Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

    (cosmowenman.substack.com)
    771 points abetusk | 25 comments | 18 Oct 24 08:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.624s | 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 #
    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 #
    1. 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 #
    2. littlestymaar ◴[18 Oct 24 13:04 UTC] No.41879063[source]▶
    > This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.

    Gervais Principle

    replies(1): >>41884736 #
    3. 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 #
    4. 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 #
    5. 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.
    6. 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 #
    7. warkdarrior ◴[18 Oct 24 15:15 UTC] No.41880193[source]▶
    And what is the alternative? How do we get it applied to software copyrights?
    replies(1): >>41880537 #
    8. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[18 Oct 24 15:50 UTC] No.41880537{3}[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 #
    9. Suppafly ◴[18 Oct 24 17:20 UTC] No.41881497{4}[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 #
    10. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:14 UTC] No.41883050{5}[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 #
    11. ipaddr ◴[18 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41883308{6}[source]▶
    The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.
    replies(1): >>41883332 #
    12. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:44 UTC] No.41883332{7}[source]▶
    Not when they were alive, which is the period we're talking about.
    13. BlueTemplar ◴[18 Oct 24 20:46 UTC] No.41883341{4}[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 ?

    14. grahamj ◴[18 Oct 24 22:50 UTC] No.41884199[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 #
    15. 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 #
    16. romwell ◴[19 Oct 24 00:43 UTC] No.41884721[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.

    17. romwell ◴[19 Oct 24 00:45 UTC] No.41884736[source]▶
    >Gervais Principle

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

    18. theendisney ◴[19 Oct 24 04:17 UTC] No.41885604[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 #
    19. n_plus_1_acc ◴[19 Oct 24 05:09 UTC] No.41885769{3}[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.
    20. tirant ◴[19 Oct 24 06:00 UTC] No.41885931[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 #
    21. mejutoco ◴[19 Oct 24 10:52 UTC] No.41887078{3}[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.

    22. specialist ◴[19 Oct 24 11:04 UTC] No.41887131{4}[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 #
    23. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 15:49 UTC] No.41888493{5}[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.

    24. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 16:12 UTC] No.41888650{3}[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.

    25. trinsic2 ◴[19 Oct 24 18:34 UTC] No.41889650{3}[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.