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

Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes

I am going to wait to see if physics artists are going to start laying claim to particular types of diagrams of atomic structures, or of chemical artists will lay claim to a particular style of molecular structure artwork, or if molecular biologist artists will claim a particular rendition of DNA diagrams are theirs.

-----Original Message----- From: Heinrich Mallison
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:34 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes

So we can take this to mean that if you do not like a question you
will not answer it?

Arrogance, thy name is Paul!

and if you are worried by people confusing other people's (often
highly exact) drawings with your (optimized for speedy copy&paste, and
thus inherently less accurate) ones - well, what keeps you from
signing yours?

By the way: you did produce top and front views, once - copyright them, too?


On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM,  <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:
Now here is the kind of question I like. It is pertinent, useful, and

In a message dated 3/17/11 11:51:45 PM, steve@dinosaurcentral.com writes:

<< Greg,
Firstly, and for what it's worth, I for one
completely accept the current convention for
drawing skeletal reconstructions is of your creation. No doubt.

You keep referring to the pose (in your case e.g.
a sauropod reconstruction with right legs on the
ground, left rear leg in mid-step etc.) that
other artists imitate as being the issue. With
respect, is this the case? Are most clients
observant enough to notice if another artist uses
a different pose? My point is, is it not the
complete convention of drawing the skeletal
anatomy on a black silhouette the real
"infringement" here? If you were to protect your
property and income would you not require other
artists to develop their own method for drawing skeletal reconstructions?


In an interesting regard Steve is actually not right when he nicely says
that he "completely accepts the current convention for
drawing skeletal reconstructions is of your [GP's] creation." Awhile back I
was the first to note that Knight did the black profile around white bones
thing a couple times shortly before he died, and Scheele did it with
dinosaurs and other extinct beasts a few years later. I pointed out that others are
of course free to use this method in my first 3/3 statement. Where I am
having trouble -- for serious economic reasons -- is when lots of people
frequently pose their dinosaurs in side view whether skeletons or lifes they can
be confused by others as being mine.

There have actually been a few times when I have come across a dinosaur in
side view posed as per my standard when I actually for a moment thought or
wondered if it was one of mine, and had to do a mental recall seach and look
closely. Come on guys, there is something wrong with that.

Because it is becoming so hard for any of the paleoartists who put a whole
lot of effort into restoring each and every dinosaur they have done and will do, then it is only appropriate and fair that all paleoartists do the same.
If that means doing their own skeletons so be it. That way there won't be
paleoartists taking the easy route of relying on others' work to reduce their
workload so they can then underbid the artists who do do all the work and
seriously degrading their income. If some are unwilling or unable to do go to
such effort then they should seriously consider another pursuit.

As I have noted earlier, if there was tonnes of tonnes of work and income
out there and lots of people could do paleoart and make a good living, then I
would not be raising this issues. Really too bad it is not that way.

Thanks for the query, hopefully this is helpful.

G Paul