[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
this says that the wikipedia version was made with your permission -
did you not know that wiki images are all licensed for free and even
commercial use? OBVIOUSLY, that is enough for people.
I understand that you're not happy, but if you really gave permission
to put this on wikipedia, then please chalk it up as a learning
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jaime Headden <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm not particularly happy that _this_ exists:
> Based on my original sketch of a finished skull (leaving off the less
> complete "what's preserved" sketch which was available at the same time from
> an art exhibition website and to which I maintained copyright (an
> unauthorized copy can be found here:
> But it also happens to be the only widely-known illustration of the skull
> of *Udanoceratops tschizhovi*, it's available on the internet, and that seems
> good enough for many people.
> I tend to allow free use (without modification, with attribution) of all my
> skeletal diagrams, provided they are "for a scientific purpose," a broad
> category that can be construed for a variety of things. But for my diagrams
> and illustrations beyond that, I am more picky, and here is where I fail to
> receive attribution. Naish (above, first link) correctly notes that the
> illustration is based on something I did, something which Naish and I had
> discussed years before (I think I showed the original to him at SVP, although
> I may be confusing that with someone else), and so some familiarity allows a
> person to note when I'm being plagiarized. It's not the only time I've been
> plagiarized, I doubt it will be the last, but it's the most significant.
> I lack the means to track down and even attempt to sue the original
> modifier/poster (whom I suspect may be Russian -- for the original appearance
> of this was on a Russian website, that I know of), and thus my legal options
> are limited. But despite that, the illustration has been used to _promote_
> scientific interest, and it _is_ the only skull of the Nutcracker that I know
> of, and so Science is forwarded by this act. How paradoxical.
> Jaime A. Headden
> The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
>> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:08:34 +0000
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: Plagurism
>> I have not read all of the long and sometimes unpleasant posts on the art
>> debate, but one thought has occurred to me.
>> How would those who have been giving Greg so much abuse like it if somebody
>> copied their work, particularly if they got it published in a more
>> prestigious journal than they did?