26th July 2012, 11:11 AM
To my mind there are two related bleats here that happen with all public development schemes
The first is that the "landowner" is also the developer and also the curator - but presumably the ownership of the land was gained for the scheme under legistration which has the potential threat of compulsary purchase? What I have always argued is that the "original" landowner should be compensated for the loss of their archaeology or if you like for having preserved the archaeology when it was in their possesion....and one way to assertaine this value is to agree the cost of production...eg the the cost of excavation and conservation. You might find then that the curator would have to be seen to be seperate from the developer and that everybody so far has been doing archaeology for half price..
the second is who owns this archaeology and we may as well chuck copyright into that as well. It appears that someone could be dismissed from this digging team due to the dissemination of images. You will find that the ifa is total wank on who owns the record and has never once protected the copyright of the archaeologist. They will do this by claiming that the person is not "the" archaeologist that used to be mentioned in their codes but who are being replaced raos or other convienient contrivances.
The first is that the "landowner" is also the developer and also the curator - but presumably the ownership of the land was gained for the scheme under legistration which has the potential threat of compulsary purchase? What I have always argued is that the "original" landowner should be compensated for the loss of their archaeology or if you like for having preserved the archaeology when it was in their possesion....and one way to assertaine this value is to agree the cost of production...eg the the cost of excavation and conservation. You might find then that the curator would have to be seen to be seperate from the developer and that everybody so far has been doing archaeology for half price..
the second is who owns this archaeology and we may as well chuck copyright into that as well. It appears that someone could be dismissed from this digging team due to the dissemination of images. You will find that the ifa is total wank on who owns the record and has never once protected the copyright of the archaeologist. They will do this by claiming that the person is not "the" archaeologist that used to be mentioned in their codes but who are being replaced raos or other convienient contrivances.
Reason: your past is my past