Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[Unitof1]

kevin I am sorry but that is not what the law says. I do find this insistence by one hell of a lot of the archaeological flock that the employer has the copyright, because it is the law and that is the end of the matter, very peculiar. It might be the default common law interpretation in the situation of a photographer working for a company unless otherwise stated in a contract. As for my point of view, I see the law as saying that there is such a thing as copyright, the law tries to give a description of what copyright might be of, that copyright gives the holder certain prerogatives and that if the copyright is transgressed that there is legal recourse.

First point of interest about copyright is in the description of an archaeologist, there is a thread currently asking that perennial question.

[SIZE=3]Shadowjack has highlighted that
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.
[/SIZE]

I would like to discuss the situation where the freelance digger is allowed to retain the copyright. I think that it might define what a digger is., project officer, director a little more clearly. In many academic situations data generated in the field is taken off in many different directions and callabarations, commercial archaeology as interpretated by curators has invented something called a report around which all main copyright is drapped.

Second point that I am interested in is responsibilities of the copyright holder for their product after they are produced like making sure that it is not used in a manner that you might find distasteful. I have given the example of York University. I got a relatively free graduate and post graduate education. I might be somebody who does not like the storage of my hard won data by an institution which might charge ?9000 a year tuition to over produce archaeology graduates. I personaly don?t mind working another ten years before claiming a pension to pay for graduate education but then I am more right wing than Thatcher. What little influence I have might come down to removing my data from their fine establishment. I dont know what happened in Nazi Germany but there is also the situation of working for a unit that you come to detest and they have got your name signed on numerous registers contexts presumably used to vouchsafe their wonderful universe. I would like to work in a situation where I might legitimately withhold my copyright. Not sure what that situation might be but I would like who ever it was who was selecting me to clean the site hut to take into consideration their treatment of me.

That the landowner is in the mix I think could also be in certain circumstance interesting. In my short career I have lost count of how many treaties, directives, acts of parliament, policy guidance and local interpretations there have been that have attempted to define archaeology and affect my work. Virtually none of them have been seriously tested. I can think of the example of CPO access to landowners land in order to make an assessment for an environmental statement. I see this in terms of copyright and I would advise any victims to ask that their copyright be stated from the outset. The National trust does.