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

191–200 of 315 posts

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#191

Post by stavros »

Suppafly wrote: post #165
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flip the script and make everything public unless it has a sort-of "license" which explicitly restricts access. People can proactively restrict access to their work, which would allow for lawsuits, and others can see the potentially very restrictive licenses which some will put on their stuff and possibly learn to avoid such licenses. Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice but it's interesting to think…

>Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice It's essentially how art worked up until last couple of hundred years, it worked just fine. During most of the most important periods of art history, copyright wasn't a thing.

What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#192

Post by thfuran »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #76
sokoloff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that with the advent/improvements in AR/VR that measuring the direct sales of scan data is the wrong way to look at the losses. If many people can experience a 75% compelling viewing of the bust (or the pyramids, Galapagos, Chichen Itza, etc.), the losses in tourism to those sites is far more than the lost sales of scan data.

This doesn’t seem likely, the major tourist destinations during the busy season are so crowded, or slot limited, that it’s a pretty unpleasant experience. If anything it would reduce overcrowding .

Unless you're suggesting that they'll increase prices proportionally, how would that not result in loss of revenue?

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#193

Post by thfuran »

rkangel wrote: post #37
Symbiote wrote: post #24

> The court ruled that the museum’s revenue, business model, and supposed threats from competition and counterfeiting are irrelevant to the public’s right to access its scans, a dramatic rejection of the museum’s position It would have helped the museum and government ministry if this had been clear before the government-funded scanning program was started. (Maybe it was, I don't know.) I was initially sympathetic to…

I very quickly had no sympathy at all with the museum. It obtained funding to do the scans with the express purpose of providing to the public, and then decided not to.

That's ISP-tier behavior that I wouldn't except from a museum.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#194

Post by semi-extrinsic »

1123581321 wrote: post #106
holowoodman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, imho, the AMAZING ORIGINAL THINGS are actually useless. You can not touch them, get close, rotate them, look at them properly, take your time. You are just number 29387 that day visiting the Mona Lisa, you get 5s to view it, then the line moves on. A high-res photo or 3d-scan allows you to do all those things (maybe except really touching them). So aside from the emotional benefit of having been near the re…

Five seconds is brutally short. What painting has the largest area of appreciation, when notoriety or quality is multiplied by time allowed to view it?

The Scream by Munch can be viewed for several hours at a time. It's actually limited by efforts to conserve the painting, so the museum only expose it to light for a few hours per day.

If you time your visit to avoid the tourist season in den Haag, I think you can also view Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring for essentially as long as you like.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#195

Post by ipaddr »

stavros wrote: post #191
Suppafly wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice It's essentially how art worked up until last couple of hundred years, it worked just fine. During most of the most important periods of art history, copyright wasn't a thing.

What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.

The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#196

Post by ipaddr »

thfuran wrote: post #192
MichaelZuo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem likely, the major tourist destinations during the busy season are so crowded, or slot limited, that it’s a pretty unpleasant experience. If anything it would reduce overcrowding .

Unless you're suggesting that they'll increase prices proportionally, how would that not result in loss of revenue?

If the place is packed you should raise prices.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#197

Post by stavros »

ipaddr wrote: post #195
stavros wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.

The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.

Not when they were alive, which is the period we're talking about.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#198

Post by BlueTemplar »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #138
warkdarrior wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is the alternative? How do we get it applied to software copyrights?

Flip the script and make everything public unless it has a sort-of "license" which explicitly restricts access. People can proactively restrict access to their work, which would allow for lawsuits, and others can see the potentially very restrictive licenses which some will put on their stuff and possibly learn to avoid such licenses. Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice but it's interesting to think…

This suggestion reminded me of the ad-hoc open access decrees (aka "letters patent" (aka H-1B visas)) that might have supercharged modern Venice : whether for inventions of glassmaking, inventions of new books, or inventions of the Americas :

https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-the-origin...

This involved lobbying the local rulers though... so was restricted to few chosen, and I am not certain that the situation would be much different today, because it's hard to imagine enforcement working for widespread ad-hoc licenses ?

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#199

Post by gabaix »

bambax wrote: post #105
myrmidon wrote: post #48

This is utterly puzzling to me. I just don't understand how you sit on the museums side of the trial on this, without seriously questioning your own position and conceding immediately. They were basically arguing that they are entitled to hide those scan artifacts to better protect their gift shop?! How can they even reconcile those arguments with preserving the artists legacy/serving the common good? I'm also surpri…

Welcome to France! France is built on the idea that the public can't be trusted, has not really reached adulthood (won't ever) and needs to be coached by an army of civil servants whose job is to protect the State and its finances. It's not corruption, exactly; it's the idea that the interests of the State are paramount, and everything else doesn't really matter. If the State sells reproductions of Rodin's work, well…

This is an apt description of how things are, sadly. And it all starts at the crib when parents teach their children blind obedience.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#200

Post by rtsil »

kergonath wrote: post #176
rtsil wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purpose of this matter, the Conseil d'État is a court, not an administrative body, it is the highest level and last resort of jurisdiction for administrative law, i.e. the law pertaining to relations between citizens and the State or the local governments. It intervenes as the highest appelate court of administrative tribunals. Its members are judges and their decisions are judgement. But the Conseil d'État h…

> Its members are judges and their decisions are judgement. They are civil servants, not magistrates. They don’t have the same independence and are nothing like American judges. > That's because only criminal court can do that. That was specifically addressing the contempt of court issue. The Council of State cannot do that. It can make the public institution do something, but it cannot punish the individual. Once th…

You are trying to relate two different legal systems that are don't necessarily have equivalence. The members, although not magistrates, are independent and factually irremovable. When they are in "court" formation as is the case here, they are judges by law, and it is a court. That's where you appeal the decisions of lower judges. Their decisions ("arrêt") are case laws and precedents that affect the entire justice system (in the relations between a citizen and the State).

> That was specifically addressing the contempt of court issue.

There is no such thing as contempt in the US sense, in French courts. The closest would be outrages, which does not apply to the issue in question (delay tactics). Many US legal concepts, even the most basic ones, are simply not transposable to the French system.

Post reply on HN