Freelance paleoartist, researcher and author Gregory Paul has recently issued what amounts to a Cease and Desist to illustrators making use of his skeletal restorations of dinosaurs in paid projects. Paul argues that when other artists use his reconstructions,”often but not always the result is that other’s work possesses the ‘Greg Paul look”, and that this is a violation of copyright which has hindered his ability to secure commissions. Paul’s statement can be seen here, with rebuttals here, and here. I would also encourage reading the thoughtful responses to the issue by artists and others in the paleontological community on the DML archives.
-
Torvosaurus by Gregory Paul. Image borrowed from http://www.kheper.net.
Gregory Paul is of course one of the most influential individuals working on dinosaurs today. His work, particularly in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, is probably the most frequently cited inspiration in my generation of paleophiles (perhaps because it isn’t cool to say Jurassic Park anymore). In particular, his series of intensively researched skeletal restorations (representing virtually every dinosaur known from sufficient material) are ubiquitous resources for paleontologists, and are a beloved resource among professional and hobbyist dinosaur artists. Even when his reconstructions are not directly utilized, the white-bones-on-black-outline presentation and one-foot-raised posture (see above) created by Paul have become an unofficial standard.
Now Paul is telling us that playtime is over. He has stated in no uncertain terms that creating dinosaur art based on his reconstructions without his consent and compensation is a copyright violation. The skeletal restorations require extensive research, travel to collections, original photography, and cross-scaling (which I won’t pretend to understand). Moreover, Paul has stated that other artists need to start doing the same, personally researching every dinosaur illustrated from the ground up, rather than relying disproportionately on his work.
I think Paul makes many fair points. In particular, the practice of producing uncredited Gregory Paul knockoffs at low prices is problematic, and his financial concerns are valid. Paul is in a (as far as I know) unique position among individuals producing quality paleontological restorations in that he does not have a university or museum position; his art is his business and livelihood, a fact which should be respected.
- Giraffatitan and Ceratosaurus by Gregory Paul. Image borrowed from http://sodinossauros.blogspot.com.
Nevertheless, although I have complete sympathy for Paul’s predicament, I do have to take issue with some of his arguments, explained below.
1. I am concerned that Paul has framed the argument by defining paleoart as a commercial commodity, and not as art or science. Everybody needs to make a living and romanticized ideals only get you so far, but science (and art) is all about sharing. By performing and publishing research, a scientist is providing her community and society with knowledge. Scientists continue to make new discoveries and continue to illustrate the many fascinating facets of the universe around us. As I see it, that is the point of science, but when you say, “this information that I discovered is mine, and only I can use it and built on it,” science becomes a business enterprise. We’ve already seen some of the complications of copyrighting genes. Do we really want to extend that to other fields? Paul’s situation is a little different because he is individually responsible for the majority of useful dinosaur skeletal restorations available. The principle, however, should be the same: when research is published, the knowledge gained from it becomes a shared commodity that others can learn from and expand on.
2. In his second rebuttal, Paul addresses the “slippery slope” that if skeletal drawings are off limits, than perhaps published photographs, measurements or even museum mounts could be as well. Paul argues that this is irrelevant because no scientist would object to others making use of their work when conducting further research. This seems like a completely inadequate excuse, because it gives Paul’s work special status that he is not extending to other researchers. The question remains that if one person objects to other scientists making use on their research, than what happens if others follow suit? The entire scientific process would grind to a halt.
3. Paul argues that he was key in establishing the “new look” of dinosaurs in the 1970s and 80s. What he means by “new look”, however, is not clear. Paul’s artwork and research was absolutely central in the transformation of our understanding of dinosaurs from slow, dim-witted monsters to active and socially complex animals (the work of Robert Bakker, John Ostrom, and, undeniably, the artists involved in Jurassic Park were also important). However, if Paul is attempting to claim some ownership of the fact that dinosaurs were, on the whole, fleet-footed and active animals, that seems as unreasonable as James Watson and Francis Crick claiming ownership of the fact that DNA is a double helix (oh wait…). If however, Paul is merely referring to the many artists who’s dinosaur depictions end up with the same emaciated, two-dimensional, dynamic-but-lifeless look of Paul’s, than this is a valid criticism. I hope to find clarification before jumping to conclusions about Paul trying to copyright scientific facts that he happens to have popularized.
Quetzalcoatlus and Daspletosaurus by Gregory Paul. Image borrowed from http://blogevolved.blogspot.com.
Finally, I found what I interpreted to be an attempt to discourage up-and-coming paleoartists from joining the field to be extremely off-putting.
If you are thinking that gee wiz doing your own technical research and restorations sure sounds like a pain in the butt, or may be beyond your knowledge base, and you don’t want to risk doing inaccurate restorations or do not think paying me a fee is workable, then there is another alternative. Perhaps it is better if you do something else. I know, it’s lots of fun illustrating dinosaurs. But if you cannot produce high quality, original paleorestorations is it really a good idea to be in the business? If you for example like the Greg Paul look do you really want to be underbidding me? Does not make sense when you mull it over.
I read this as “this is my field, you will never be as good as me, so don’t even try.” Well gee wiz Mr. Paul, isn’t that a nice thing to say to the legions of fans and admirers whose image of you ranges from “brilliant” to “godly.” Yes, Paul’s work is excellent, and few can duplicate it’s quality, but it doesn’t seem especially constructive to actively discourage others from working in the field.
This is a difficult issue, particularly because the economic factors probably have to weigh more heavily than ideological ones. I hope Mr. Paul’s statement gets wide circulation, and continues to inspire debate on what we should value about science.
EXTINCT MONSTERS 
Hwaet. You wanted my opinion, here goes:
I don’t think I’m interested in debating what we should value about science. What I find interesting here is that what we value about art and science are completely different. “Highly original research” is not original in the same way as “highly original art.” To be blunt, making awesome shit up in art (although not scientific illustration) is encouraged. Making awesome shit up in science. . . is not the idea.
This is why I think Gregory Paul’s song writer analogy is not a very useful one. The song writer presumably made up something original and marketable (other adjectives subject to taste). Greg Paul’s skeletal reconstructions are, as per their publishing history, research. That is, they have some basis in what it pleases us to call objective fact. Anything under the KT boundary is in the public domain.
Unfortunately, I think he’s fallen into a catch-22. If his skeletal reconstructions are, in fact, highly accurate, which isn’t the issue here, then any accurate illustration of a dinosaur will have what he calls the “Greg Paul look.” I noted in passing that he stands up for the accuracy of both his skeletal and muscular reconstructions.
If his reconstructions are proven inaccurate, then people will start illustrating dinosaurs using new models, and he’ll be able to prosecute people who continue ripping him off, saying, “you are not drawing dinosaurs-as-currently-scientifically-understood, you are drawing my dinosaurs. Stop with the fanart.”
He wants other artists to do their own reconstructions – from a scientific perspective, it’s always good to check the reproducibility of widely used data. Of course, it’s pretty thankless, and doesn’t pull in the grant money, but it’s how the community self-polices. But the artists he’s complaining about aren’t being unscientific, lazy shlubs (or if they are, that’s not his point). They’re doing their research – using previous publications, which is an entirely valid and common method of researching anything. And it is within the realms of reason to write to a researcher requesting access to unpublished data, if it is relevant to one’s work.
This is where we hit the “this information that I discovered is mine, and only I can use it and built[sic] on it” problem. Honestly, capitalism is a sucky system for rewarding this kind of innovation – major innovations have a tendency to escape their discoverers and go to the publicists. See also: Hark! A Vagrant!
It’s not that science is becoming a business enterprise. It’s that life is already a business enterprise. No pun on copyrighted genes intended. I may or may not have been reading a bunch of Jack London lately, and become steeped in early 20th century socialism. Jack London: so much more than White Fang. Ahem.
I don’t see this:
Angry Tesla’s face = bestever.
As this discussion progressed on the email list, my impression was that Paul ended up backpeddling toward the more useful solution you pointed out, namely the formation of a paleoartist group that would establish fair fees and the like. How this is different from the Guild of Natural Science Illustrators, which several prominent paleoartists belong to, isn’t yet clear.
I agree that since Paul has already firmly positioned his work in the realm of science rather than art (see his assorted publications), he doesn’t really have a case here. What I think obscures this is the fact that vert paleo is a rather teensy field. The number of publications and active workers is much smaller than, say, molecular biology. As a result, Paul’s skeletal reconstructions make up a pretty big chunk of the available research. For some genera, his reconstructions are the only scientifically useful ones that exist (Aside: Paul agrees that this is bad for science, but in the same breath asserts that his work is far and away the best available. Since he seems to be actively discouraging newcomers to the field, this is unhelpful). I guess it’s possible that the dearth of other reconstructions stems in part from entrenched complacency in relying on Paul’s stuff.
Let me just point out, as I have done about a gazillion times and never seem to get into the minds of the Paul groupies: Mr. Paul’s drawings are, whenever tested, NOT especially accurate, despite his claims. He seems to work off old publications a lot, which often contain insufficient data for his methods, and he sometimes lets preconceived notions get the better of him.
see http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app20090075.html
Hi Dr. Mallison, thanks for the post. I wouldn’t characterize myself as a GSP groupie so much as somebody who wants to phrase everything just so to avoid offense. You’ll have to let me know which is worse.
that’s entirely fine – you are essentially citing what GSP says. 🙂
Gregory Paul should be called out for starving his poor models. No! Wait! He claims accuracy in his restorations–many of which I personally love as art–but he ignores the fact that these animals had fat and skin and nerves and blood. Sorry, folks, but very seldom do bones stick out from flesh–horns excepted–with only a paint layer thin covering of skin. I admire GSP’s art and his work, and a lot of his science. But I’ve never copied anything he ever did, nor have I ever tried to make my dinosaur art imitate his.
And, thanks to his “I am the GOLD standard!” tirades, I am ecstatic that I didn’t!
Yeah, I think I’m more critical of Paul now than I was when I wrote this post (2 years ago…wow). Mostly because I’ve seen much more work by the up-and-coming paleoartists Paul has generally criticized as derivative. It’s not…work by newer artists is much more innovative and imaginative, and probably more accurate, than Paul has managed after a 3+ decade career.
See, a comment like this just sort of stinks of the ungratefulness that has made Paul kind of bitter. ‘It’s not [derivative]. Much more innovative and imaginative…’ Derivative is a pretty strong word, yes, but pretty much all these new guys coming up… their work would look totally different and less accurate (I’m pretty sure, I have no idea who you are referring to) if not for Paul’s work, esp in the 70’s and 80’s. So they do likely owe a debt to Paul and others before them and on some level there is a derivative aspect to what they are up to. That’s science–you stand on others’ shoulders. Paul did too.
I guess part of why I’m even being a little brassy here is because you aren’t backing any of this up so it feels like a snap judgement. I’d love to hear names of these new guys you hold in such high esteem or even see pictures of their work. ‘Probably more accurate than Paul has managed after a 3+ decade career.’ This claim is pretty hard to buy on face value, but even if one does, that’s not really what it’s about. Obviously Paul did great work for decades and raised the whole waterline of reconstructions, paleoart and paleontology. What is the purpose of denigrating that contribution or acting as though just because theoretically someone younger has reached a higher level of accuracy that all steps up the ladder Paul took are unimportant? I doubt that these new artists are at an explosion point like the one Paul helped spearhead. The jump in quality from tail dragging swamp lizards to athletic, lean, taut, complex, sometimes feathered and possibly warm-blooded creatures during the 70’s and 80’s is likely more dramatic an improvement than what we are seeing today. That’s OK, and strides continue to be made every day. To be frank, I’ll believe this more accurate, imaginative, and innovative work when I see it, which I’d love to!
Forgive me, I haven’t thought about this in awhile (my original posts and the DML thread are from 2011). I think you and I are coming to the same point from different perspectives. As you say, there is a “derivative aspect” to science because “you stand on others’ shoulders.” I think you’re absolutely right, and that is why Paul put himself in an unwinnable position when he picked this fight all those years ago. Those skeletal diagrams were presented to the word as research and data, and data is something that is used and built upon. And he criticized artists for doing just that: building on the existing data, which included his illustrations.
Happily, we’ve moved beyond the world where there’s one leading paleoartist who defines how we all visualize the past. Even within the framework provided by fossil evidence, there are still many possible interpretations. Art is never going to be 100% correct without actually seeing the extinct animals in person.
That said, in the last few years Brian Engh, Emily Willoughby, and Mark Witton have been responsible for the majority of my “wow!” moments when looking at paleoart. I highly recommend checking them out. 🙂
Wow, I know I am 5 years late to this post, so maybe no one will see it, but I hadn’t heard about Paul attacking other artists so vehemently. I think I agree with all the objections to Paul’s arguments, though I would agree with him that it seems problematic for artists striving for scientific accuracy not to do original research. What’s interesting to me, as someone merely with an intellectual interest in prehistoric animals (neither a scientist nor an artist), are the criticisms of his art as inaccurate and lacking a more life-like aspect. His artwork is beautiful in many ways, but I always did find it a bit “wodden” or geometrical-looking. I always thought that must just be my un-scientific/un-artistic eye misjudging it. Glad to have that confirmed. I still admire him as an artist and researcher, and his “Field Guide” is breathtaking in its comprehensiveness. But I’m glad to know I wasn’t alone in being critical.
I’m very late to the show here but a couple of things to point out. One, Paul is kinda a cranky guy for obvious reasons, but his point about up and coming professional paleoartists is totally valid. Indeed, if you cannot pay for use of other quality research and cannot conduct your own, you should not be in that field. Makes total sense to me. He could say it nicer, but he’s not discouraging paleoartists, rather discouraging bad ones. Second, there is some chatter here that Pauls reconstructions are too skinny. In this criticism I heard no scientific support whatsoever. Personally, I think T rex for instance, is usually reconstructed too heavy. This animal had to be quick and athletic enough to chase down triceratops and duck bills. If creatures of this size were to heavily built quick movement and even basic functions would be too difficult. Further, Paul is a paleontologist first. As an artist he’s head and shoulders above anyone with his paleontology chops. But he does have a graphic, tight, illustrative style that lacks every scale detail. As an artist he has limits. However, his accuracy and imagination in reconstructions and even the natural settings he places his animals in is elite. He also has a compositional sense and knack for romantic details such as clouds that is really unique in paleoart. He ‘puts you there’ in a way no other artist does when he’s at his best, even with some formal limitations, artistically. It’s also pretty condescending to refer to people who respect and enjoy Paul’s work as groupies. The fact remains that he’s contributed greatly to paleontology and paleoart, in the case of Dino reconstructions and paleoart, perhaps more than any single person. Perhaps Paul is now past his peak, but I’ve yet to see a new dominant paleoartist poised to take the throne. Feel free to share images of great up and coming paleoart…