*Let me start by saying that I have been sitting on and rewriting this post for nearly a week now. As the conversation has been taking place in e-mails and on the web, my opinions on the subject have been all over the place. But I finally feel that I have something to add the conversation, so here it goes.*
The only time I ever
met interacted with Greg Paul was at SVP in Pittsburgh in October 2011. I had picked up a copy of his new book, the somewhat controversial The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, and was thumbing through it, when a voice from behind said, "I hear it's terrible." As I turned around I said, "I don't know, I've always been a fan of his work." I nearly fell over when I realized it was Mr. Paul whom I was speaking with. My girlfriend, who was with me at the time, can attest to this fact. I was speechless for a few seconds, but in the end, I was glad to see that he was capable of having a laugh at himself, and I admired his dry wit as much as I admired his work.
For those of you who don't know Mr. Paul, he is a dinosaur illustrator and researcher who has been influential in establishing the "new look" of dinosaurs over the last several decades. He has published a number of books, scientific papers, magazine and newspaper articles, and illustration guides. He has also hand drawn an extensive collection of skeletal restorations, muscle studies, and life reconstructions that are unparalleled in their accuracy. As is indicated above, I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the work he has done over the years. But my opinion about him started to shift around
In the message, Paul starts by talking about a very real problem: blatant plagiarism of his work, people making money off of this plagiarism, and the fact that people selling ripped-off art undermines his ability to sell his own. The action of the offenders, as many have commented, is completely unacceptable. But things got a little stranger from there, as Paul started multiple other threads on the subject, asked people to stop posing their skeletal restorations in the same manner as his, and asked artists not use his work at all as reference material for anything they are working on. Other paleontologists and paleoartists quickly got involved in the conversation. The blogosphere then started to talk about it, with posts on the exchanges showing up on ART Evolved: Life's Time Capsule (twice), The Paleo King (twice), Love in the Time of Chasmosaurus (twice) , drip, and The Bite Stuff. It's even reached Scientific American at this point.
I tried to hold off on writing about the whole thing, as the conversation is taking place in multiple locations already. But there is something about what Paul has said that directly impacts me, and so I think I'll add one more voice, as small as it may be. And I do mean that. I am not a professional paleontologist, or a professional artist. I do not derive any income at all from my writing here, or the art I create. In fact, I'm almost hesitant to call myself a writer or an artist at all, despite the fact that I do write, and I do create art. I do both because I want to. But that doesn't mean that in the future, I wouldn't like to be monetarily compensated for my work, should I become proficient at either skill.
And this is where Greg Paul comes in. He has, unquestionably, inspired generations of paleoartists with his work. He also created an industry standard for skeletal restorations. Whether you know it or not, you've probably seen a piece by Greg Paul. He has published many of them in books, articles, and papers. He spends a great deal of time and energy on his work. His skeletals in particular are top notch, as Paul and others in the field fully acknowledge. I don't want to take that away from him (or any other professional paleoartist) in any way, shape, or form. And no one else should be able to get away with copying his work and calling it their own. But the "rules" he is imposing raise some serious questions for someone like myself who wants to draw a picture of a dinosaur, just for the sake of drawing it and expanding their knowledge and artistic ability.
I'll give you an example. Back during the month of October, ART Evolved hosted their "Pink Dinosaur" event. I drew a dinosaur every day for a month. Some of them were simple and cartoonish. Others were a bit more detailed. And again, even though I'm not trained as a paleoartist, I like to try and create images that are (as) accurate (as I am capable of making them). I used a reference image, be it a photo of mine, a skeletal from a paper, or an image from Wikimedia Commons, for most of the pieces I did. And I made note of the specimen, figure, or paper that I got my reference from. With my Balaur bondoc, I referenced and used a skeletal restoration from the PNAS article. For my Anchiornis huxleyi, I didn't use a skeletal reference, but I did use information from the Science article that described the color and patterns present in this animals feathers. In both situations, I used a peer-reviewed, scientific article to assist in my life reconstruction. I just used different data from each. Before last week, I wouldn't have thought anything about it. The articles were produced to communicate and share scientific knowledge. I used that knowledge to make amateur reconstructions. That's ok, right?
According to Greg Paul, no. Well, let me clarify. Had the papers or images been his, it wouldn't have been ok to use them. I think. His basic points in his initial e-mail are that he wants anyone working on a reconstruction to not use any of his work as a reference, and do all of the research for themselves. That is, go to a museum collection, photograph specimens, dig through papers, scale skeletal elements, and create a unique skeletal restoration (not to be posed in the same style as his either), upon which they should then wrap the muscle and skin to create a unique piece of art. I'm not opposed to that, at all. And if I had access to collections and papers, I would be totally for it. In fact, I'd love it. That being said, am I doing something inherently wrong by using skeletals that come from journal articles if they are the only sources I have access to? Especially if what I am doing is not for commercial gain, and I don't stand to compete with anyone in the paleoart market?
If "of course not" is your answer to that question, let me take it a step further. Would it be unthinkable for me to reference skeletal restorations that Greg Paul has published in articles in peer-reviewed journals or volumes as references? Not copy them or call them my own, but use them as a basis, with permission from and/or credit to their creator, for my work? What about books, like Predatory Dinosaurs of the World or Dinosaurs of the Air? Paul has made a point to say that his skeletal restorations, muscle studies, and life reconstructions featured in the The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs are copyrighted. And out of respect for his very clear wishes, I guess I won't ever be using any of them as a basis for my own reconstructions. That's too bad, because I've purchased many of Paul's books specifically to gain access to his restorations, which I consider of the highest caliber. I have paid money, a portion of which I imagine he receives, in order to gain this access. Just like I pay for SVP membership to access the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. He has created what he calls a "uniquely extensive library of detailed skeletal restorations that are exceptionally proportionally accurate in most cases". Scientifically accurate skeletal restorations, pure and simple. And they most certainly are. Should that not, then, mean that they are part of a body of scientific knowledge, which should be accessible to those interested in the field. Should his research not be used, referenced, and built upon?
I really don't know anymore. I have a copy of Ken Carpenter's Carnivorous Dinosaurs on my shelf. And I used an article in it, by Greg Paul, as a reference for a reconstruction and a post I did on Therizinosaurus about a year ago when Art Evolved put up their "Therizinosaur Gallery". I didn't use his skeletal as a base for my reconstruction (as you can clearly tell from my piece), but I used information in his article - helpful information - to decide the posture and look for my therizinosaur. I used information from other articles as well. Was what I did wrong? Should he want to, can Mr. Paul seek legal action because I've made it publicly known that I've referenced (again, not copied or even used his restorations) his work? Where does one draw the line?
Looking back on my Therizinosaurus, the end result is not perfect, and having learned from that experience, I know what I would do differently the next time around. Using a skeletal restoration would be an integral part of making my reconstruction all the more accurate. Paul himself has said that he is worried that there will be no "professional body of paleoillustration that paleontolgists could call upon", and believes that "the quality of the art available to the public" is degrading. You would think, given such sentiments, that he'd be willing to let his work, which he knows is scientifically accurate, be used by those looking to produce paleoart, even at the level of someone like myself. It really is a shame, because I think he has made amazing scientific contributions to the field of dinosaur paleontology. Paul's work is some of, if not the, best out there. And to cut off paleoartists of the future and hobbyists like myself off from his work, means the quality of what we produce (again, admitting that my work is not of the highest quality in general) will only be diminished.
Luckily, there are places out there to find skeletal drawings and reconstruction tips, like Scott Hartman's Skeletal Drawing.com, his new blog, and ART Evolved, among others. And I completely want Paul, and all other professional paleoartists to be able to make a living with what they do. I cannot stress enough how important their work is to the scientific community, and the general public as well. But I also want up and coming professionals to be able to get a foot in the door. They deserve the opportunity. For example, all of the "Crew" over at ART Evolved (who seemed to go unmentioned when people on the list started talking about organizing a paleoart presence online, when they clearly already have) deserve a shot at "going pro" if they want it. That's why I'm truly disheartened by one statement in particular that Paul has made. And it is less than encouraging to read things like the following, coming from such a highly respected member of the field:
"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?"
I'm sorry. But I cannot agree with that. He's not talking about people stealing his work, or underbidding him at this point. He's straight up telling people that if their work isn't as good as his, they should stop trying. And that's not right. I don't care who you are. It's downright mean, and honestly, he's been a little nasty and dismissive to some other individuals who have commented on how realistic his vision is. I really don't want to speak negatively of someone that I've regarded so highly for so long. But it has become increasingly difficult to take some of his more valid points seriously, let alone have a productive conservation on some of the real issues facing art, science, and the intersection between them today.
Paul knows it, you know it, I know it. Drawing dinosaurs is fun, and if you want to do it, do it, no matter what your skill level. I may never have the status of Greg Paul, or sell any of my art, but that isn't going to stop me from doing illustrations of dinosaurs and other critters. And I'm not looking to break into "the business" today, but if someone does want to sign me onto a project in the future, I think it would be an honor, and I would reserve the right to set any price I want for my services, should I charge. If Paul expects others to take him seriously in all of this, and respect his wishes in regards to his work, he should respect the wishes of others in regards to theirs as well, and stop treating anyone that doesn't meet his standard like their opinions on the issue don't matter. Again, my voice might be small, but that doesn't mean it should not be heard.
In closing, I think it's important to reiterate that even if I'm taking issue with his personal opinions now, I have the utmost respect for Greg Paul, and his work. I would certainly never copy it, and call it my own. Nor would I do that with the work of any other artist. To do so is simply wrong. And I want professional paleoartists to be able to make a living. But I also want part-time and aspiring paleoartists to be able to get work as well. And everyone reserves the right to do work for pay, pro bono, or under some type of creative commons license. If you want to use a pose for a skeletal restoration that has become an industry standard, I don' think you should be afraid to. You can't copyright a pose that is within the biological limits of an animals movement anymore than you can copyright an animal itself. But you can (and I will) respect Mr. Paul's wishes, and not use his skeletals for any of my future reconstructions.
I'm sure that this discussion is far from over, so please, feel free to comment here, or at any of the links that I've overpopulated this post with. If nothing else, I hope that Mr. Paul's e-mails have shed some light on a subject that doesn't get a lot of attention, and that some real solutions to the real issues that face all paleoartists (not just Paul's list of demands) are addressed. Here's to a brighter future for the science and art of paleontology.