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

Another important point

A number who have contributed to the discussion on the list, in particular 
those who are not themselves directly involved in paleoillustrations, have 
expressed a disturbingly casual attitude to the concept of originality of 
work and violating the artist's rights. This caused me to remember a vital 

Every contract between a contractor and an artist providing art contains a 
standard clause that basically says the artist assures that what they are 
providing is original and does not violate someone else's copyright. This is 
intended to deter copyright violations and especially to give the contractor 
some protection from later problems. 

But the protection for the contractor is not absolute. Book publishers use 
the same clause. But because they remain vulnerable to suits if it can be 
shown they did not take adequate steps to prevent copyright violations they go 
to some effort to vet what they publish. 

To claim that truly original paleoartists automatically lose much control 
of the usage of their copyrighted images simply by publishing them is 
nonsensical in view of the standard originality clauses. Unfortunately in the 
paleoart business the clause has become proforma in all too many cases, with 
participants doing some level of nod and wink. What needs to be done is to 
get the system back to taking this stuff seriously, while boosting the 
prospects of paleoartists overall. 

That will be the subject of my next postings. 

G Paul</HTML>