40 ms·

If you drew a sketch that you felt was the ultimate best sketch possible, and without seeing your sketch i drew a sketch of the same subject that i felt was the

If you drew a sketch that you felt was the ultimate best sketch possible, and without seeing your sketch i drew a sketch of the same subject that i felt was the best sketch possible, we'd come up with two completely different sketches that were each our own interpretation of the original work. If you took a 3D scan, and i took a 3D scan of the same subject, barring either of us making a mistake, we'd both come up with exactly the same final result. 3D scanning is not the creation of an original work, it's a reproduction. Claiming copyright on a 3D scan is just as crazy as claiming copyright on any other reproduction. I can't rip a DVD and then claim that my ripped MKV file is an original work that i own the copyright to.

dpau 7y ago
without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand with a result that rivals the scan. so in that case it becomes a question of resolution or fidelity. the question is, how accurate does a reproduction need to be to violate copyright?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nineteen999 7y ago
  > without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand Ignoring the practical part of this, which is that the Museum isn't going to let you close enough to the bust to do this. But assuming they did for a second - > with a result that rivals the scan The linked scan contains nearly 6.5 million tesselated polygons, and surface color data in Ptex format. You are not going to be able to get within cooee of that. Any hand measured copy is going to qualify as an artists interpretation and would not violate copyright I should think.
  - dpau 7y ago
    of course. it's a thought experiment. theoretically given enough time and extremely precise instruments it would be possible to get measurements close enough. so the question remains- is this really an issue of "artistic interpretation" or just accuracy?
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      As I posted elsewhere, I think I have a philosophical issue with the idea that you can undo or reverse the creative process through creating an additional derivative work. Say you take a lot of photographs of an object, and they are stipulated to be creative. Then you can use photogrammetry to derive a 3D model. So if the direct antecedent of your work was creative, how can your model be noncreative?
      - icebraining 7y ago
        If I take one of those photos and I use a color picker on the first pixel, and I obtain the value #55A3FF and I write it down, is that value a creative work due to originating from those pictures? Photogrammetry generally disregards essential components of what makes a photograph a creative work.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        My question is, if it's not a creative work, does it violate the copyright of the owner of the object photographed, if the photo was a legitimate creative work?
rjsw 7y ago
The two scans would only be identical if you were using the same equipment with the same algorithms. I don't see it as the same as copying a DVD.
- notatoad 7y ago
  A rip of a DVD is also only identical if you're using the same equipment and the same algorithm. XviD and x264 produce different compression artifacts, but they're still making a reproduction rather than a creative work.

dpau 7y ago

without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand with a result that rivals the scan. so in that case it becomes a question of resolution or fidelity. the question is, how accurate does a reproduction need to be to violate copyright?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nineteen999 7y ago
> without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand Ignoring the practical part of this, which is that the Museum isn't going to let you close enough to the bust to do this. But assuming they did for a second - > with a result that rivals the scan The linked scan contains nearly 6.5 million tesselated polygons, and surface color data in Ptex format. You are not going to be able to get within cooee of that. Any hand measured copy is going to qualify as an artists interpretation and would not violate copyright I should think.
- dpau 7y ago
  of course. it's a thought experiment. theoretically given enough time and extremely precise instruments it would be possible to get measurements close enough. so the question remains- is this really an issue of "artistic interpretation" or just accuracy?
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    As I posted elsewhere, I think I have a philosophical issue with the idea that you can undo or reverse the creative process through creating an additional derivative work. Say you take a lot of photographs of an object, and they are stipulated to be creative. Then you can use photogrammetry to derive a 3D model. So if the direct antecedent of your work was creative, how can your model be noncreative?
    - icebraining 7y ago
      If I take one of those photos and I use a color picker on the first pixel, and I obtain the value #55A3FF and I write it down, is that value a creative work due to originating from those pictures? Photogrammetry generally disregards essential components of what makes a photograph a creative work.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        My question is, if it's not a creative work, does it violate the copyright of the owner of the object photographed, if the photo was a legitimate creative work?

rjsw 7y ago

The two scans would only be identical if you were using the same equipment with the same algorithms. I don't see it as the same as copying a DVD.

notatoad 7y ago
A rip of a DVD is also only identical if you're using the same equipment and the same algorithm. XviD and x264 produce different compression artifacts, but they're still making a reproduction rather than a creative work.