24th April 2011, 11:26 AM
Thanks to all for being patient with the child that is Uo1.
I am happy to let this thread run its course, as there is quite a bit of information within it, from the grown ups whose knowledge and experience does make a difference.
I know one illustrator that for his reconstructions, retains copyright. Thus, the charge is for the piece of work to be used for a specific purpose ( say an interpretation board) if they (the client) want to create postcards, they would have to pay again... OR could buy the copyright straight off. thought this may be expensive in the short term, being judged on what the drawing may produce in revenue in later years.
As an illustrator, without a specific agreement to the ownership of my work.. they remain my copyright. THe payment received is for the specific work I was contracted to do. Others wish to fully 'own' my work. in which case I have to judge whether the remuneration recompenses ...
AS to charging for bibliographic references... I guess you may be quite alone there. and with the batty weirdness about the outrage that others may read your work and reference it... I would not be too worried. !
Seriously though, the way it works is that you get to reference their work. There is also a custom called fair usage. This is something that in teh internet age however is going by the wayside.
Many websites tart themselves up as news sites for example, but just copy and paste from news producers. slap a few adverts on and don't forget to put some copyrighted images and photographs. That is real copyright theft... not this concept that somebody reading your report without payment is somehow robbing you of a hefty royalties fee.
:face-huh:
I am happy to let this thread run its course, as there is quite a bit of information within it, from the grown ups whose knowledge and experience does make a difference.
I know one illustrator that for his reconstructions, retains copyright. Thus, the charge is for the piece of work to be used for a specific purpose ( say an interpretation board) if they (the client) want to create postcards, they would have to pay again... OR could buy the copyright straight off. thought this may be expensive in the short term, being judged on what the drawing may produce in revenue in later years.
As an illustrator, without a specific agreement to the ownership of my work.. they remain my copyright. THe payment received is for the specific work I was contracted to do. Others wish to fully 'own' my work. in which case I have to judge whether the remuneration recompenses ...
AS to charging for bibliographic references... I guess you may be quite alone there. and with the batty weirdness about the outrage that others may read your work and reference it... I would not be too worried. !
Seriously though, the way it works is that you get to reference their work. There is also a custom called fair usage. This is something that in teh internet age however is going by the wayside.
Many websites tart themselves up as news sites for example, but just copy and paste from news producers. slap a few adverts on and don't forget to put some copyrighted images and photographs. That is real copyright theft... not this concept that somebody reading your report without payment is somehow robbing you of a hefty royalties fee.
:face-huh: