4 ms·

> The scary language has real-world consequences. These 3D scans could be used by people who want to 3D-print a replica for a classroom, integrate the 3D model

> The scary language has real-world consequences. These 3D scans could be used by people who want to 3D-print a replica for a classroom, integrate the 3D model into an art piece, or allow people to hold the piece in a virtual reality world. Partial reuse for art & photocopy for classroom are areas where people have traditionally ignored copyright and been fine. The question of copyright in a historical scan is I guess an important question but not for these reasons. More relevant case might be a rival museum setting up a gallery of 3d prints of scans. I'm not an expert but the law here is probably unclear -- I think the author of this article is blurring the difference between copyright of the sculpture and copyright of the scan. These scans are hard to make. Someone who drew a picture of the sculpture could assert copyright over the drawing (as other comments here point out). Also, the sculpture itself may be copyrighted if significant restoration work went into it.

PostOnce 7y ago
> Also, the sculpture itself may be copyrighted if significant restoration work went into it. If I restore something to it's original state, I'm just copying the artist, not creating my own art. Wouldn't any claim to copyright on that original work lie with the long-dead creator?
- awinter-py 7y ago
  Counter-example -- a dinosaur skeleton where a significant amount of creative reconstruction goes into arranging the thing and posing it. This is a mix of art and science because you're using paleontological clues about gait etc combined with visual sense.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Is such preservation or reconstruction "an original work of authorship" (17 USC 102(a)), though? Because it seems that many such interpretations (including the Neues Museum's, though that at least has a credible claim to not be strictly governed by US law) have less to do with copyright and original authorship, and more with the capacity for an empowered extant gatekeeper to continue gatekeeping under colour of law.

PostOnce 7y ago

> Also, the sculpture itself may be copyrighted if significant restoration work went into it. If I restore something to it's original state, I'm just copying the artist, not creating my own art. Wouldn't any claim to copyright on that original work lie with the long-dead creator?

awinter-py 7y ago
Counter-example -- a dinosaur skeleton where a significant amount of creative reconstruction goes into arranging the thing and posing it. This is a mix of art and science because you're using paleontological clues about gait etc combined with visual sense.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Is such preservation or reconstruction "an original work of authorship" (17 USC 102(a)), though? Because it seems that many such interpretations (including the Neues Museum's, though that at least has a credible claim to not be strictly governed by US law) have less to do with copyright and original authorship, and more with the capacity for an empowered extant gatekeeper to continue gatekeeping under colour of law.