[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: dino branding
P.S. I was not complaining about lack of acknowledgement as part of journal
habit in my case. It may be worth it for artists to always try to secure that
sort of acknowledgement, but in the cases where more than one hand has
contributed to an illustration, such as if lithography or engraving comes back
into vogue, acknowledging each artist in the figure could be unwiedly.
From: "Demetrios Vital" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:40:41
Subject: Re: dino branding
One salient point regarding signatures on technical works is that
artists/illustrators rarely have the option of putting a signature on technical
scientific illustration. Within paleontology, my illustrations of skeletal
elements and life restorations have typically been attributed by the authors
with a variant of "Thanks to D. Vital" in the acknowledgements.
Within entomology, my technical illustrations have at times been unacknowledged
(by name) in journals depending on journal practice (i.e. If there is no
acknowledgement section, there aren't acknowledgements).
The habits of individual authors and journals don't necessarily allow artists
to have technical work attributed. And there are those who say that technical
illos. are scientific evidence, so a signature would be inappropriate.
So, unfortunately, self-attribution is not a straightforward issue. This
question has been raised in the course of this debate, most recently by David
Marjanovic and Henrich Mallison. Copyrights are a messy issue, of course, so
this is just one more variable to consider.
From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:44:23
Subject: 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.
> 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.
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.
>> 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
>> 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
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
>> 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.