peglasaurus

I don't know anything about that dialect. What were your experiences?

Is your codebase uncompilable using their tools? Would a simple hello world compile? How foreign does a simple blinky program look to a C programmer?

Sounds sensible. I don't see any evidence that personal data has any in-depth protection guarantee - its all best efforts "we'll try". I don't have a solution but its always useful to remember. That and the fact your personal data will be mined mercilessly for every possible linkage possibility that can be monetised.

(For those now fuming about how great their own service is and how strong their security has been, please re-read the word guarantee. Consider the implications of what it would mean if you were required to face a fine for each breach. Now you know what I meant by guarantee/warranty and why I said I don't have a solution)

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.

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.

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.