8th April 2011, 01:16 PM
Quote:[SIZE=3]I believe that copyright should be taken seriously but isn?t taken very seriously
[/SIZE]
Trust me - it is. Especially by Graphic Managers/Senior Illustrators.
Apart from the briefing papers I've already mentioned, I've also had to take the lead in negotiations with the OS to avoid legal actions when material was published using artwork supplied by an external sub-contracted designer.
In one company I worked for it was a disiplinary offence even to request using unauthorised copyrighted material.
In my experience, the ones who do not take it seriously are usually POs rushing to get their reports out - but most of this is simply stems from a lack of awarness or understanding of the copyright acts.
The 'I've just scanned the slide of this photograph, so I now own the copyright' response I once got kind of illustrates the problem.
Quote:Currently the approach taken appears to be that of the photographer working for a company with the default that the copyright rests with the company. There are though photographers who retain their copyright and there are many who work for companies and have various contractual agreements.
Surely this merely reflects nature of their employment with the company. If they are employed as staff of the company - the company owns both the copyright and intellectual property rights of any material they produce during the performance of their duties for the company.
No ifs, no buts - that is the law.
If, however, they are self-employed and have been sub-contracted to carry out specific duties, then as part of the negotiations of the terms and conditions for the work, ownership, licencing, etc of any copyright/intellectual property would/should be discussed and agreed.
Certainly, when employing external illustrators - these are exactly the areas I would expect to address. The same should be true for other specialists (diggers, geophysics, etc) who are self-employed.
Quote:I think diggers should purely see what they produce as copyright (made to see actually).
If they are self employed - yes. I would strongly suggest anyone setting themselves up as a freelance worker investigates their options on copyright/intellectual property rights.
If they are staff of the company - no. Why cloud the issue? Why raise something they have no say in or control over? You can make staff aware of copyright concerns in general - such as what you can or can't do with that really useful plan/map/photograph someone else has published.
Quote:Maybe we need diggers to be differentiated as non copyright and copyright.
We do already - employed or self-employed.
Quote:The key, the core, for field archaeology is the copyright generated in the field
What copyright?
From the 1988 Act:
1 Copyright and copyright works
(1)Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work?
- (a)original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
- (b)sound recordings, films [F1or broadcasts], and
- ©the typographical arrangement of published editions.
- (2)In this Part ?copyright work? means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists.
- (3)Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).
Photographs? Yes
Context Sheets - No
Look, I think you need to read the act itself, because there is a danger of the issue becoming even more confusing:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
Have fun with it....I know I didn't! xx(
ShadowJack