6 ms·

Copyright would apply to the scan, same as any photo you make of something is copyrighted to you.

Alex3917 11y ago
> Copyright would apply to the scan Not if it's a slavish reproduction.
yig 11y ago
In many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions are not copyrightable: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art...
- consp 11y ago
  True, but it is if you have to actually create it yourself and if it costs considerable effort and is done with a new technique. As some people have already stated: The detail is much too high to be created as a self-created, new method, production (e.g. scanned with a kinect2 by walking around). And I also wonder what the effect of tempered glass is on the scan (as most glass will block near uv and ir, since they might want to keep the original in good condition. -- update to clarify
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Workfactor isn't a criterion of copyright (under US law). Authorship is. Composing, framing, and timing a shutter release is considered "authorship" so far as photography is concerned. Not sure a scan meant to be fully faithful to an original would be.
- ygra 11y ago
  In Germany they are, as the country-specific notes on that linked page tell you.
huskyr 11y ago
Not necessarily. Reproductions of public domain works that have no 'creative input', such as photographs of 2d-works like paintings are usually not eligible for copyright protection. You could argue the same is true for a perfect 3d-scan of a PD work: there is no creative process.
baldfat 11y ago
I love that people even have the idea that these items of antiquity which can belong to someone and they can make a copyright. The obvious answer (to me) is that they are public domain and are humanities public record. Now the item may be owned but cannot copyright the image. This should be the answer.
- neves 11y ago
  This item is from the cultural heritage of Egypt. It belongs to the country. German has stolen it.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    But should Egypt own the copyright image is my question? My answer is no.
    - kpil 11y ago
      The dude that made it? The copyright expired a while ago then...
      - baldfat 11y ago
        Well then they say that the person making the image with a camera or a scanner has copyright to their "Art Work." If the picture or scan is 100% a representative of the object it shouldn't have a artistic license to keep that away.
mesozoic 11y ago
Luckily the copyright on a ancient work of art would have expired long ago.
bpicolo 11y ago
How does copyright apply to a 3300 year old statue?
return0 11y ago
Indeed, but people should be able to freely make 3d scans and the museum should have no right to prevent that.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The scanning process may interfere with the ability of other members of the public to enjoy the work in the usual way. The scanning process may damage the object in some small way, which could accumulate over the course of multiple scans. The queue for making volume scans may be packed with amateurs, who will make low-quality scans, with limited distribution. These might prevent the timely creation of a high-quality scan. So it is really in the interest of the public to allow the most competent scanner to jump the queue, make the best possible scan with available technology, and distribute that to everyone who wanted a scan in lieu of allowing them to make their own. If a work of art is removed from exhibit once every decade or so for a new scan that is better than the last scan, and that is distributed libre to any visitor that wants a copy, there is no argument to be made for anyone to make another scan, unless it can add information that is not already in the existing files. For instance, if the usual scan relies on reflected visible light, a magnetic scan or transmitted light could reveal other information, such as perhaps a previous image that was painted over.
  - woah 11y ago
    Do you also feel this way about photos?
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Which do you mean? Photos of a museum piece or photos as the exhibited work? For the latter, if the photos were taken on film, reproduction prints could be made in the same fashion as the exhibited print, and any scanning should take place using the negatives. On-plate photography is more appropriately digitized using a scanning machine, rather than with a handheld photographic camera. As for taking pictures of a museum piece, as long as you are no more disruptive than someone using their eyeballs, I have no problem with taking photographs, even if the displayed work is still under copyright. A blanket ban on photography puts an unfair burden on the photographer to prove fair use a priori. If there is a problem with copyright, the work in question can always be blurred or blacked out with digital editing, leaving the remainder of the photo intact. But I don't believe any public museum can ethically prevent visitors from using recording devices of any kind unless they provide libre digital copies of the protected work that are objectively better than anything that could be produced by an amateur in situ. So by all means, charge 8000 euro for a volume-printed reproduction of the bust. But if you want to prevent people from "scanning" the original, you had best make the high-resolution scan the museum already possesses available for download first.

> Copyright would apply to the scan Not if it's a slavish reproduction.

yig 11y ago

In many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions are not copyrightable: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art...

consp 11y ago
True, but it is if you have to actually create it yourself and if it costs considerable effort and is done with a new technique. As some people have already stated: The detail is much too high to be created as a self-created, new method, production (e.g. scanned with a kinect2 by walking around). And I also wonder what the effect of tempered glass is on the scan (as most glass will block near uv and ir, since they might want to keep the original in good condition. -- update to clarify
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Workfactor isn't a criterion of copyright (under US law). Authorship is. Composing, framing, and timing a shutter release is considered "authorship" so far as photography is concerned. Not sure a scan meant to be fully faithful to an original would be.
ygra 11y ago
In Germany they are, as the country-specific notes on that linked page tell you.

huskyr 11y ago

Not necessarily. Reproductions of public domain works that have no 'creative input', such as photographs of 2d-works like paintings are usually not eligible for copyright protection. You could argue the same is true for a perfect 3d-scan of a PD work: there is no creative process.

baldfat 11y ago

I love that people even have the idea that these items of antiquity which can belong to someone and they can make a copyright. The obvious answer (to me) is that they are public domain and are humanities public record. Now the item may be owned but cannot copyright the image. This should be the answer.

neves 11y ago
This item is from the cultural heritage of Egypt. It belongs to the country. German has stolen it.
- baldfat 11y ago
  But should Egypt own the copyright image is my question? My answer is no.
  - kpil 11y ago
    The dude that made it? The copyright expired a while ago then...
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Well then they say that the person making the image with a camera or a scanner has copyright to their "Art Work." If the picture or scan is 100% a representative of the object it shouldn't have a artistic license to keep that away.

mesozoic 11y ago

Luckily the copyright on a ancient work of art would have expired long ago.

bpicolo 11y ago

How does copyright apply to a 3300 year old statue?

return0 11y ago

Indeed, but people should be able to freely make 3d scans and the museum should have no right to prevent that.

logfromblammo 11y ago
The scanning process may interfere with the ability of other members of the public to enjoy the work in the usual way. The scanning process may damage the object in some small way, which could accumulate over the course of multiple scans. The queue for making volume scans may be packed with amateurs, who will make low-quality scans, with limited distribution. These might prevent the timely creation of a high-quality scan. So it is really in the interest of the public to allow the most competent scanner to jump the queue, make the best possible scan with available technology, and distribute that to everyone who wanted a scan in lieu of allowing them to make their own. If a work of art is removed from exhibit once every decade or so for a new scan that is better than the last scan, and that is distributed libre to any visitor that wants a copy, there is no argument to be made for anyone to make another scan, unless it can add information that is not already in the existing files. For instance, if the usual scan relies on reflected visible light, a magnetic scan or transmitted light could reveal other information, such as perhaps a previous image that was painted over.
- woah 11y ago
  Do you also feel this way about photos?
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Which do you mean? Photos of a museum piece or photos as the exhibited work? For the latter, if the photos were taken on film, reproduction prints could be made in the same fashion as the exhibited print, and any scanning should take place using the negatives. On-plate photography is more appropriately digitized using a scanning machine, rather than with a handheld photographic camera. As for taking pictures of a museum piece, as long as you are no more disruptive than someone using their eyeballs, I have no problem with taking photographs, even if the displayed work is still under copyright. A blanket ban on photography puts an unfair burden on the photographer to prove fair use a priori. If there is a problem with copyright, the work in question can always be blurred or blacked out with digital editing, leaving the remainder of the photo intact. But I don't believe any public museum can ethically prevent visitors from using recording devices of any kind unless they provide libre digital copies of the protected work that are objectively better than anything that could be produced by an amateur in situ. So by all means, charge 8000 euro for a volume-printed reproduction of the bust. But if you want to prevent people from "scanning" the original, you had best make the high-resolution scan the museum already possesses available for download first.