Re: Clarification of scope of paleoart->uses

[GSP1954@aol.com]

Simply do what I do when I do a skeletal restoration of a dinosaur whose 
skeleton has been previously restored. Do your own skeletal restoration. As I 
explained earlier, sometimes it looks like the previous restoration (except 
for limb pose), but the point is I went to the time and effort to get there. 
This applies to any publication venue. 

Which brings us back to the key point. Being derivative of other's work 
does not only get into ethical issues, it is unscientific. Remember, science is 
about reproducing and failing to reproduce results. Every time someone uses 
other's skeletons as the basis of their own efforts they are merely 
replicating past results without testing them. 

G Paul

In a message dated 3/15/11 8:08:08 PM, turtlecroc@yahoo.com writes:

<< Just for clarification, say I want to do a skeletal restoration 
of, say, Triceratops (which i do and have). I can do it for 
one of two basic reasons: to use in a book/poster/video I intend 
to sell for profit (directly or indirectly), or i can do it for 
a professional article. 

I assume your (Greg) objections to doing a derivative of one 
of your skeletal restorations applies only if the person is 
doing it for a book/poster/video they want to sell and *not* 
if they're doing it to include in a technical article..? (if 
this was answered in a previous post, i haven't had time to 
read them all yet.) 

Scientific research builds on previous research. I think most 
people consider your (Greg Paul's) work to be as much science 
as it is art. I think it's mostly or entirely science because 
there's not a whole lot of artistic license in reconstructing 
a dinosaur skeleton (i'm talking about your skeletal 
restorations now, not your other drawings and paintings). 
Unfortunately, you don't get any cash when someone uses (or 
derives) your work for an academic paper, although a note in 
the acknowledgements never hurts.  >>

</HTML>