Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
cosmowenman.substack.com
Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
1–10 of 315 posts
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#2previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21558805
(Same person, same topic, different materials; this is the article about the bust of Nefertiti linked in the piece.)
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#3Bon courage.
I hope you get these hypocrites through. Do you have a foundation to raise money for lawyers?
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#4previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21558805 (Same person, same topic, different materials; this is the article about the bust of Nefertiti linked in the piece.)
also very interesting
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#5"In response to the museum’s nonsensical technological claims, we submitted expert testimony from Professor Michael Kazhdan, full professor of computer graphics in the department of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and co-developer of the Poisson Surface Reconstruction algorithm, which is used worldwide in 3D scan data analysis. Professor Kazhdan explained to the court that documents in plaintext format are fundamentally well suited for preserving scan data, and that such documents are easily exploitable by experts and amateurs alike."
Yes. Yes. That must've felt satisfying.
"In response to Musee Rodin's nonsense, we present here the inventor of the basic techniques of 3D scanning, Dr. Kazhdan, from John Hopkins..."
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#6I am okay with public information being free to use commercially, with a huge disclaimer though.
Wherever copyright is applicable, the public should retain it, that's what public domain is for. Any derived works, commercial or otherwise should also be in the public domain.
If you fight for "public access" so that you can make your own stuff locked behind a copyright, then you are the hypocrite here.
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#7> in private, RMN admits it won’t release its scans because it wants to protect its gift shops’ sales revenue from competition from the public making their own replicas.
Sounds like a pretty good reason
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#8I am okay with public information being free to use commercially, with a huge disclaimer though. Wherever copyright is applicable, the public should retain it, that's what public domain is for. Any derived works, commercial or otherwise should also be in the public domain. If you fight for "public access" so that you can make your own stuff locked behind a copyright, then you are the hypocrite here.
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)
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#9Anyone 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. The public can freely access hundreds of scans of classical sculpture from the National Gallery of Denmark, and visitors to the Smithsonian’s website can view, navigate, and freely download thousands of high-quality scans of artifacts ranging from dinosaur fossils to the Apollo 11 space capsule.
Has anyone used these in games? They would be great easter eggs and they have artistry and design that is far beyond almost anything DIY.
Re: Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court
#10I am okay with public information being free to use commercially, with a huge disclaimer though. Wherever copyright is applicable, the public should retain it, that's what public domain is for. Any derived works, commercial or otherwise should also be in the public domain. If you fight for "public access" so that you can make your own stuff locked behind a copyright, then you are the hypocrite here.
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, renewable once) ?