[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Another important point
Interesting post - it seems you now talk only about art.
Nobody claimed that art isn't copyrighted once you publish it. Why do
you beat a dead horse?
The point I am talking about is that you demand a level of protection
that makes no sense for what you yourself called "scientific
restorations". Data you used yourself to calculate body proportions
and body masses in scientific publications, data you used to erect new
taxa or lump old ones (iguanodontids come to mind).
I see two options: either the "scientific restoration" part is
nonsense, and the Paul-pose of the skeletons is not related to the
locomotion capabilities of the animals, but simply artistic freedom, a
kind of Paul-trademark. Or the pose is in fact within the regular
repertoire of the animals, as is befitting for a scientific
restoration, and you can't demand others do not use it.
[sarcasm] Or would you like zookeepers to shoot all ostriches that run
quickly, because they adopt the Paul-pose without paying up
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM, <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> 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>