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

Re: Notes on scientifically comparative paleoposes



I am unable to see how this debate is any different from a debate about 
plagiarism in general. If the same standards are applied as the use of 
someone's work (through fair use or academic citation standards), then the 
convention is not patentable or copyrightable, but the use of Greg's *actual* 
work is. If you steal his reconstruction, then you are not covered by fair use. 
If you copy his convention, then you are. It's a useful convention, and one 
that if standardised upon would make work comparable. But you harm Greg not at 
all by using that (especially if it is acknowledged as his convention). Call it 
the Paul Stance.

Graphic artists and other visual artists have dealt with this issue for years 
now. It varies by jurisdiction, but if it is not a *direct* copy, then it is 
open season. That is a convention of graphics in general. If you copy his work 
directly, then you are stealing his work. If you use conventions he 
established, you are not, unless he is able to gain a legally binding 
copyright, and I bet he could not.

So since this is an academic matter, use academic standards of citation and 
copyright. He should be paid for his reconstructions, and nobody should steal 
his work, but they can *use* it, or else what is the point? IMO.

On 19/03/2011, at 11:55 AM, Jason Brougham wrote:

> I, personally, would not draw a skeletal outline with one foot raised and
> a black silhouette to mark the soft tissue. I would feel that that was a
> direct ripoff of Mr. Paul's method.

-- 
John Wilkins | john@wilkins.id.au
"Were all men philosophers, the business of life could not be executed, and
neither society, nor even the species, could long exist." William Smellie, 1791
Species: A history of the idea http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/11391.php