231–240 of 315 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they lie about it then? These museums are subsidized by tax payers, not only just local money but often with additional EU funding as well. The scans were paid for by the public. This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.
> This seems comically evil for no apparent reason. Gervais Principle
Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the idea of having copyrights renewable indefinitely, but with the holders having to pay exponentially larger sums.
That seems to benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller artists. Either you focus on making money or some large corporation will swoop in the second you can't and exploit your work for their own profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you call an ugly bumper sticker is credit where it is due, but also an important recruitment mechanism for new mappers, which improves the map. The /copyright page is our biggest landing page on the website, even above the base / page. Attribution is also a requirement of many proprietary map providers.
yes, I've misclicked the hidden link many times as well The credit is due to the volunteers or governments that created the data, and not the project that collates it (their names are not displayed). The logic behind wikipedia doesn't translate to OSM b/c OSM is providing data to be reused If this requirement wasn't there in the first place then OSM maps would have been the default go-to map and a household name like…
Meanwhile OSM says that you may "fade/collapse the attribution ... automatically on map interaction" among other possibilities (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guideline...). It being licensed the way it is, you can use Leaflet.js or whatever else instead of the copy they host, if you really don't like their iframe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to benefit large corporations at the expense of smaller artists. Either you focus on making money or some large corporation will swoop in the second you can't and exploit your work for their own profit.
Presumably, once the copyright is allowed to expire, it can't be sold and then reinstated. I'm okay with large corporations pouring their money at the government to keep copyrights for useless things alive, even if it means we can't legally copy useless things for a bit longer.
Derivative works have their own copyrights. The original book is free for grabs but each movie franchise has it's own copyrights. Likely far more valuable and ones the original artist will never see a cent from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! I also dont see at all how this is even a problem for the museum: Their gift shop is basically a rounding error in their revenue stream in the first place, availability of cheap replicas online would only marginally affect gift shop sales anyway, and what person would ever go like "oh no lets cancel…
>How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! Perhaps it's unintended in that they never thought they'd be called on it. Requests for public funding almost always claim it's for the betterment of the public despite almost never being so and no one ever gets called out on it.
That's just corruption and we should absolutely be calling out every instance of it. If that's not the exception right now, I hope that changes in the near future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the place is packed you should raise prices.
Not really. Their goal shouldn't be to maximize profit and they should take care not to price people out from access to cultural artifacts. If the goal is just to reduce the number of visitors then a lottery system or limitations on ticket sales issued on a first come first served basis is far more fair.
It’s not like the average tourist has unrestricted opportunities to visit any day of the year, usually it’s only a narrow number of dates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Has anyone used these in games? No doubt someone has put some of them into games. However, most likely not in it's original shape/form, as the scans usually produce highly inefficiently (but high resolution, great for renders) meshes. The meshes from scans tend to be a mess, and when inserting a 3D model for games, you care a lot about how optimized the meshes are, and that the mesh has a low polygon count as other…
I sincerely hope more games allow virtual interactions with culturally significant art. Hell, I'd love a virtual tour of major art institutions! It's not Rodin, but the game Horizon: Forbidden West has a segment where you get to view + interact with renderings of some paintings by Vermeer and Rembrandt. I've seen some of these in person at a museum in San Francisco, but somehow the experience was more meaningful in t…
Outside of virtual tours, death match in a museum would be fun too. It might be cool to see where popular works of art end up in post-apocalyptic/future settings too.
Even less popular artworks could help add to the art that appears in video games. It can help cut down on the costs of using stock images or creating "generic" art in-house and hopefully create more impressive and immersive environments.
If paid with taxpayer money, then yes, if not, then no.
Should be open/shut. But taxes suck and lawmakers views of where money comes from is pretty jacked up these days.