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

Re: dino branding



Repetition is cause for a copyright? So you're also asking for a
copyright on masturbation, too?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
just checking.....

One of the consequences of your "branding" is that all your
prosauropods look exactly the same. That's why you turned a bunch of
obligate bipeds, roughly half of the known genera, into happily
galloping(!) quadrupeds. You made an a priori decision, and avioded
the research, in order to - lemme quote you here:
"in order to simplify doing skeleton after skeleton after skeleton"
So don't brag too much, please! I can get near-identical copies in
China a lot cheaper, tenjewberrymuds!

You effectively admit that you never PLANNED to do anything special as
a Paul-"brand". Instead, you chose to use a pose that is - by your own
admission - part of the "normal" locomotion cycle. To put this into
perspective, you're a bit like a photographer demanding that
photographs of athletes coming out of the starting blocks be allowed
only for him, because he decided that that was a nice variation to the
eternal crossing-the-finish-line ones.

And if you'd really be worried by people mixing up "a Paul" with a
sorry incompetent doodle - then you would sign your drawings, or maybe
even think of copyrighting them properly, such as retaining the
copyright when using them to illustrate the papers you submit to
scientific journals.

I still feel people should go to jail for making money off your work.
That's what angered me when I read your first post on this topic, and
what still outrages me. But please stay realistic! As much as I in
principle admire and estimate your work, you're dropping fast in my
esteem.


To address your other message: if you're too stupid or lazy to add to
a figure caption the following: "(c) G.S. Paul", then that's not my
problem. Or do you really expect people to take a WAG on who drew what
unappropriated figure in a publication? Also, you utterly
misrepresented what I said: I never claimed that you lose copyright to
the illustration, but only to the published copy of it. Essentially, I
see no reason to give you rights to gag criticism of your sub-par
scientific work in scientific journals.

And as long as you refuse to get real on the many(!) skeletal drawings
of your that appeared in scientific publications, I'll keep calling
attention to this topic.

Heinrich


On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM,  <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> Bakker never "branded" a particular dinosaur pose, the one he used for the
> running Deinonychus was not repeated. Also that was a free style posture
> with the left femur restracted too far and the right leg tucked up too much 
> for
> an actual running animal.
>
> When I was doing my very first of my current set of running dinosaur
> skeletons I wanted to get away from the old all feet on the ground poses I 
> have
> long decried and decided to go for exactly the opposite by using a technical
> pose that showed the fastest symmetrical gait for that dinosuar type at the
> peak power level of the propulsive. Both in order to simplify doing skeleton
> after skeleton after skeleton, and to facilatate comparisons between
> skeletons, the pose would be universal. It was an opportune time to do so 
> because
> by then I knew enough about animal locomotion to arrive at feasible leg
> postures that have stood the test of time.
>
> Eventually the pose became my brand. Here's a reason it can be important to
> protect this sort of thing. Say someone has published a large number of
> side view dinosaur restorations all in the same pose that most researchers
> consider high in qaulity, and everyone comes to recognize as having been done 
> by
> that guy. Say someone else is doing their dinosaurs in the same pose, but
> are doing a very bad job of it with sloppy rendering and inaccurate
> proportions and so on. This can confuse viwers and adversely impact the 
> reputation
> and value of the original artist's body of work.
>
> G Paul</HTML>
>