revenge-of-the-controversial-hypantra-of-argentinosaurus/
Should these also be unavailable for palaeoartists to use without
explicit permission or payment?  If not, could you explain what the
difference is?

> Do not pose it in my classic left foot pushing off in a high velocity
> posture. Not because I am inherently outraged -- it would be rather nice if 
> not
> for some practical issues. For one thing I have succeeded in getting some big
> payments for unauthorized use of this pose by major prjects that should
> have known better. Aside from the financial issue, there are other concerns if
> you think about it. It is widely assumed that any skeleton in this pose is
> mine, but what if it does not meet my level of accuracy? The trust in and
> value of my work is degraded. There are gigillions of poses a skeleton can be
> placed in. Be original.

I have to say this seems pretty outrageous -- the idea that a
particular pose can be someone's intellectual property would seem
laughable if it wasn't so serious.  Or did I misunderstand and is this
part a joke?  If not, then I have to say it's enormously useful to be
able to directly compare, for example, Scott Hartman's reconstructions
at
        http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/
directly with yours, seeing the differences in interpretation clearly
because of the adoption of Greg Paul Normal Pose.  I'd hate to lose
that ability against the possibility that someone might wrongly think
one of Scott's pieces was yours.  After all, the goal of skeletal
reconstructions (as opposed to life restorations) is primary to be
scientifically useful, right?

-- Mike.