[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Clarification of scope of paleoart->uses
So you're saying that your published skeletal reconstructions, even if
published in scientific journals, are not scientific data one can cite
like one can cite any other figure or the text or a table of different
content? I'm not allowed to do GDI on one of your drawings, but I have
to do my own first? That's absurd!
Or do you say people may not take our reconstruction of a closely
related taxon, adapt it to fit the known elements of a new taxon, and
publish that while citing your figure as a source? That makes a bit
more sense, but still ignores that you published the drawing as
scientific data, and that can be used freely provided the source is
Or are you saying that the figures you publish in your scientific
papers are scientific data, but somehow exempt? Are you still claiming
that you retain copyright to the published version despite signing it
off to the journals or their publishers?
I'd appreciate an answer, for once. And keep the insults to yourself.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:36 PM, <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> G Paul
> 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. >>