Re: Use of paleoart in scientific publications.

["Andrew A. Farke" <afarke@gmail.com>]

On 03/12/2011 08:57 AM, White, Rich wrote:
> Legal action currently underway may well end up defining preparation of verebrate fossils 
> as "copyrightable" work.  Casts are already copyrightable.  That being the 
> case, then the holders of the copyright on preparation of vertebrate fossils, whether the 
> actual preparator or his or her institution, should NOT allow commercial illustrators to 
> measure, view, photograph or otherwise use those bones/skeletons for their work, which 
> they will sell for a profit.  The artist should have to pay for every bone they view.  
> Many museums already prohibit the photographing of their fossils for commerical use 
> without a contract and payment.  That could easily be extended to artists and 
> illustrators as well.

Somewhat tangential question (and probably most relevant to readers from 
the USA). . .how do / how should restrictions on specimen use affect 
specimens that don't belong to museums? - i.e., the vast number of 
specimens collected on federal lands that are owned by the American 
people. I am aware of commercial photography permits required for work 
on federal lands, but things get very vague once the fossils enter the 
museum doors (as far as I know). I've never really seen anything 
relevant in the fossil permit regulations (other than that the fossils 
are forever the property of the USA), either. Is it legal for a museum 
to charge a fee to photograph fossils that don't belong to them? Or as 
more commonly seen, is it legal for a museum to place restrictions on 
the usage of photographs of fossils that don't belong to them? (of 
course, I would also note that just because something is allowed by law 
doesn't mean it's ethical)

On 03/12/2011 07:33 AM, Heinrich Mallison wrote:
> Mr. Paul,
>
> Please, read the copyright statements - usually, all rights are
> transferred to either the publisher or a society. Take, e.g., your own
> paper in Cretaceous Research on iguanodont taxonomy: (c) is with
> Elsevier, not you. Your 1984 JVP segnoaurs paper? (c) SVP, not you.
> There are ways to retain copyright, and journals are usually willing
> to let you keep it for illustrations, if you give a reason.

Heinrich has a very good point here. . .most of us authors (and 
illustrators) read and sign copyright statements without really thinking 
about what it means (ethically, legally, and professionally). All 
journals (even open access ones like the PLoS journals) have a set of 
loopholes, clauses, and quirks in their copyright/licensing forms, all 
of which have positive OR negative consequences.

Andy