27th April 2011, 05:27 PM
The point I was trying to make was that if, as individual archaeologists, we suddenly acquire the right to copyright the information we generate through our work regardless of whether we work for ourselves or an employer (which is what you seem to be indicating) how would such a change be reflected in the wider work, hence the example of the sound engineer who works for a record label acquiring copyright to a song written and performed by someone else. Or the publisher, commissioned by an author to publish his book acquiring through the act of publication, copyright to the author's work.
But on a practical level...if you have a group of archaeologists, working for a company, yet each having the right to the copyright of the information they have recorded - what happens when one of them decides not to give consent to his/her context records being utilised for the publication of the site?
Who acquires copyright to the images created for the report - the field archaeologist who drew up the section drawing, or the illustrator who produced the report figure?
Who acquires copyright to the context record? The field archaeologist who picked out some key words from a pre-determined selection (learned through experience) and ticked a few boxes - or the office Jonny who spent hours inputting the records into the database?
Who owns the copyright to the original design of the context record form? Who takes ownership of the design for the database?
What you seem to be proposing - that we all as individuals, regardless of our employment status, take ownership/control of the copyright of the information we create (textual and/or visual) and somehow use this as a bargaining chip is both naive and irresponsible.
Under the present situation, you, as an independent archaeological contractor, have far more control over the information you create from your work than I do, including copyright.
However, I accept the current legislation and see no need to change it - perhaps, because I understand it.
But on a practical level...if you have a group of archaeologists, working for a company, yet each having the right to the copyright of the information they have recorded - what happens when one of them decides not to give consent to his/her context records being utilised for the publication of the site?
Who acquires copyright to the images created for the report - the field archaeologist who drew up the section drawing, or the illustrator who produced the report figure?
Who acquires copyright to the context record? The field archaeologist who picked out some key words from a pre-determined selection (learned through experience) and ticked a few boxes - or the office Jonny who spent hours inputting the records into the database?
Who owns the copyright to the original design of the context record form? Who takes ownership of the design for the database?
What you seem to be proposing - that we all as individuals, regardless of our employment status, take ownership/control of the copyright of the information we create (textual and/or visual) and somehow use this as a bargaining chip is both naive and irresponsible.
Under the present situation, you, as an independent archaeological contractor, have far more control over the information you create from your work than I do, including copyright.
However, I accept the current legislation and see no need to change it - perhaps, because I understand it.
ShadowJack