Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]I think that you think that the fact that diggers in the 1970s wrote context sheets and drew plans on site allows them to benefit (perhaps financially) from subsequent publication -is that what you mean?

Lets call them the Greenwells[/SIZE]

As I understand from dinos post there is some kind of site report/archive grey literature but the director/author and diggers are whereabouts unknown. I presume that from the Greenwells point of view they did enough at the time in whatever circumstances to ensure the preservation of the record. Dino currently would like to use what ever it is that he has in some other body of work. He calls it “publish properly”. He could just publish and be dammed and possibly cite the ifas codes that say

[SIZE=3]4.4 A member is responsible for the analysis and publication
of data derived from projects under his/her control. While
The member exercises this responsibility he/she shall
enjoy consequent rights of primacy. However, failure to
prepare or publish the results within 10 years of
completion of the fieldwork shall be construed as a
waiver of such rights, unless such failure can reasonably
be attributed to circumstances beyond the member’s
control.

Note:
It is accepted that the movement of archaeologists
from one employment to another raises problems of
responsibility for the publication of projects. This
ultimate responsibility for publication of a piece of
work must be determined either by the contract of
employment through which the work was undertaken,
or by agreement with the original promoter of the
work. It is the responsibility of The member, either as
employer or employee, to establish a satisfactory
agreement on this issue at the outset of work.
[/SIZE]

Which possibly is not that helpful- and Dino, and it appears the ifa, is also aware of copyright through

[SIZE=3]4.3 A member shall honour requests from colleagues or
students for information on the results of research or
projects if consistent with his/her prior rights to
publication and with his/her other archaeological
responsibilities.

Note:
Archaeologists receiving such information shall
observe such prior rights, remembering that laws of
copyright may also apply.
[/SIZE]

Now a question I am asking is why should the Greenwells care? They cared enough at the time? Possibly it was a “rescue” situation or an academic adventure.

But Dino should still care (the note 4.3) because there is such a thing as copyright and it just might apply particularly if the Greenwells or their descendants care to inquire. From the likes of mrpole it appears that copyright is “a vested right that exists at the moment of creation” and lasts for seventy years after creation. Maybe if the Greenwells had thought that there was a bit of inheritance in it their descendants might have been an insisting part of the preservation by record.

Now we have a legally enforced copyright system recognised pretty much world wide which we might do well to use. Copyright may very well define what it is that is produced on a site and formalise how the data generated from commercial field archaeology might be subsequently used or licensed. That financially it might come down to a few pence I don’t think should matter. Maybe what I really want to complain about is the 70 years bit because when I preserve a record I am supposed to try and make sure that it lasts for ever. One method of preservation is by dissemination and that in web language is a longtail and that is a longtail for a long time.

And prentice
Possibly it is development which ruins archaeology and it is they the polluters that will pay for it. Do you not want to pay your fellow archaeologists their dues? Do you want HERs to be compulsory?