Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

cosmowenman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 315 posts

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#141

Post by whimsicalism »

squigz wrote: post #139
whimsicalism wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re afraid of losing out on the revenue from selling replicas, etc. which is probably a very reasonable fear given that the guy filing suit and writing this blog post runs a company that creates replica artwork?

The huge piles of revenue? > SPK confirmed it had earned less than 5,000 euro, total, from marketing the Nefertiti scan, or any other scan for that matter. SPK also admitted it did not direct even that small revenue towards digitization, explaining that it was not obliged to do so. In the nearly 10 years since it had created the Nefertiti scan, SPK had completely failed to commercially exploit the valuable data idlin…

Not sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#142

Post by rendall »

dTal wrote: post #94
rendall wrote: post #73

> ...I approached musée Rodin with a strategy to illicit a full airing... Minor typo: if the author or anyone who knows him is reading this, the word wanted there probably is elicit .

That jumped out to me as well, particularly given the otherwise high quality of the writing. It's an example of what I perceive as a more general phenomenon - spelling errors, particularly confusion of uncommon homonyms[note], appear to have increased in frequency. I previously attributed it to the internet simply lowering the bar for "publishing" to the less educated, and the greater proportion of text that makes it…

It has taken me a long time to let go of "to beg the question" as exclusively meaning "to employ circular reasoning" and not cringe when I see it used to mean "to raise the question".

What gave me calm to accept such changes is understanding that the language we use today is a result of such changes. Awful once meant full of awe and now means very bad or unpleasant. Nice no longer means foolish and now means pleasant. Girl referred to a young person of either gender and now specifically means a female child. Silly once meant happy or fortunate and now means foolish or absurd. Meat once referred to food of all kinds, not just animal flesh. I imagine there were people who experienced these changes with some despair. But everything's okay. English is still expressive and meaningful. The sky has not fallen. The center holds.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#143

Post by squigz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #141
squigz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge piles of revenue? > SPK confirmed it had earned less than 5,000 euro, total, from marketing the Nefertiti scan, or any other scan for that matter. SPK also admitted it did not direct even that small revenue towards digitization, explaining that it was not obliged to do so. In the nearly 10 years since it had created the Nefertiti scan, SPK had completely failed to commercially exploit the valuable data idlin…

Not sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#144

Post by rootusrootus »

t43562 wrote: post #125
rootusrootus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has to be a point where seeing things in the virtual world becomes "good enough" that we won't fly thousands of miles to do it. For certain things, I could see that. But for many things I go see, it's being there that is part of the point. Knowing that I'm seeing or touching the actual thing the artist saw and touched, or standing in a place where the builders worked build it, etc. Seeing a perfect representa…

I half agree, but I've been to a few of these things and it's all somewhat debatable because you're not really supposed to touch, or there are millions of people and you can't just sit and enjoy, or you don't know enough about them to understand deeply what you are seeing. Ruined cities really don't look or feel anything like what they were. You miss an incredible amount by not being able to see them as the inhabitan…

> Ruined cities really don't look or feel anything like what they were. You miss an incredible amount by not being able to see them as the inhabitants would have.

Oh I totally agree with this! And I'd say it applies similarly to modern cities. I find it sort of hilarious to go somewhere like London which has a huge amount of historical architecture, but so surrounded by modernity that you get a little whiplash every time you turn around.

I have to get as close as I can to what I'm looking at, preferably close enough to mostly shut out the existence of everyone around, the noise, etc.

I think you make very good points. I would love the virtual experience that tried to show what it was really like at the time these artifacts were created. I'd still enjoy the part about seeing it all in person, though, because that's just me -- being in the presence of the physical object really sparks my imagination. So ... I want both options, please.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#145

Post by whimsicalism »

squigz wrote: post #143
whimsicalism wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.

Revenue from “marketing the 3d scans” is not the same as “revenue from selling replicas” and it is the latter that they are trying to protect, not the sale of the scans directly

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#146

Post by squigz »

whimsicalism wrote: post #145
squigz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.

Revenue from “marketing the 3d scans” is not the same as “revenue from selling replicas” and it is the latter that they are trying to protect, not the sale of the scans directly

My impression from that article was that '3D scans' and 'replicas' were grouped together.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#147

Post by whimsicalism »

squigz wrote: post #146
whimsicalism wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revenue from “marketing the 3d scans” is not the same as “revenue from selling replicas” and it is the latter that they are trying to protect, not the sale of the scans directly

My impression from that article was that '3D scans' and 'replicas' were grouped together.

Yes, I agree the article very intentionally tries to give that impression, true

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#148

Post by _aavaa_ »

sokoloff wrote: post #122
_aavaa_ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. People go to see the original Mona Lisa when they can own a reproduction for less than the cost of the flight. I don't see why those who would have gone to see it would suddenly accept a reproduction just because it's AR/VR.

There are hundreds of places I’d like to experience in my lifetime. I probably have the time left to go to perhaps 50 of them (max). Surely being able to experience some of those 300 in VR will affect my lifetime travel plans and I highly doubt that I’m alone.

That's my point. Your top 50 are going to stay your top 50. If you've always wanted to see the Mona Lisa in person you're not going to change your plan because you saw an image of it.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#149

Post by dagenleg »

kardos wrote: post #140
dagenleg wrote: post #132

Why exactly is non-commercial open access problematic? I think the author is going overboard by framing this as some kind of righteous crusade for the public access. After all, he is interested in making profit from this. Sure, public funding paid for it, so then why should the profits be privatized?

There is no privatization here (moving the scans from public domain to private), the author is seeking the opposite, shifting the scans to the public unencumbered.

Yes, to be commercialized and privatized by the author. Somehow all of the "open access projects" on the authors website seem to be concerned with releasing 3D models scanned by others, and not you know, his own projects. I don't see any commitments to publish derived work and such.

I know that the story of an independent artist fighting a big bureaucratic public institutions is something that would get a lot of sympathy here, but this really isn't that much of a "David and Goliath" kind of tale. French heritage and research entities are underfunded and understaffed, they don't have competent lawyers, or indeed funding to afford those, as we can clearly see from this case. One litigation-happy American can run circles around them and profit from it too.

If as soon as the heritage work gets 3D scanned with French public funds, it will immediately get scooped and monetized by private sector, wouldn't the ultimate outcome be that less objects get scanned? Why would the museums even bother fighting for the digitization grant funds?

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#150

Post by bambax »

cinntaile wrote: post #118
bambax wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's different in many many ways. And there are not just one, but four courts of last resort in France: - Cour de Cassation, for civil matters - Conseil d'État, for matters regarding the administration / the State - Tribunal des Conflits: tasked with deciding who's right when the Cour de Cassation and the Conseil d'État disagree - Conseil Constitutionnel: issues rulings about the constitutionality of laws, both n…

If it's the final court for civil matters in France I would argue it's still a supreme court.

One difference among many: the Cour de Cassation does not issue decisions, exactly; it can only hold or break a decision from a lower court. If it chooses to break the lower court's decision (casser=to break) then the case is sent back to said court to be decided again, with new guidance from the upper court.
Post reply on HN