[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Clarification of scope of paleoart->uses
Simply do what I do when I do a skeletal restoration of a dinosaur whose
skeleton has been previously restored. Do your own skeletal restoration. As I
explained earlier, sometimes it looks like the previous restoration (except
for limb pose), but the point is I went to the time and effort to get there.
This applies to any publication venue.
Which brings us back to the key point. Being derivative of other's work
does not only get into ethical issues, it is unscientific. Remember, science is
about reproducing and failing to reproduce results. Every time someone uses
other's skeletons as the basis of their own efforts they are merely
replicating past results without testing them.
In a message dated 3/15/11 8:08:08 PM, email@example.com writes:
<< Just for clarification, say I want to do a skeletal restoration
of, say, Triceratops (which i do and have). I can do it for
one of two basic reasons: to use in a book/poster/video I intend
to sell for profit (directly or indirectly), or i can do it for
a professional article.
I assume your (Greg) objections to doing a derivative of one
of your skeletal restorations applies only if the person is
doing it for a book/poster/video they want to sell and *not*
if they're doing it to include in a technical article..? (if
this was answered in a previous post, i haven't had time to
read them all yet.)
Scientific research builds on previous research. I think most
people consider your (Greg Paul's) work to be as much science
as it is art. I think it's mostly or entirely science because
there's not a whole lot of artistic license in reconstructing
a dinosaur skeleton (i'm talking about your skeletal
restorations now, not your other drawings and paintings).
Unfortunately, you don't get any cash when someone uses (or
derives) your work for an academic paper, although a note in
the acknowledgements never hurts. >>