13th April 2011, 09:34 AM
Marcus Brody Wrote: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. ...
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.
Excellent observations. Copyright is fairly straightforward. I'm not a laywer but I have worked on the issue regarding copyright in other situations where people have lost a great deal of money through the illegal copying and uploading of copyrighted material to sub-rosa file-sharing sites. It's a huge problem for people such as musicians whose CDs are 'shared' or DVDs which are copied and 'shared' illegally. It's a big problem, and it is important that a copyright holder be given the chance to determine what happens to items to which they hold copyright. That doesn't always mean there is money exchanged for access to the copyrighted information BUT it does mean that it is the choice of the copyright holder how the access is determined. If they don't want their information accessible other than by physical, printed materials accessible only through a library or other physical resource that's their right.
Unitof1 seems to think that diggers are oppressed, which may be true, I can't say as I'm not an archaeologist, but they work according to their contract conditions and those generally include the clause you mentioned, where copyright belongs to the employer.
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.