In science art, an image may have relevancy for 50 years or more. If you were paid to produce it on
someone else's dime (fully paid for your work time as if you were getting a salary) then it might be
their problem to protect the future value of that image. But if you invest $5000 of your work time
for an image you know you can only ask $1500 a specific instance of use, then you have an investment
in that image you need to try and recoup by selling it to other customers to other uses. You then
need to protect your image from theft and license it, possibly for the life of copyright protection.
US copyright law already does not make it easy to manage this, and there are attempts to make it
even harder/more expensive to protect/enforce your investment.
On 8/26/17 3:56 PM, Dwaine Best wrote:
> Hi Britt,
> I have put a lot of thought into the subject, but maybe not into my
> rant. I make my living creating scenic art, which is highly
> collaborative and which is typically thrown into a dumpster after a
> month on view. Very hard to steal something of that nature, yet we
> have had frauds who show us their portfolio with photos of our work in
> it which they claim as their own! Well, there's no hiring them, and
> the the community is small enough to quickly spread the news. I don't
> do the work for free, ever. So, I see your point clearly.
> Anything I code is usually for the benefit of others and is focused on
> science and open source implementations. Which is why I'm curious what
> Science Illustration needs protection from. I don't know how well
> Python interacts with Photoshop but it's worth a look. Thanks for the
> Cheers, Dwaine
Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at