Copyright, Diggers and archaeology

[mpoole]

You don't preserve copyright, it is a vested right that exists at the moment of creation and here in the UK it lasts for anywhere up to 70 years AFTER THE DEATH of the holder of the copyright.

Now, as other people have suggested, you're flogging a dead chupacabra, which does no good as it's already dead. Please spend some time getting to grips with the concept of copyright as law before you post again. You know it makes sense.

[Unitof1]

You don't preserve copyright, it is a vested right that exists at the moment of creation and here in the UK it lasts for anywhere up to 70 years AFTER THE DEATH of the holder of the copyright.

Yes you are so right this is the very type of thing that the diggers need to know and how to use it. It makes sense you know. Feel free to post again.

[Martin Locock]

You seem to think that diggers can 'use copyright' if only they knew how in order to achieve something - could you clarify what you envisage?

I think that you think that the fact that diggers in the 1970s wrote context sheets and drew plans on site allows them to benefit (perhaps financially) from subsequent publication -is that what you mean?


Incidentally on your earlier comment about commercial archaeology ignoring copyright, I think that that attitude is outdated and I have seen many reports which are careful to clarify what rights apply to which parts of the content (OS maps, illustrations derived from other sources etc).

[P Prentice]

archaeologists, by defiinition, refer to the work of others at every stage of their work, whether it be filling out a context sheet or writing a report in any format you choose to mention. if they haven't, then in all likelyhood they are not doing archaeology - by definition. free and liberal reference to the work of others, with commensurate acknowledgement, is the mainstay of archaeological theory and practice and archaeology would be ruined without it

[ShadowJack]

by definition. free and liberal reference to the work of others, with commensurate acknowledgement, is the mainstay of archaeological theory and practice and archaeology would be ruined without it

...up to a point, this is covered by Section 30 of the act:

(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement [F1 and provided that the work has been made available to the public].

But I would draw the line at free and liberal reference - reproducing any maps/figures/photographs or entire chapters of a report, without permission - that would be seen as an infringement.

Presumably, this is why in the past some HER offices I've used have allowed you to photocopy a limited number of pages from a report, but not the entire report itself.

Interestingly, if we consider our work/reports as research, then under Section 29 (Fair Dealing and private research) we would be unable to include material from other reports when working for a client.

[Betts_Fan]

I'd just like to point out that I'm reading and enjoying this discussion, sadly... I can't really take part.

[Unitof1]

[SIZE=3]I think that you think that the fact that diggers in the 1970s wrote context sheets and drew plans on site allows them to benefit (perhaps financially) from subsequent publication -is that what you mean?

Lets call them the Greenwells[/SIZE]

As I understand from dinos post there is some kind of site report/archive grey literature but the director/author and diggers are whereabouts unknown. I presume that from the Greenwells point of view they did enough at the time in whatever circumstances to ensure the preservation of the record. Dino currently would like to use what ever it is that he has in some other body of work. He calls it “publish properly”. He could just publish and be dammed and possibly cite the ifas codes that say

[SIZE=3]4.4 A member is responsible for the analysis and publication
of data derived from projects under his/her control. While
The member exercises this responsibility he/she shall
enjoy consequent rights of primacy. However, failure to
prepare or publish the results within 10 years of
completion of the fieldwork shall be construed as a
waiver of such rights, unless such failure can reasonably
be attributed to circumstances beyond the member’s
control.

Note:
It is accepted that the movement of archaeologists
from one employment to another raises problems of
responsibility for the publication of projects. This
ultimate responsibility for publication of a piece of
work must be determined either by the contract of
employment through which the work was undertaken,
or by agreement with the original promoter of the
work. It is the responsibility of The member, either as
employer or employee, to establish a satisfactory
agreement on this issue at the outset of work.
[/SIZE]

Which possibly is not that helpful- and Dino, and it appears the ifa, is also aware of copyright through

[SIZE=3]4.3 A member shall honour requests from colleagues or
students for information on the results of research or
projects if consistent with his/her prior rights to
publication and with his/her other archaeological
responsibilities.

Note:
Archaeologists receiving such information shall
observe such prior rights, remembering that laws of
copyright may also apply.
[/SIZE]

Now a question I am asking is why should the Greenwells care? They cared enough at the time? Possibly it was a “rescue” situation or an academic adventure.

But Dino should still care (the note 4.3) because there is such a thing as copyright and it just might apply particularly if the Greenwells or their descendants care to inquire. From the likes of mrpole it appears that copyright is “a vested right that exists at the moment of creation” and lasts for seventy years after creation. Maybe if the Greenwells had thought that there was a bit of inheritance in it their descendants might have been an insisting part of the preservation by record.

Now we have a legally enforced copyright system recognised pretty much world wide which we might do well to use. Copyright may very well define what it is that is produced on a site and formalise how the data generated from commercial field archaeology might be subsequently used or licensed. That financially it might come down to a few pence I don’t think should matter. Maybe what I really want to complain about is the 70 years bit because when I preserve a record I am supposed to try and make sure that it lasts for ever. One method of preservation is by dissemination and that in web language is a longtail and that is a longtail for a long time.

And prentice
Possibly it is development which ruins archaeology and it is they the polluters that will pay for it. Do you not want to pay your fellow archaeologists their dues? Do you want HERs to be compulsory?

[P Prentice]

i dig sites, i write reports and i publish them in various formats. i am delighted when i see my work and my ideas referenced by other people in their reports because that is the point of being an archaeologist. generally people ask me if they can reproduce my drawings and photographs and i always consent because that is the point of being an archaeologist. if i see my work incorrectly acknowledged i am not happy and i will remonstrate with the offender and may even insist on a public retraction/apology.

sometimes in the course of my work i photocopy entire reports so that i can keep them for reference but i do not reproduce anything verbatum and nor do i reproduce a drawing or picture without either asking the author or acknowledging title in the caption

so sue me

[ShadowJack]

Completely agree and it's an attitude I know is shared with the numerous freelance specialists and illustrators I regularly contract out work to.

We like to call it 'having good manners' and respect for the work, dedication and skills of fellow archaeologists.

Lawsuits not required.

[Unitof1]

if i see my work incorrectly acknowledged i am not happy and i will remonstrate with the offender and may even insist on a public retraction/apology

Well done-and you are able to this on the grounds of copyright infringement. If it were not for the law of copyright your actions may well constitute assault. Your a natural copyright holder, alright