Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court • Hacker News Board

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#281

Post by necovek » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #235

ipaddr wrote: post #196

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.

Lottery system could plausibly result in resale of tickets and thus reduce to pricing people out.

The problem with cases like Mona Lisa is that Louvre never really is that overcrowded, but Mona Lisa attracts a crowd at all times (even if it's less than 1% of all visitors on the grounds of Louvre, that's still a lot).

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#282

Post by 1123581321 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 5:43 PM UTC

eichin wrote: post #214

1123581321 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"largest area" immediately brought "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" to mind - not for actual impact, just because the physical painting is nearly 10 feet across, which noone seems to expect. Also it's on one wall of an enormous room with plenty of room for people to circulate, in a gallery that has various options for free access (mostly aimed at locals and students, but the art institute doesn't…

That one I have seen, and it is grand. I live in Illinois so have many options for free viewing.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#283

Post by 10-22-38Astoria » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:26 PM UTC

rpigab wrote: post #104

I am a French taxpayer. This is not the most outrageous thing about taxpayer money at work that I learned today. That would be the fact that local branches of the ministry of agriculture require wind turbine builders to put blue dyed water in concrete to make it friendly to all life or something, I'm not sure I understand, it's called Pneumatit®, and I'm not making this up. It's biodynamics, it's biogeology (neither…

It seems like this YouTube video [1] is the source. I don’t speak French, so someone else will have to comment on veracity. I think it hinges on a phone interview in the last third of the video, so please look at that.

[1]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVfDjU8R5Ag

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#284

Post by necovek » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:27 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #34

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…

This the law of unintended consequences in action. I suspect that neither the government nor museums thought there was any legal obligations to make 3D scans public and I'd wager that the legislator did not have that in mind when they drafted the freedom of information laws. But then, suddenly (as per linked article): " The Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) ... had never before considered any di…

The fact that this was the first time release of 3D scans was being requested does not imply those were not intended consequences: for any type of document, there has been a first.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#285

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #279

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?

As illustrated in a number of cases mentioned throughout this thread, this revenue is minimal. It is simply easier to say "no" instead of going out on a limb and saying yes and then your bosses coming at you for doing what you shouldn't have done. Nobody will be reprimanded for saying "no", but somebody might for just granting access to these 3d scans.

Point me to a single case?

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#286

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:31 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #188

ACS_Solver wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This same person fought for years to get the Berlin Egyptian museum to release 3D scans of the famous Nefertiti bust. The museum also claimed it would undermine its revenue streams through the gift shop, but as the case progressed, that turned out to be very misleading - the museum had made less than 5000 EUR over ten years from 3D scans. https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-...

What's to stop a replica maker from scanning a replica bought from the gift shop? I am very skeptical that a trinket purchaser will care about or be able to identify any scanning errors introduced.

You should look at what the guy behind this company actually sells - they are very upscale replicas going in famous American homes, my guess is the standards are quite high

I have no clue if museums are in that space at all though

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#287

Post by trinsic2 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 6:34 PM UTC

grahamj wrote: post #215

wiz21c wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted t…

> a museum is not there to be profitable This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum. Anything else is corruption.

The problem is that every institution has been corrupted by the capitalistic viewpoint that everything needs to be profitable to work. Everyone believes that and lives there live around those principals there is not much room for a common domain any more.

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#288

Post by turol » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #239

gknoy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I sincerely hope more games allow virtual interactions with culturally significant art. Hell, I'd love a virtual tour of major art institutions! 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…

> death match in a museum would be fun too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh40nFH4-A0

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#289

Post by newaccount74 » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 7:59 PM UTC

geuis wrote: post #172

newaccount74 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> weird, jealous hoarding mentality happening on the museums side That's exactly it. I work on a website that makes ancient artefacts accessible. A lot of them are in museums. You wouldn't believe how many museums: - don't want to show you their archive - don't want to let you take pictures - want you to share only low res pictures - want you to get permission before you can "publish" their artefacts, etc. It's extre…

What's your website since you mentioned it?

lupa.at

Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

#290

Post by exabrial » Sun, Oct 20, 2024, 2:07 AM UTC

Zamiel_Snawley wrote: post #241

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.

Oh for sure. We’re talking art here though