Most active commenters
  • MichaelZuo(7)
  • whimsicalism(6)
  • necovek(5)
  • sokoloff(3)
  • squigz(3)
  • romwell(3)
  • Tostino(3)

←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 72 comments | 18 Oct 24 08:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.823s | source | bottom
Show context
Symbiote ◴[18 Oct 24 12:06 UTC] No.41878622[source]▶
> 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 the museum, as it's common for public funding to be tight, and revenue from the gift shop or commercial licencing of their objects can fill the gap. I don't know about France, but I expect the ministry has been heavily pushing public museums to increase their income in this way.

However, that doesn't justify the deception described by the article.

replies(8): >>41878710 #>>41878780 #>>41878801 #>>41878841 #>>41880177 #>>41884218 #>>41886229 #>>41886284 #
1. ACS_Solver ◴[18 Oct 24 12:36 UTC] No.41878841[source]▶
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-...

replies(6): >>41879008 #>>41879453 #>>41879787 #>>41880239 #>>41881759 #>>41882771 #
2. trompetenaccoun ◴[18 Oct 24 12:57 UTC] No.41879008[source]▶
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.
replies(6): >>41879063 #>>41879127 #>>41879282 #>>41879326 #>>41879471 #>>41884704 #
3. littlestymaar ◴[18 Oct 24 13:04 UTC] No.41879063[source]▶
> This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.

Gervais Principle

replies(1): >>41884736 #
4. wiz21c ◴[18 Oct 24 13:11 UTC] No.41879127[source]▶
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 these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open.

The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal.

As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...

replies(2): >>41884199 #>>41885931 #
5. bombcar ◴[18 Oct 24 13:29 UTC] No.41879282[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41885604 #
6. lupusreal ◴[18 Oct 24 13:35 UTC] No.41879326[source]▶
Maintaining the status quo is almost always the path of least resistance for organizations like this. Saying no to something new is easy, to say yes puts you out on a limb with uncertain strength.
7. sokoloff ◴[18 Oct 24 13:48 UTC] No.41879453[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>41879578 #>>41879603 #>>41889108 #
8. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[18 Oct 24 13:51 UTC] No.41879471[source]▶
> Why would they lie about it then? T

Because among copyright/IP maximalists, the whole point is that they own an idea or a picture or a look or a fashion and deserve to keep it to themselves forever. It's not a rational attitude, but it's a real one and unfortunately rather common.

replies(1): >>41880193 #
9. MichaelZuo ◴[18 Oct 24 14:03 UTC] No.41879578[source]▶
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 .

replies(1): >>41883234 #
10. _aavaa_ ◴[18 Oct 24 14:06 UTC] No.41879603[source]▶
I doubt it. People go to see the original Mona Lisa when they can own a reproduction for less than the cost of the flight. I don't see why those who would have gone to see it would suddenly accept a reproduction just because it's AR/VR.
replies(2): >>41880317 #>>41886316 #
11. yardstick ◴[18 Oct 24 14:28 UTC] No.41879787[source]▶
Devils advocate:

Maybe they were worried about sales of photos of the bust, and other products of the bust but not created using the scans? Could one take all the scans and produce a coffee table book of photos similar to what the gift shops often sell?

Honestly the whole gift shop argument is weird. I have no sympathy for them. You can get plenty of knockoffs now if you wanted: the world is full of Statue of Liberty, Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, etc keychains and trinkets even without scans. Gift shops already have to compete with those.

replies(2): >>41880452 #>>41881330 #
12. warkdarrior ◴[18 Oct 24 15:15 UTC] No.41880193{3}[source]▶
And what is the alternative? How do we get it applied to software copyrights?
replies(1): >>41880537 #
13. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:20 UTC] No.41880239[source]▶
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?
replies(3): >>41880539 #>>41884711 #>>41889071 #
14. sokoloff ◴[18 Oct 24 15:27 UTC] No.41880317{3}[source]▶
There are hundreds of places I’d like to experience in my lifetime. I probably have the time left to go to perhaps 50 of them (max). Surely being able to experience some of those 300 in VR will affect my lifetime travel plans and I highly doubt that I’m alone.
replies(1): >>41880655 #
15. bhickey ◴[18 Oct 24 15:42 UTC] No.41880452[source]▶
Approximately no one is going to buy a museum gift shop coffee table book anywhere other than at a museum gift shop.
replies(1): >>41882308 #
16. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[18 Oct 24 15:50 UTC] No.41880537{4}[source]▶
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 about.

replies(3): >>41881497 #>>41883341 #>>41887131 #
17. squigz ◴[18 Oct 24 15:50 UTC] No.41880539[source]▶
The huge piles of revenue?

> SPK confirmed it had earned less than 5,000 euro, total, from marketing the Nefertiti scan, or any other scan for that matter. SPK also admitted it did not direct even that small revenue towards digitization, explaining that it was not obliged to do so. In the nearly 10 years since it had created the Nefertiti scan, SPK had completely failed to commercially exploit the valuable data idling on its hard drives.

replies(2): >>41880564 #>>41880755 #
18. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:53 UTC] No.41880564{3}[source]▶
Not sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP
replies(1): >>41880581 #
19. squigz ◴[18 Oct 24 15:54 UTC] No.41880581{4}[source]▶
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.
replies(1): >>41880602 #
20. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:56 UTC] No.41880602{5}[source]▶
Revenue from “marketing the 3d scans” is not the same as “revenue from selling replicas” and it is the latter that they are trying to protect, not the sale of the scans directly
replies(1): >>41880621 #
21. squigz ◴[18 Oct 24 15:58 UTC] No.41880621{6}[source]▶
My impression from that article was that '3D scans' and 'replicas' were grouped together.
replies(1): >>41880630 #
22. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:59 UTC] No.41880630{7}[source]▶
Yes, I agree the article very intentionally tries to give that impression, true
replies(1): >>41884539 #
23. _aavaa_ ◴[18 Oct 24 16:02 UTC] No.41880655{4}[source]▶
That's my point. Your top 50 are going to stay your top 50. If you've always wanted to see the Mona Lisa in person you're not going to change your plan because you saw an image of it.
replies(1): >>41880831 #
24. mandevil ◴[18 Oct 24 16:12 UTC] No.41880755{3}[source]▶
Right, no one is buying the digital scans. But tons of people buy physical replicas- I have been a volunteer at a different museum and our physical models of our most famous artifacts were very nice money makers for us, so I presume they would be for them as well. And using that digital scan you can make your own competing physical replica. Which is why the museum doesn't really want to make it easy for any 3D printer to compete with them.
replies(1): >>41884533 #
25. sokoloff ◴[18 Oct 24 16:18 UTC] No.41880831{5}[source]▶
My top 50 to see in person would definitely change if 25 of them can be experienced in VR. (I might still go in person to my top 3, but there's a lot of nearly even exchange among spots 4-100.)
replies(1): >>41882214 #
26. y-curious ◴[18 Oct 24 17:04 UTC] No.41881330[source]▶
Moreover, these museums get public funding for their operation AND the 3D scanning initiatives. It's not like the gift shop is the defining feature here.
27. Suppafly ◴[18 Oct 24 17:20 UTC] No.41881497{5}[source]▶
>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.

replies(1): >>41883050 #
28. josefx ◴[18 Oct 24 17:47 UTC] No.41881759[source]▶
That is 500€ a year they could spend on random crap. From my limited experience with the German government any actually viable income stream would immediately result in politicians cutting public funding and overcompensate significantly.
29. ruthmarx ◴[18 Oct 24 18:38 UTC] No.41882214{6}[source]▶
VR isn't that amazing yet, you may as well just sit close to a big screen curved TV with earphones if going in person isn't ultimately that important.

If the smells, sights, people you meet, experience including entering the country and flying, food, traffic, general cultural things etc are not important, why even have it on your list?

Travel should be about the journey as much as the destination, when possible.

30. yardstick ◴[18 Oct 24 18:46 UTC] No.41882308{3}[source]▶
Exactly! The amount of worry they have is stupid and nonsensical and ultimately used to disguise their real reasons of just not wanting to share anything.
31. ballenf ◴[18 Oct 24 19:41 UTC] No.41882771[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>41889624 #
32. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:14 UTC] No.41883050{6}[source]▶
What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.
replies(1): >>41883308 #
33. thfuran ◴[18 Oct 24 20:34 UTC] No.41883234{3}[source]▶
Unless you're suggesting that they'll increase prices proportionally, how would that not result in loss of revenue?
replies(1): >>41883327 #
34. ipaddr ◴[18 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41883308{7}[source]▶
The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.
replies(1): >>41883332 #
35. ipaddr ◴[18 Oct 24 20:44 UTC] No.41883327{4}[source]▶
If the place is packed you should raise prices.
replies(1): >>41884952 #
36. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:44 UTC] No.41883332{8}[source]▶
Not when they were alive, which is the period we're talking about.
37. BlueTemplar ◴[18 Oct 24 20:46 UTC] No.41883341{5}[source]▶
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 ?

38. grahamj ◴[18 Oct 24 22:50 UTC] No.41884199{3}[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>41889650 #
39. cortesoft ◴[18 Oct 24 23:57 UTC] No.41884533{4}[source]▶
You could just buy one replica and scan it yourself.
40. javawizard ◴[18 Oct 24 23:58 UTC] No.41884539{8}[source]▶
Am I to understand that impression is incorrect then? Where might one look to ascertain the actual revenues involved?
41. astrange ◴[19 Oct 24 00:38 UTC] No.41884704[source]▶
If you hire a lawyer, they're going to try to make the strongest argument for your case, even if it's not good.
replies(1): >>41884721 #
42. romwell ◴[19 Oct 24 00:40 UTC] No.41884711[source]▶
>They’re afraid of losing out on the revenue from selling replicas

You're aware that you don't need a 3D scanner (much less a 3D scan) to produce a replica of a sculpture (..or a replica of a replica), right?

There's this ancient technique, known as casting, still in use today - which was used to produce some of the very sculptures being scanned in the first place!

replies(2): >>41887623 #>>41887624 #
43. romwell ◴[19 Oct 24 00:43 UTC] No.41884721{3}[source]▶
And the meta-question of "why did the museum choose to waste money on lawyers that way" is "bureaucrat X decided that the scans belong to the museum, so no further logic or rational thinking will be applied unless absolutely forced to".

That's a common property of all large institutions: the reasons why a decision is made may as well be arbitrary, but by golly will they stick to it and die on the hill, if they can.

44. romwell ◴[19 Oct 24 00:45 UTC] No.41884736{3}[source]▶
>Gervais Principle

Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

45. autoexec ◴[19 Oct 24 01:34 UTC] No.41884952{5}[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>41884987 #>>41889152 #
46. MichaelZuo ◴[19 Oct 24 01:41 UTC] No.41884987{6}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41885156 #
47. autoexec ◴[19 Oct 24 02:20 UTC] No.41885156{7}[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>41887453 #
48. theendisney ◴[19 Oct 24 04:17 UTC] No.41885604{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41885769 #
49. n_plus_1_acc ◴[19 Oct 24 05:09 UTC] No.41885769{4}[source]▶
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.
50. tirant ◴[19 Oct 24 06:00 UTC] No.41885931{3}[source]▶
> The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable

Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market.

Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power.

I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).

replies(2): >>41887078 #>>41888650 #
51. mejutoco ◴[19 Oct 24 10:52 UTC] No.41887078{4}[source]▶
> Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market.

I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.

52. specialist ◴[19 Oct 24 11:04 UTC] No.41887131{5}[source]▶
Double flip the script:

Government(s) levy royalties on IP it protects.

I'd feel a lot less grumpy about ever expanding scopes for patents and copyrights if we got something (directly) in return.

replies(1): >>41888493 #
53. MichaelZuo ◴[19 Oct 24 12:37 UTC] No.41887453{8}[source]▶
No? Those who earn less can save up money, it’s not like it will cost millions of dollars either.

And money is a lot more fungible than time, so in literally the dictionary sense, it is just as fair or even better (assuming the pricing stays below say a monthly salary).

replies(1): >>41898617 #
54. williamdclt ◴[19 Oct 24 13:23 UTC] No.41887624{3}[source]▶
There’s no public access mold of these statues though? What would a manufacturer cast _from_?

A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation

replies(1): >>41888569 #
55. williamdclt ◴[19 Oct 24 13:23 UTC] No.41887623{3}[source]▶
There’s no public access mold of these statues though? What would a manufacturer cast _from_?

A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation

56. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 15:49 UTC] No.41888493{6}[source]▶
Any royalties induce some tax fees along the way, so that already happens in theory.

Yes, corporations big and small are pretty good at reporting close to zero profit to avoid most of the taxes.

But that has still led us exactly where we are at.

57. saturnV ◴[19 Oct 24 16:00 UTC] No.41888569{4}[source]▶
Well, apparently the museum really wants to make sure they have a monopoly on the files, to be able to sell the official copies in their gift shop. No doubt these are of high enough quality that those could be the base of a mould?

Scans of paintings are usually considered public domain, why wouldn’t 3D scans of sculptures be different?

58. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 16:12 UTC] No.41888650{4}[source]▶
How do you explain the relative success of Internet Archive, Wikipedia and previously, public libraries?

Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.

59. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 17:16 UTC] No.41889071[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41889600 #
60. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 17:23 UTC] No.41889108[source]▶
There are already compelling POV videos, drone footage, and photos from wonderful angles in brilliant conditions (sunsets, no other tourists...), yet people still go and visit wven if they don't get any of the perfection that may have been captured with these art forms.

Simply, the emotions caused and felt when you experience art live, things that run through your mind and how and who with you live it, are not matched by any of the depictions you can get. Even primal senses like feeling the wind, torching sun and smell of your sweat and sand in the desert as you glance at the pyramids are far more immersive than VR will become for another couple of decades at least.

61. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 17:28 UTC] No.41889152{6}[source]▶
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).

62. whimsicalism ◴[19 Oct 24 18:28 UTC] No.41889600{3}[source]▶
Point me to a single case?
63. whimsicalism ◴[19 Oct 24 18:31 UTC] No.41889624[source]▶
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

64. trinsic2 ◴[19 Oct 24 18:34 UTC] No.41889650{4}[source]▶
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.
65. thfuran ◴[20 Oct 24 21:27 UTC] No.41898617{9}[source]▶
You seriously think that other people should have to save up weeks of pay to go to the museum so that you don't have be to near people when you go?
replies(1): >>41899576 #
66. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 00:09 UTC] No.41899576{10}[source]▶
Did you just make up an argument with yourself?

I don’t want to vacation to any tourist attraction anytime soon, let alone the places that are currently overcrowded.

And if this is your own subconscious desire, it’s a bit bizarre to insert it this deep into a comment chain…

replies(1): >>41906349 #
67. Tostino ◴[21 Oct 24 17:32 UTC] No.41906349{11}[source]▶
That was the entire point of the comment thread you are replying to.

Someone mentioned prices should be increased to reduce demand, and here we are.

replies(1): >>41906907 #
68. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 18:25 UTC] No.41906907{12}[source]▶
If that is your opinion then clearly the user could have responded to the actual parent comment that they believe contained such, higher up in the comment chain.
replies(1): >>41907093 #
69. Tostino ◴[21 Oct 24 18:44 UTC] No.41907093{13}[source]▶
I don't know why you are even arguing here. This is pointless.

But either way, you responded to them first: https://imgur.com/a/Q7nFW8t

Be better at this next time.

replies(1): >>41907464 #
70. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 19:21 UTC] No.41907464{14}[source]▶
Huh? Why post an allegedly ‘pointless’ imgur link? There’s no reason to click on it…

Edit: If you have confused thoughts I don’t appreciate being dragged into it. Take it somewhere else.

replies(1): >>41910370 #
71. Tostino ◴[22 Oct 24 01:45 UTC] No.41910370{15}[source]▶
I'm sorry, are you having a hard time understanding how online conversations work? I wasn't involved in any of the above comments. I know from this interaction to never interact with you again if I can help it though.

Have a great great day.

replies(1): >>41910739 #
72. MichaelZuo ◴[22 Oct 24 02:50 UTC] No.41910739{16}[source]▶
I can’t make heads or tails out of this logic so I’ll just say it frankly:

I didn’t choose to reach out and engage with you, ‘Tostino’, or ‘thfuran’, nor do I care about who ‘Tostino’ wants to interact with, relative ‘arguments’, etc…, because this user didn’t exist for me until 3 comments ago!

There literally wasn’t enough time to care about this nonsense. So take it and leave already instead of doubling down.