←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 8 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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. lcnPylGDnU4H9OF ◴[18 Oct 24 15:50 UTC] No.41880537[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 #
2. Suppafly ◴[18 Oct 24 17:20 UTC] No.41881497[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 #
3. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:14 UTC] No.41883050[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 #
4. ipaddr ◴[18 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41883308{3}[source]▶
The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.
replies(1): >>41883332 #
5. stavros ◴[18 Oct 24 20:44 UTC] No.41883332{4}[source]▶
Not when they were alive, which is the period we're talking about.
6. BlueTemplar ◴[18 Oct 24 20:46 UTC] No.41883341[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 ?

7. specialist ◴[19 Oct 24 11:04 UTC] No.41887131[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 #
8. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 15:49 UTC] No.41888493[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.