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

241–250 of 315 posts

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#241

Post by Zamiel_Snawley »

exabrial wrote: post #240

> defend the public’s right to access all French national museums’ 3D scans of their collection 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.

I don't think public funding necessarily means that the output should be publicly available. The benefits and risks should be evaluated, as they were in this case.

The results of public funding of weapons programmes and surveillance satellites are understandably concealed, this museum situation is analogous despite the risks being significantly less consequential.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#242

Post by autoexec »

sadeshmukh wrote: post #219
justinclift wrote: post #217

> Anyone in the world with an internet connection can view, interact with, and download the British Museum’s 3D scan of the Rosetta Stone, for example. Attempting that just now from the linked page: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-rosetta-stone-1e03509704... Note that Sketchfab is a 3rd party crowd (not the British Museum), and trying to download that model requires signing up for a Sketchfab account. So while it…

At least you can download it. They can't undownload it once you have it, and people can distribute from what they have.

It'd be nice if they got uploaded to archive.org or somewhere else where the public can get it without handing over a bunch of data.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#243

Post by autoexec »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #238
autoexec wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is pricing by available time to wait any more fair than pricing by available money to spend? 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.

> How is pricing by available time to wait any more fair than pricing by available money to spend?

Because its a lot easier to get someplace early on your day off than it is to suddenly get into another tax bracket. Even poor people usually get at least one day off every single week.

Restricting access by income level is going to leave most people who don't earn enough locked out for their entire lives because upward economic mobility is declining in the EU and a total joke in the US.

Certainly when it comes to travel there's already a high barrier and limitations on opportunity so a lottery might be better than only knowing if you'll get in on the day.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#244

Post by geokon »

cormorant wrote: post #233
geokon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm genuinely curious why this is a sore spot for you, since I've never heard this perspective. It seems like you see the key difference as being that the OSM attribution is commonly clickable, whereas the Google Maps one is not (similar font/placement). (Actually Google Maps does have "Terms" clickable. Random example of website embedding it: https://www.belcourt.org/directions-and-map/ or see https://developers.goo…

I don't use Google maps, so I'm honestly not really sure what their terms are

I guess in the big picture it just rubs me the wrong way a bit. I just find it mildly absurd that if I take a screenshot of OSMand on my phone and send it to a friend, that I've broken the law. It'd like to live in a world where that's not the case.

It's like if Project Gutenburg mandated everyone had to include a cover page with their name on every book they distribute. It doesn't make it unusable or horrible, but it's just a general feeling "ah, so close but they missed the mark".

It could have been a truly open repository of data and instead it's just so slightly not that (and in a way that's so minor that no one will ever bother to re-make a truly no-strings-attached version :) )

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#245

Post by geokon »

cormorant wrote: post #100
geokon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an interesting example where this has been problematic is OpenStreetMap. They can't ingest a lot of government data b/c their project requires a relicense with their attribution-requirement (where all users are forced to have an ugly OSM bumper sticker on their maps)

Wait, what? If the government source is public domain, OSM (or anyone else) can take it and derive from it and can then impose whatever license OSM wants, including an attribution requirement. Did you mean the other way around? Actually OSM's license is so weak on the attribution it requires, that OSM does not ingest CC-BY data, because OSM believes their further distribution would not satisfy CC-BY's attribution req…

The parent comment was talking about wanting a system where "Any derived works, commercial or otherwise should also be in the public domain" so I was talking to that.

I assume when you say "government" you mean the US government. But in other countries it often doesn't work that way. You can't redistribute government maps with more restrictions. I went to a talk about this from an OSM developer here in Taiwan. OSM tries to lobby for the maps to be redistributed under different terms so they can ingest them

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#246

Post by iterance »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #206
iterance wrote: post #66

I suspect the true rationale may be more deeply based on art history than either the museum or this article are letting on. To understand why, I think it's important to reckon with what happened to "art" as an institution when the processes of reproduction became cheap and readily available during the 1900s. I can only sketch and I won't fully do it justice. Before the 1900s, some methods of mechanical reproduction d…

You are trying to insist on the "reproduced for cheap", I guess, because I'm pretty sure that expensive reproductions (whether legal or illegal, frauded as "real" or not) of paintings and statues have existed for a long time ?

Sort of? There's also a key difference between reproductions that create a physical object (often but not always done for fraudulent purposes), and "essentially anyone can display a reasonable image of the Mona Lisa at any time of day, wherever they are in the world." Digital reproduction of non-digital media is where this problem gets thorniest because the cost of reproduction is at its lowest, and access to reproduction is at its highest.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#247

Post by jumelles »

geokon wrote: post #244
cormorant wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious why this is a sore spot for you, since I've never heard this perspective. It seems like you see the key difference as being that the OSM attribution is commonly clickable, whereas the Google Maps one is not (similar font/placement). (Actually Google Maps does have "Terms" clickable. Random example of website embedding it: https://www.belcourt.org/directions-and-map/ or see https://developers.goo…

I don't use Google maps, so I'm honestly not really sure what their terms are I guess in the big picture it just rubs me the wrong way a bit. I just find it mildly absurd that if I take a screenshot of OSMand on my phone and send it to a friend, that I've broken the law. It'd like to live in a world where that's not the case. It's like if Project Gutenburg mandated everyone had to include a cover page with their name…

> if I take a screenshot of OSMand on my phone and send it to a friend, that I've broken the law

I'm not sure what exactly you're misunderstanding but this is not how the law works.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#248

Post by theendisney »

bombcar wrote: post #57
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #46

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.

Bureaucracies always argue for the continuation of the bureaucracy and its funding, no matter how insane or small. It's what they naturally do and you have to explicitly fight against it.

First we pay for the scans then we also get to pay for the legal fight trying to not share it with us???

Then the fight should continue until it can dispose of dysfunctional beurocrats? Set an example? It seems normal to fire people who dont understand their work.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#249

Post by EasyMark »

falcor84 wrote: post #17
BlueTemplar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing to "retain" once copyright is over (aside from moral rights, which are forever... which I guess becomes questionable after the death of the author ? But moral rights are not transferrable anyway). Instead for calling to basically blow up the whole legal framework around derivative works, maybe we should focus on bringing copyright terms back to more sane durations (like the original 14 years, renewabl…

I like the idea of having copyrights renewable indefinitely, but with the holders having to pay exponentially larger sums.

doesn't that just favor the 0.1% who can afford it and fk over the 99.9%? I don't see why we don't just put a hard limit on it, they had many years to make a profit.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#250

Post by n_plus_1_acc »

theendisney wrote: post #248
bombcar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracies always argue for the continuation of the bureaucracy and its funding, no matter how insane or small. It's what they naturally do and you have to explicitly fight against it.

First we pay for the scans then we also get to pay for the legal fight trying to not share it with us??? Then the fight should continue until it can dispose of dysfunctional beurocrats? Set an example? It seems normal to fire people who dont understand their work.

In germany, there is a current case going on where one ministry sues another, both with taxpayer money, obviously. Has led to to funny media reportings.
Post reply on HN