Most active commenters
  • whimsicalism(5)
  • squigz(3)

←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 16 comments | 18 Oct 24 08:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:53 UTC] No.41880564[source]▶
Not sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP
replies(1): >>41880581 #
4. squigz ◴[18 Oct 24 15:54 UTC] No.41880581{3}[source]▶
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.
replies(1): >>41880602 #
5. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:56 UTC] No.41880602{4}[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 #
6. squigz ◴[18 Oct 24 15:58 UTC] No.41880621{5}[source]▶
My impression from that article was that '3D scans' and 'replicas' were grouped together.
replies(1): >>41880630 #
7. whimsicalism ◴[18 Oct 24 15:59 UTC] No.41880630{6}[source]▶
Yes, I agree the article very intentionally tries to give that impression, true
replies(1): >>41884539 #
8. mandevil ◴[18 Oct 24 16:12 UTC] No.41880755[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 #
9. cortesoft ◴[18 Oct 24 23:57 UTC] No.41884533{3}[source]▶
You could just buy one replica and scan it yourself.
10. javawizard ◴[18 Oct 24 23:58 UTC] No.41884539{7}[source]▶
Am I to understand that impression is incorrect then? Where might one look to ascertain the actual revenues involved?
11. 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 #
12. williamdclt ◴[19 Oct 24 13:23 UTC] No.41887623[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

13. williamdclt ◴[19 Oct 24 13:23 UTC] No.41887624[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 #
14. saturnV ◴[19 Oct 24 16:00 UTC] No.41888569{3}[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?

15. 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 #
16. whimsicalism ◴[19 Oct 24 18:28 UTC] No.41889600[source]▶
Point me to a single case?