Comment by peglasaurus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peglasaurus | Hacker News Reader

So they claim copyright? So they can prove they own it? Where did it come from? Who exactly is the craftsman who made it? Can I see complete documentation? I’ll be expecting a complete transfer history or the current ownership claim is invalid. No uncertainty allowed, names, dates and place of origin please. Do they still want copyright if they can’t even show complete chain of creation to their current ownership? How about certification that shows legal transfer of the item from the original craftsman to the current holders lawful possession?

Obviously these are farcical questions but the museums answers are likely not to be so laughable or ridiculous. Quite a lot of their answers will show they don’t actually own the item - they just have it. For now.

In reality the museum is just the current holder of something that was probably actually stolen. A thief can’t claim much of anything can they?

Perhaps the museum should clarify its exact claim so that no others can challenge them. And “because we’ve had it for awhile” doesn’t count. Maybe the museum should not only admit they don’t have copyright but that in a very real way they shouldn’t even have it to begin with.

I assume that they are claiming copyright in the digital file that they created. As in: I took a photo, I made a digital file, I have copyright in the file. The question comes down to exactly what copyright law for the particular country says, but it's likely to require a degree of originality, which an exact copy of an existing work doesn't provide.

I actually don't think a photo has the same intent as a scan. A scan of the type they made is intended to assist or aid in reproduction. That implies control of the original.

A photo is a view of an item. Angle, lighting, environmental factors chosen by the person taking the photo. These are all choices by that person. Creative/artistic choices in of themselves and in addition to the work being photographed.

A scan intended for reproduction is different. It is a best effort reproduction of an existing item. A copy. The museum made no creative choices. When you do a scan like this the optimal result is the ability to 100% reproduce the item. Molecule by molecule if possible but the exterior is always feasibly easier.

I'd be interested to see where these laws head as the future proceeds. Copyright law is a mess but not as much of a mess as those for patents.

> The museum made no creative choices.

This is not really true. 3D scanners are far from perfect, and getting good useful results does involve making artistic and technical choices. I did my PhD on reconstructing surfaces from laser scan data, and spent long hours comparing different methods and parameter values in minute detail - there's a lot of flexibility, even when the goal is the best possible fidelity.

I do think claiming copyright goes against the purpose of museums, though.

But you are adjusting values to get a more perfect reproduction, not to produce a new work.

Copyright doesn't care how long you worked or how hard it was. It cares if you made a new creative work. What you describe would be more in the domain of patents.

Yes, but I think there are two problems with that idea, and that it can be creative:

1. There is no digital ground truth, so you can't actually objectively tell whether your adjustments are making it more accurate. It relies on subjective comparison and sometimes manual patching up (3D equivalent of photoshopping).

2. There are many different equivalently accurate representations, some of which are better for some purposes. E.g. how the surface is tessellated or otherwise represented, which bits are more important and deserve more fidelity, 3D printing (and what kind) or CNC router or virtual movie prop, etc.

I think it's copyright rather than patents, as it's very manual and subjective (not a well-defined process or algorithm).

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how much of what I'm describing is sufficiently creative to count as a new work.

No, they do not claim copyright over the physical bust.

I'm fairly sure if they could they would.

The article said they actively blocked others from even taking photos.

"The museum has long prohibited visitors from taking any kinds of photographs of its biggest attraction."

So they are asserting copyright of the work in the sense they are restricting access.

Their only real reasonable excuse might be that flash photography is likely to damage the work but non-flash photography should still be allowed. They've got history of blocking all such access.

I was in a museum that said photography is forbidden because of the fragility of the objects in a particular exhibit. I thought it was weird/amusing that it had no indication (even in an icon or something) of flash photography being the problem.

This is because people will "forget" that their flash is on. "Oops"! Easier to just ban it altogether.

People will also see a sign that looks dumb and figure that they might as well ignore it because it doesn't make sense.

Also, I wonder if the "flash" on a phone is comparable to older types.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com