Is Paleo-Art Dead?!

Posted by Nima On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11 comments

I've been keeping track of the great Paleo-art debate on the Dinosaur Mailing List for a while now. It's generating a lot of buzz, and even my original blog post is getting some attention (and outside of ArtEvolved at that!) yet there are some very disturbing issues that remain.

For those of you who have read my posts on SVP 2010 in Pittsburgh, you may remember that I asked Greg Paul for advice on how to be successful in the paleo-art business. His response at the time seemed dismissive and even a bit antisocial - but now I'm shocked at how honest and realistic he was being. He got into this thing decades ago, and in his words, "would have no idea how to make a name in it today" were he to start over.

I have now a sinking gut feeling that what he really meant, in so many words, is that he's stuck in this profession and can't get out even if he wanted to. And it was a warning - think really hard about how badly you want paleoart to be your career. You think I'm kidding? Read this comment of his on the DML: it actually is NOT draconian or megalomaniac, and it's actually quite a tearful dose of reality.

An unfortunate problem with these discussions is that persons who just do 
not know about the issue seem to be obsessed with making arguments that are 
so disconnected from reality that they are from a galaxy far, far away. This 
has been happening with some really silly notions on what and how 
paleoartists can earn. This is bad because then those in paleontology may have 
a major misimpression of what is going on with the paleoartists they often work 

Some fellow actually suggested that a certain noted artist might earn, say 
a quarter million on a single painting. Let me be clear about this. There is 
absolutely no significant adult market for original paleo paintings in 
existence. There was one briefly after the first JP came out in Japan and some 
artists earned modest amounts, but then their economy went belly up. 
Lazendorf, a famed hair dresser with top level clientele packed his high rise 
apartment to the gills for a few years, and then sold it off for a lot of money 
and switched I hear to Asian art. 

There are a number of fellow paleo nerds who would love to have Hallett, 
Gurchie or Paul on their walls. And they can only afford posters. Considering 
the time etc involved it does not make sense to sell an original color of 
say 3x4 ft for less than some thousands of dollars. I have a website and I am 
easy to contact and have not sold an original to a private collector for 
years. As far as I know much the same applies to other paleoartists. Many a 
time I have been asked if I sell originals and when I tell them how much they 
are unable to proceed (also, because I modify old work a lot selling it off 
is not the best). 

A quarter million for a dinosaur painting, come on.  And I wish. 

Now, maybe setting up a paleoartist site that includes a venue for 
promoting original art will improve matters. One can doubt that it will, but it 
it might work and is worth a try. Even if it does it will take years to build up 
clientele and no one will get rich that way.  

Books. Back when I did PDW, repped by top NY agent Brockman to a top NY 
publisher, it was the last few years that that was possible. The only adult 
dino books a major publisher will even come close to considering these days is 
a narrative tradebook, and the publishers actually require that it include 
minimal illustrations to keep down production costs and because they fear 
they turn off readers. If you do not believe this then you contact the 
tradebook agents and see what they tell you. I know the business. In general 
only university presses pick up those kinds of books these days and they 
cannot pay useful advances and sales are so limited that they are in effect 
vanity books. 

But what about kidsbooks? I and others have approached a number of juvenile 
book publishers and agents and no takers. (Maybe you noticed I have not 
done kidsbooks, that's why). Am not entirely sure why this is, probably has to 
do with publishers keeping costs down by using derivative art that basically 
rips some of us off. I was once on the verge of a big deal but the 
publisher at that moment decided to concentrate on fiction works due to changing 
market forces. 

Kids products and other licensing. A couple of agents repped my work and 
got nowhere. Again producers prefer to keep their costs down rather than pay 
significant up front fees or royalties. 

I have been told by product representatives that art derivative of mine 
seriously impairs my ability to get work, and that I need to do something about 
it. Which I am doing. 

Exhibits. This remains an important source of income. But musuem and 
science center exhibits managers chronically plead poverty (because they 
overdesign their exhibits relative to their budgets) and drive down payments to 
below acceptable levels. Because there are so many paleoartists willing to work 
for peanuts many are taking advantage of this situation. Also, there just are 
not that many paleoexhibits in production at a given time. 

Dino docs. Because cable programming is marginally funded the producers 
always plead poverty. Because of under cost competition -- some derivative of 
my work, some not -- I don't get that sort of work these days. 

How about selling stuff on the web? Ha, ha, ha, ha. That's one of the great 
jokes of the digital era. 

Someone was going on about how some paleoartists can charge lower prices 
because they are "more efficient." What a disconnect from reality and plain 
common sense. Doing dinosaur art is not following Moore's Law. Using copiers 
to quickly resize elements does help a little. But doing ORIGINAL dinosaur 
restorations is ALWAYS a long, tedious process that takes lots and lots of 
research including digging through often old and hard to get publications and 
travel. Using computers for rendering basic skeletons does not seem to save 
time (and I seem to catch more errors when using old analog methods, and the 
computer produced skeletons out there seem prone to low levesl of fidelity). 
I am as efficient as anyone when it comes to doing real paleoart. The one 
way to seem to become more efficient in this specialty is to be derivative 
rather than original, and basically use the published work of others to gain 
an edge on those very artists. 

And someone was giving us paleoartists wise and sage advice about how 
perhaps we should understand that because there is so much competition (much of 
which is derivative) that we should accept it being mere part time work that 
we do on the side. Aside from making us into mere amateurs, if I did that 
then I could not have produced all those nice skeletal restorations so many 
seem to really like (and in some cases use for their paleoart that then 
competes with mines). 

Think about. Really, think it through. 

To be blunt about it, if you are considering getting into paleoart, think 
about it twice, three, times and then four. The paleomarket will always be 
too small to sustain a large number of artists. Even so, I do think that the 
situation can be significantly improved if certain steps are taken.  

These discussions on these lists, although far more extensive than I 
thought they would be and perhaps tedious to those not involved in the issue 
(rather tedious to me for that matter), are very important to the field of vert 
paleo, and should have occurred long ago -- I have perhaps been tardy in 
waiting to bring up these issues. But one reason the discussion is longer -- 
and more vehment -- than it perhaps needs to be is because some who are not 
familiar with the paleoart facts continue to feel obliged to lecture us 
paleoartists, sometimes harshly -- about what we should to. Don't do that. And 
if you are going to debate me remember that I have long had contacts with top 
agents, attorneys etc, and of course I have little patience for tendentious 
arguments from those who lack sufficient knowledge to dispute the facts that I 
lay out. Treat me and others who have been in the bizz awhile with some  

And never tell me, "but Greg, your work is so good, surely there is big 
demand for it if you just get the right agent" or so forth. Have heard that one 

G Paul 
This was one of those crash and burn moments. Or at least it looked that way. One of those "Coyote chasing roadrunner realizes he's just walked off a cliff onto thin air" moments. I though to myself.... certainly Greg Paul's statements can't be true, can they? Paleo-art has no potential whatsoever for large profits? Do other artists agree? Is Greg Paul's situation unique to Greg Paul, or do other veterans of paleo-art have a similar testimony? Why have they not spoken up?

But if you thought this was just a negative complaining rant by an artist who's a victim of both the bad economy and his own success, you're wrong. There IS a strong basis to his arguments in this post. Other artists have had pretty much the same frustrations.

Tess Kissinger, whom I greatly respect as an experienced insider of the field, responded to Greg's comment with essentially perfect agreement:

What Greg says about the market is essentially true. I appraised the Lanzendorf collection. The average price for a large painting was $1000 - $5000.
Without collectors there is no chance of moving that average up.
Maybe the "bottom line" about paleoart is that, as a full time job, as a field, it does not support a lower middleclass existence. Artists are notoriously capable of living on little - we don't require new cars, fancy homes, plasma screens - but paleoart is still a precarious way to make a living.
Is there any way to change this?  I don't know.
The field gets better than it pays for.


If Greg Paul's demands about not using his poses and so forth sound desperate, that's probably because they are. The man's struggling to eke out an existence and literally is going unappreciated by most people who think they have taste in art. Now obviously making money in any art field is difficult. There is always more supply than demand. There are so many artists of every sort that nobody's heard of before. Even just looking at DeviantArt, the number of professional portrait painters, photographers, etc. is beyond belief. The situation is even worse in paleo-art, where a private art market is virtually non-existence. You cannot simply build a business empire on the back of Lanzendorf. So what's left is doing art for books. And and even with good agents, publishing your art is an uphill struggle.

Not only that, but it seems like book publishers are actually dictating what the style of the paintings should be, as if they know dinosaurs better than the artists! And they pay them barely liveable wages. It's a catch-22. Maybe there would be a bigger market for dinosaur art, at least in book form, if publishers actually allowed good art onto their pages! Artist Luis Rey had this to say:

...what I see these days is not Greg Paul inspiration. It is a bunch of professional artists (and many not that good even as professionals) that continue to be hired to do monstrosities and anatomy-nil dinosaurs. The main trends seem to be: a) To be very "realistic" (photoshop skin or effects over rubbish anatomical reconstructions is and will always be: realistic garbage... Darren Naish and myself know a lot about this). b) Over use of dramatic Jurassic Fight Club rubbish... if that in itself is painful to watch...just imagine that without the anatomical knowledge! c) Multicoloured clowns pretending to be dinosaurs (lamentably -most probably- inspired by yours truly... mea culpa).
...And yes, you've guessed it: not a single dinosaur I have seen for years in these plethora of Jurassic Park rip-offs (and worst) have been really inspired by Greg Paul's anatomy master classes... lots of Jurassic Park half-digested rubbish, but not a lot more (Or wait! It may be that some of the JP reconstructions were in their time also inspired by Greg Paul...!) >These< are the people to whom MOST if not "all" the jobs go to. And these people most probably never have considered themselves "paleoartists", paleontologists or anatomists either... they are just opportunists feeding on a trend. 

It makes you just wish they at least had copied Greg Paul or simply have learned from his anatomical lessons... this thread also makes you wary of the concept of "tribute" or "homage"(like Ralph Chapman was saying)... or even parody or interpretation... a homage to your favourite inspiration could cost you an arm and a leg in the near future! 

So what is the use then for a "statement from paleoartists" when the jobs will keep going to whoever the publishing houses want (or can afford)? Publishing companies (with the honourable exception) most of the time want malleable and docile artists that will do whatever they have in mind or else... that means you don't get the job... I have lost jobs because i refused to do Deinonychus without feathers... or "John Sibbicks"!

So based on what the pros have said, publishers want no-name artists without a distinctive style who will just copy whatever the executives think looks good. It's a crisis disturbingly similar to what Frank Zappa described regarding the music industry (warning - not for the easily offended) - sometimes, an old boring cigar-chomping executive who can admit that he doesn't know beans about a new product, but is willing to take an initial risk on new ideas like a real entrepeneur (hell if I know what it is, lets make a few thousand copies and see if it sells!) is the best thing for an industry - but sadly, we don't see that anymore.

Now publishers are crowded with self-righteous yuppies who are convinced they know what's best for you and me in the bookstore - they normally make meager marginal profits off of such crappy dinosaur books that you'd literally be better off buying used dinosaur books from 30 years ago, which for all their cold-blooded flaws were actually more accurate and more artistic than 90% of the digitally repackaged trash on the market today. Is it any surprise why publishers complain they are "chronically low on money" and have to hire the lowest bidder? The person in the executive chair can not dictate the taste of an entire population. When they think they have the right to do this, what they put out is often absolute garbage, and real artists go out of business. All these self-proclaimed experts of the corporate world who seem to think they know everything, as actually ruining and dumbing down the market to the point that good art/music/etc. becomes a foreign entity to the consumer. If you produce high-quality original work with some real effort and creativity, you won't get jobs. Or you will lose a lot more than you get. And then members of the general public who do know of people like Greg Paul will preach: "but you're so good, there must be millions of people lining up to buy your art, if only you could market this or that differently..." without knowing that these millions of people (apparently) don't exist because publishers essentially marketed them out of existence with a flood of bad books with dumbed-down wrong information and bad pictures, so that well-to-do connoisseurs of art assume that dinosaur art has no worth and just ignore it altogether.

And Greg Paul has a very nice website with professional flash animations, it's easy to find and very well-designed, easy on the eyes, shows his best work for all to see - yet still no private clients? We're long past the days of the Medicis, where artists were few in number and worked in guilds and schools, almost as a secret society of sorts, and were hooked up by their masters and well-paid by the wealthy, rather than scrounging for every potential crumb - and so imitating a master's style was respected, not reviled, and quality was increased over the years rather than diluted. Now "artists" are a dime a dozen, and nobody gives a hoot if you're a master with 20 years experience or just a thoughtless imitator without understanding and knowledge.

So here's this thing - what are your thoughts on this issue? In this age of affordable art classes, large numbers of artists, and free exchange of information on the internet, is paleo-art dead? 

Is there potentially a bigger market for high-quality stuff that artists are just not reaching? And are book publishers just idiots for offering a pittance and even dictating what the art should look like (i.e. crappy Jurassic Park and Land before Time ripoffs redone with digital skin)? Would they sell more books if they took a chance on better artists who actually know what the heck they're doing (and therefore justify paying them what they truly deserve?) Can a bigger market actually be created (or reached, if it exists?) Is there a more efficient way of marketing art that nobody in paleo-art has tried? Ebooks? Kindle/nook? Communal online galleries? Online royalty licensing of images via Paypal or credit card? Any constructive ideas and thoughts are welcome.

Greg Paul threatens legal smackdown!

Posted by Nima On Saturday, March 12, 2011 14 comments

Ok for those of you dino fans who haven't been keeping track of the Dinosaur Mailing List (and I don't blame you, because it's a pretty bland and downright primitive operation by modern internet standards) there has been some major chatter regarding the use of world-renowned paleoartist Greg Paul's work.

Some people have been stealing his work. And making money off of their plagiarism - not just that, they are undercutting Greg by willing to charge far less to museum curators, exhibit planners, publishing companies, etc. I'm not talking about simply making art that looks like his style or level of detail - I mean they're literally tracing, copying, and simply recoloring EXACT IDENTICAL replicas of his work. And he's suing.

Now ordinarily you might say "big deal. He should go ahead and sue their pants off". And rightfully so - stealing and devaluing work like that is one of the biggest problems in any commercial art industry and it needs to be dealt with. But it's not quite as simple as all that. He's gone far further - now he's basically threatening to sue artists for a far more draconian range of "offenses", even things as minor as how the legs and feet are posed. This goes beyond defense of intellectual property - I think this approach is vigilante and excessive.

 Now I don't want to misrepresent what he's saying, so here are his actual statements on different areas of the problem, with context:


"The basic rule needs to be that that an artist produce their own skeletal 
restoration based on original research. This would include using photos of 
the skeleton, or an illustrated technical paper on the particular taxon. This 
then goes into your files as documentation of originality, and you can 
publish it. 

Do not pose it in my classic left foot pushing off in a high velocity 
posture. Not because I am inherently outraged -- it would be rather nice if not 
for some practical issues. For one thing I have succeeded in getting some big 
payments for unauthorized use of this pose by major prjects that should 
have known better. Aside from the financial issue, there are other concerns if 
you think about it. It is widely assumed that any skeleton in this pose is 
mine, but what if it does not meet my level of accuracy? The trust in and 
value of my work is degraded. There are gigillions of poses a skeleton can be 
placed in. Be original.  

Lots of original skeletal restorations do not look much like mine -- I 
suspect because they are not necessarily as accurate. If someone's original 
skeletal restoration is close to mine that is OK as long as they have the 
documentation of originality.... 

You apparently either have to have extensive documentation for each image (try proving what your sources were in a court of law, where attorneys have to go by their eyes and know nothing of the positions of zygapophyses on a skeletal), or make inaccurate skeletals or run the risk of being branded a "Greg Paul clone" and getting sued. Which is truly a sad proposition because it means that by going after merely similar poses rather than blatant intellectual property fraud, more and more legitimate paleo-artists will feel uneasy about staying in the profession. If nobody but Greg Paul is making accurate skeletals, there's nobody else to use as a technical reference for complex paintings. And then you either have to pay up for the privilege or just get out of the profession altogether. This isn't going to stop those who intentionally copy and underbid Greg Paul from continuing to do so. Thieves who copy Greg wholesale aren't going to be deterred by a draconian blanket risk of a fine for any slight semblance to his work if they think they can get away with far worse (and have already done so). Law-abiding artists however will be intimidated and discouraged by such blunt and imprecise punishment tactics because they don't want their finances and reputation ruined. They actually do care.

"...Perhaps you are thinking that it sounds like a whole lot of work to have to 
go to the trouble to do original skeletal restorations for all these 
dinosaurs, all the more so when a set of excellent skeletal restorations is 
already available. 

Exactly. That is the whole point."

We now need files to make sure we can defend our work in case we get sued? Isn't that a bit far to go? I personally have lots of papers on file and photographs too, so when I draw bones for a restoration it's from the original research and actual photographs, not Greg Paul's products. But not everyone has access to these - and not everyone can tell the difference at a glance between well-researched skeletals by two different artists. Of course I try to document my own research on this blog; I've always tried to avoid relying on anyone's previous skeletals as references (including Greg Paul's) and I was fortunate enough to have friends who hooked me up with huge numbers of rare source papers on dinosaurs that have been enormously helpful in my research, but the potential that anyone can get sued if their work merely looks like something Greg Paul could have done is frightening. In other words, give up, NOW.

Furthermore, his warning not to do a skeletal in the pose he uses (left foot pushing off) comes across as nothing short of megalomania. The precedent of his having sued the people behind "major projects that should have known better" is hardly a "practical issue". It's putting the cart before the horse. So now because he sued one person who used a similar pose (but possibly for a totally original skeletal OR a plagiarism - Greg's a bit vague on that point) then nobody can pose their original skeletals that way? The details of that case are not even known to us!

You can copyright an image, but you can't copyright a pose. Who knows, just as with the whole idea of black and white skeletal drawings, Greg Paul may not even be the first person to use such a pose. It makes no sense to copyright a pose for a skeletal of all things, since they are all in profile and most are not necessarily unique "life" poses. On the other hand, if we're talking about a drawing or painting of a live scene in action (i.e. perspective poses, not bland profiles) then if your poses look like those of a specific Greg Paul painting you are in the wrong and can be sued since for a live scene you have to replicate both the pose and the angle to make it have the same "pose" as a Greg Paul work.

For example you could draw a T. rex in the same pose as the his famous T. rex pair painting (running, with head turned right), but draw it from a completely different angle, and with different patterns, color, texture, etc. There is no grounds to sue for this, because from a different angle there is no spatial resemblance to the Greg Paul painting. There are only so many anatomically accurate poses a T. rex could be in. There aren't "gigillions" of poses for a skeletal either, and the fact that a skeletal is usually in profile limits the number of angles to just one for primary profile skeletals. There are only so many ways you can pose a profile skeletal and still have it be accurate. Theropods need that s-curve in their necks, brachiosaurs need vertical necks, diplodocids roughly horizontal, tyrannosaur arms have to be supinated (facing inwards), and walking/running poses (and even tail poses) are limited by the biomechanics of the animal. Even if you try to make the pose different from a Greg Paul pose, it will probably still bear some similarity if you want the thing to be accurate! Unless you make it a snapshot "action" pose like Jaime Headden and some other artists are known to do, but that just makes it more tedious to illustrate. There aren't gazillions of ways to restore a dinosaur, especially not in terms of posing a skeletal profile. Indeed Greg Paul himself said something remarkably similar in his 1991 paper on dinosaur myths:

Myth: At the end of a heated discussion, often I have heard the retort, "well, there is
more than one way to restore a dinosaur!"
Reality: A dubious statement at best, it is becoming less and less true as we learn more and more about the actual appearance of dinosaurs. After all, each taxa had a particular form and appearance in life, and in many cases we know what this form was (Paul, 1987a). Hadrosaurs have down curved rather than straight anterior dorsal columns, soft dorsal frills are often preserved, and their skin is well documented. The knees of giant theropods, ornithopods, and ceratopsids articulated correctly only when they were flexed like those of birds, they did not have the straight knees of elephants (Paul, 1987a). Of course, there are many other things we do not know, and many areas remain open to dispute. Even so, I have noticed that the above statement is usually voiced when the speaker has run out of specific arguments for their case. So it contains little useful information, and it encourages the anything goes attitude that long plagued the field of paleorestoration.

Either you're an anything goes proponent of dubious ways of looking at dinosaur anatomy, or you're potentially an intellectual property thief.... seems to be what his statements add up to. Which smells like total hypocrisy in my book. The fact is, as long as you do your own research, it shouldn't matter what pose you use, there are only so many accurate or plausible ones. And there is no single Greg Paul pose for any one dinosaur. He's revised all of his skeletals, changed things like arm poses, neck poses, etc. So now are all his current and former neck and arm poses off limits for illustrators? Even if every bone in another artist's skeletal skeletal is the original illustration of that artist? Should every artist then come up with a trademark pose, that no other artist in the future can ever use? There would quickly be no realistic poses left!


"So the choices are these -- 

Do your own researched and produced skeletal restorations in an original 
pose. If some of these turn out it is very similar to mine that's OK as long 
as the documentation exists. 

Do not do your own skeletal restorations, but do not copy my art either (i. 
e. stay away from the Greg Paul look). There are some current artists who 
do this and they are not violating my copyrights. I of course prefer to think 
such work is not as accurate as mine but what do I know."

That better be a typo. Do do your own skeletals but don't do them, and don't copy mine either? That's a catch-22 if I ever heard one. Greg Paul's not the only person who can do skeletals. But of course if you're not Greg Paul, don't even try to do your own skeletals, because even if you're being original and not cheating, you're still never going to be as accurate so might as well give up now!

Don't get me wrong, I'm actually in Greg's corner for most of this issue, but even though he's probably done more skeletals than anyone, claiming a monopoly over the right to produce skeletals for commercial work is no more ethical than stealing someone else's skeletals and passing them off as your own. So I hope that really is a typo.

However this does not mean that skeletals should all be open-source. Some artists do make them open-source, while others simply cannot afford to. Greg Paul makes a living off of art, so for him this is not a viable option. I'm all for seeing less experienced artists who do not have a good working knowledge of dinosaur anatomy (and hence can't make their own skeletals) paying for the right to use Greg Paul's skeletals as resources for their commercial work. He deserves the money. However, to make something as unavoidably ubiquitous as certain skeletal poses "closed-source" runs the risk of successively making it impossible for any artist to avoid getting sued because there is a limit to how many ways you can accurately pose any one dinosaur in a profile skeletal. As years and decades pass, and more unique poses get "claimed" as trademarks by various new artists, it will become exponentially harder to find your own and still remain accurate. If you make a simple pose a copyright violation, then everyone will be a criminal at some point - perhaps in less than a hundred or even fifty years - unless you want to get really crazy and put your skeletals in all sorts of crazy barely believable dislocated poses. And even after a while of new artists doing that, it would get even harder to be fully "original" in posing. As they age and die, who will their copyrights pass to? Family or some big corporate trust? When the copyrights expire will it be legal to once again use accurate poses? Or will the profession become to choked by litigation that it will die and publishers in the next century will simply have to continue using old licensed illustrations by long-gone artists? Shouldn't the content matter more than the pose? This brave new world of trademarked poses looks like nothing so much as a key to a Pandora's Box of insanity.


Scott Hartman, whose skeletal drawings have a roughly similar pose to Greg Paul's, has offered to change the poses on all of them, though since there are over a hundred, this may take a very long time. He claims that Greg was very gracious and did not threaten any litigation, but that his warnings are more like "best practices". While he's totally right on this, I don't know how reasonable it is to go change everything for reasons that have nothing to do with updated research, especially when this might make the skeletals less accurate.

Here's Scott's response:

Greg Paul's posts have garnered a polarized array of responses.  I
don't really want to add to the cacophony of people addressing
specific legal claims, but regarding the issue of skeletal poses I'd
note that Greg did not seem (to me) to be making a copyright/trademark
claim as much as a statement on "best practices" based on his
practical concerns about branding and such.  Note that it came in a
section of his post that was aimed at artists who potentially want to
do their own reconstructions.

Allowing Greg to establish a branding around the poses he popularized
is a request I'm inclined to grant; after corresponding briefly with
Greg I've decided to embark on the process of reposing my 100+
skeletal reconstructions.

I want to be clear: Greg did not contact me about changing my
skeletals, nor was he anything but gracious in the discussion.  I'm
not doing this out of fear of litigation.  I've been asked innumerable
times by others why I haven't adopted my "own" pose so I'm simply
using this as a final impetus to do so.

Like Mike Taylor, I lament that the situation has reached the point
where commercial concerns outweigh the scientific utility of posing
animals consistently.  I had earnestly hoped that by adopting the same
pose that I would be helping to "standardize" this aspect of skeletal
reconstructions to better facilitate comparison.

So there you have it. I don't agree on the posing issue; suing for a skeletal pose seems pointless and unfair if the actual bones are drawn differently and the result of original research (like that of Scott Hartman). However changing the poses was Scott's personal choice based on many reasons that mostly had nothing to do with Greg Paul, and I can respect that. The tricky thing about the point Scott brings up is whether artists should even have a "signature pose" or not. Theoretically, not all artists would even want any part of this world of everyone having their own copyrighted pose - this could eventually lead to successive closure or exclusivization of poses through copyright attrition. If we all have to avoid using "popular" or previously used poses like the plague, two problems pop up: 1) it's harder to compare skeletals of the same species by two different artists; 2) everyone's going to be in a heightened state of paranoia about avoiding looking too much like another artist's skeletals while simultaneously trying to remain accurate. There are only so many ways you can interpret accurate poses in profile without inadvertently "imitating" somebody else, and as time goes on the number of options will get exponentially smaller and more miserable. Of course directly copying others' work is flat-out wrong and can also unintentionally lead to replicating their mistakes and causing widespread inaccuracies in the field (something else that Greg touches on in his posts to the DML, and was also sadly common for many years with people ripping off the outdated paintings of Knight and Burian). But a simple profile pose isn't going to lead to those same errors, nor does it in any way imply a wholesale ripoff. The question is where do you draw the line? At what point can a mere pose be considered a "brand" or a trademark? Can it?

What's your perspective on this? Feel free to post comments below. Here, here, and here are Greg Paul's original posts on the DML for reference. P.S. I plan to cover the problem of paleoart fraud in later posts. So don't forget to remind me :)