Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[mpoole]

I think diggers should purely see what they produce as copyright (made to see actually).

You keep using the term copyright as if it's a fixed and tangible thing. It's a right to control the reproduction/copying/etc of something you have produced. What a digger produces may be information that once put into a fixed form of some sort as noted in another post such as photographs or writing carries a copyright, but that copyright isn't necessarily theirs as also stated. Work produced when employed by a company normally belongs to them, and so does the copyright to the work.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]The document appears to make it clear that via a director institute professor that the University of York wants a non exclusive licence from me. Without it they will not make available my reports over the ether. Don’t worry as an expert in watching briefs for extensions for little old ladies (I like to yodel the last part) the world is not missing anything and in fact I have uploaded reports to the university. But they want my signature. And I am still thinking about it. might I like a specific clause that if at any time I want and for what ever reason I can remove from their university and all its whatevers all and every copy of my documents?

Erm, that's the point of the non-exclusive license. You're simply giving them permission to distribute your copyrighted material, but you are retaining the copyright so you can certainly cancel the license you've given them. You haven't signed your copyright over, merely given them permission to distribute the material.

Now, IANAL, but neither, it seems are you. I'd check carefully to see if you're insisting on a clause that's simply a reiteration of what's already in the agreement.

As for the online availability of grey literature, etc, it's probably being distributed under a license such as the one you are being asked to sign. I doubt they're making a 'living' out of making such things accessible, but you can ask them, and then you'd know rather than making assumptions.

-Su

[Unitof1]

Shadow jack can you explain why you don’t think that a context sheet is copyright material?

Mpoole IANAL ? So you think that I should sign then?

[mpoole]

IANAL - old geekspeak for I am not a lawyer

I think you should do what you feel is right, but I think you should also learn a bit more about copyright.

[ShadowJack]

Shadow jack can you explain why you don’t think that a context sheet is copyright material?

Under the act, short phrases, names, descriptive terms are not generally concidered unique or substantial enough to be covered.

But it is an interesting area - each context record is (or should be) a unique record (literary piece of work?) which can be seen with others to form a database - which under the act:

Databases
(1)In this Part “database” means a collection of independent works, data or other materials which—
(a)are arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and
(b)are individually accessible by electronic or other means.
(2)For the purposes of this Part a literary work consisting of a database is original if, and only if, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents of the database the database constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation

But.....are context records the author's own intellectual creation - or a record of imperical observations?

:face-huh:

[Unitof1]

I am surprised Shadow, well no I am not because this is how deeply exploited the diggers copyright is. This is why the attitude is that everybody is an archaeologist because archaeology is just digging. Yet you dont fail to see that a photograph that you find laying around probably has copyright even if nowhere on the photograph you find any mention of it. You are also aware how this can be overlooked and also know that in some environments infringement of copyright is a very serious crime. The copyright is generated from taking the picture. Any statement about archaeology made by an archaeologist is intrinsically copyrighted. Plans, graphics, photographs, context sheets. The first battle of copyright which is not mentioned is that of the landowner. It is theirs primarily and negotiated to an archaeologist when the field archaeologists is invited on to the land.

Maybe I should go at this from a different way. Can I say that all my context sheets are copyright to me and expect that to be legaly recognised?

mplool so you think that I should first learn something about copyright before I sign?

[Martin Locock]

The landowner does not have any rights over the copyright of record and photographs: the default position is that copyright belongs to the individual or organisation creating the text or image (and if an employee's contract is silent on the subject, then the employer owns the copyright). Bodies which commission archaeological works may require that all copyright is transferred to them, so it is possibelf or the landowner toe nd up owing the rights, but that it not automatic.

Copyright in the UK is automatic and requires no registration or marking, and therefore your context sheet descriptions are your copyright. Of course it is easier to administer copyright if it is clear who the author i. However copyright applied to the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, and so only a description quoted verbatim might be protected. Summarisation of information into another form is permissible without the need for copyright licence from the creator, but attribution IS required.

[Dinosaur]

Can someone explain to me how, despite grey literature reports having been submitted to an HER and therefore placed in the 'public domain' and theoretically useable by all, at least one HER I use occasionally will not permit any photocopying whatsoever of any such material unless you turn up with a letter autographed by the original author (although we've always suspected that the reputedly hived-off-and-in-no-way-connected-whatsoever digging unit 'formerly' connected with that council has free run of the same material...) - having to produce DBAs based on a bit of a sketch of the original plan of what was dug in the other half of the same field isn't really satisfactory, particularly when they've then got to be passed by the same organisation that's done everything possible to prevent you getting the info in the first place !

....although luckily they're absolutely cr*p at searching people for digital cameras and then leaving them alone with the material for hours....}

[Martin Locock]

the grey literature reports are in the public domain in the sense that they are accessible to the public: this does not mean that they are free of copyright restrictions so can be copied at will. Therefore a HER can show you a report, but they are correct to say that you, and they, cannot copy it without permission of the rights holder.

There are some exceptions which allow copying for specific purposes, but archaeologists in the course of their business do not qualify.

In your example you could trace the plan and then redraw it on your own base map for your report.

[mpoole]

mplool so you think that I should first learn something about copyright before I sign?

Yes, you haven't shown me anything which indicates you have a genuine grasp of the topic. You are pretty good at repeating things you've read but you need comprehension too, because that's the part that counts. The monkeys and typewriters can (potentially) create anything but they don't understand what's on the sheet in front of them, it could be Shakespeare or it could be Barbara Cartland, only paying attention to what's on the page gives real meaning to what's being discussed. You still insist on using the term copyright as if it's a physical and palpable construct, rather than a concept.

Any photograph is a copyrighted piece of work, copyright exists at the moment of creation, it is not a legal requirement to place copyright notices on photographs to have a copyright BUT and it's the one you keep ignoring, the copyright isn't always that of the creator of the item because terms of employment can affect that. Photographs taken during a dig by a person/digger/photographer who is working for a company doing the archaeological work are most often the property of the company, and therefore the company will be the copyright holder. A digger won't have any copyright in items they are producing for an employer, if the terms of their employment state that all 'work product' is property of the company. Please don't use blanket statements when they don't apply.

I am also amused at your insistence that copyright belongs to the landowner. What copyrighted materials do they possess? Is their contract with the company doing the work one that states that all copyrighted materials produced by the company belong to the landowner? Contracts are a very important part of the issue of copyright ownership and any company entering into work for a landowner will have contracts in place that cover not only what rights belong to the landowner, but also to the company doing the work.

You DID ask.

I would point out that my name isn't mplool, which is a tiny bit of detail but it is something indicative of how closely the information in front of you is processed.

[Unitof1]

You are right mpoole non grasp of the topic but am sure that I am not good at the reading.

it is possibelf or the landowner toe nd up owing the rights, but that it not automatic

the landowner can say I want the copyright to any archaeology undertaken on their land that fact that the condition is placed upon their planning consent and they are the commissioning party might start looking like it should be automatic unless otherwise stated.


Can we all agree that all archaeological products, graphics context sheets photographs could be copyright to a digger?