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

Re: dino branding




They also clarify comparison between species. Even if different artists have created them.

I'm sure this is exactly why many of the more scientifically artists, Scott Hartman for instance, have imitated this pose. I absolutely do not understand why anyone would assume evilness a priori.

reaction:
Wrong, wrong and wrong. IF pose were copyrightable, it would be attributed to the first instance - not to the most consequent repetition. The pose is useful for transmission of scientific knowledge about a species and therefore needs to be out there - imo for ethical reasons. Finally, I would be very surprised if pose can be subjected to copyright.

Seconded.

What might be considered unique to Mr Paul's illustrations is his application of the pose in question to _all_ limbed vertebrates, even those incapable of running (they're shown walking as fast as possible), even those that may never have walked or swum fast at all (I'm not sure, but I think he has illustrated temnospondyls that were probably obligatorily aquatic that way). But for cursorial dinosaurs it's now the industry standard; early in this discussion I compared it to the history of the word "walkman", with the difference that "walkman" _was_ originally intended as a brand name rather than as the word for the kind of device it designates.

I agree with Heinrich that this demand on pose is damaging to your own declared purpose of defending valid copyright issues. It is a lost battle and rightly so. The true battle about your artwork will be hard enough to fight.... all you are doing is shooting yourself in the foot and mocking the respect that generations of artists have for you.

Also seconded.

Eventually the pose became my brand.

Well, no. You just made it a trend; I can't see how you own the trend.

Another comparison: In 1988, Gauthier (with coauthors) coined the name Archosauromorpha and defined it as the archosaur total group (everything closer to archo- than to lepidosaurs). In 2004, he had moved on to giving all total groups the name of their crown group with "Pan-" in front, so he used the definition of Archosauromorpha for Pan-Archosauria and gave Archosauromorpha a new, node-based definition. No. This hasn't been accepted. Gauthier came up with the name, like you came up with the successful correction of Bakker's pose; he doesn't own it. The name is out there in the community, it's in widespread use, he can't call it back.

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.

See, that's already a highly arguable point. I don't know if more people thing "Gregory S. Paul" when they see that pose than think "that's how -- for, presumably, some reason -- skeletal restorations of dinosaurs are traditionally done, because all or almost all I've ever seen are in that pose".

As Heinrich pointed out, you don't sign your restorations. I don't think all that many people know that most of the restorations they've seen are by you.

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.

Only if they assume that everything in that pose is by you. You have not yet shown us evidence for this assumption.