13th April 2011, 09:22 AM
I hesitate to attempt this, but what I think Unit of 1 is saying is that he considers primary site records produced by diggers to be copyright material, and that by retaining this copyright, diggers would be able to make money by charging for access and use. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't comment on whether this is correct or not (though my feeling is that this interpretation may be wrong). Even if this interpretation is correct, however, I don't see how this would prevent the use of this primary material in the production of derived material such as a data structure or publication report. The person writing the report wouldn't be reproducing the context sheet word-for-word, but rather would be synthesizing all the primary records to produce a document derived from the various sources. As I understand it, there's not an issue with reading something (whether this is a book or a context sheet) and then making used of this information - after all, surely this is the basic mechanism by which knowledge is transmitted!
I suppose it's possible that Unit may be arguing that a digger should hold onto his or her paper context sheets, and not turn them over to the company until some form of licence has been agreed, together with an appropriate fee for access to the documents. Again, my understanding is that copyright applies to the information itself rather than the physical form in which this information is held, so (to reduce it to a ridiculous level) the company could argue that they provided the digger with the paper context sheets or permatrace, therefore they're entitled to hold onto these and consult them as needed as a source of derived data for use in report production.
It's also possible that Unit may be correct in terms of his own personal circumstance. I don't know for sure, but from his various comments, it sounds like he's a sole trader who produces his own reports. In his case, it seems logical that the copyright on the reports would reside with him, as would be the case for any commercial unit. I'm not convinced that it necessarily follows that the same model applies for diggers employed by a company, however. I'm pretty sure that every contract I've signed has stated that the copyright on work produced when working for a firm resides with the company. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know, but it seems fairly clear cut to me that if you don't agree with this and want to argue for retention of copyright, you simply don't sign the contract.
I suppose it's possible that Unit may be arguing that a digger should hold onto his or her paper context sheets, and not turn them over to the company until some form of licence has been agreed, together with an appropriate fee for access to the documents. Again, my understanding is that copyright applies to the information itself rather than the physical form in which this information is held, so (to reduce it to a ridiculous level) the company could argue that they provided the digger with the paper context sheets or permatrace, therefore they're entitled to hold onto these and consult them as needed as a source of derived data for use in report production.
It's also possible that Unit may be correct in terms of his own personal circumstance. I don't know for sure, but from his various comments, it sounds like he's a sole trader who produces his own reports. In his case, it seems logical that the copyright on the reports would reside with him, as would be the case for any commercial unit. I'm not convinced that it necessarily follows that the same model applies for diggers employed by a company, however. I'm pretty sure that every contract I've signed has stated that the copyright on work produced when working for a firm resides with the company. Whether this is right or wrong I don't know, but it seems fairly clear cut to me that if you don't agree with this and want to argue for retention of copyright, you simply don't sign the contract.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum