5 ms·

A 3D scan seems like it would be as copyrightable as a photograph would be.

roywiggins 6y ago
The argument is that a photograph is a creative work (there are lots of decisions that go into it) whereas a scan is a mechanical reproduction, and therefore isn't creative, and so can't be copyrighted at all. I don't know what the state of the law on this is. https://boingboing.net/2016/06/01/why-3d-scans-arent-copyright.html https://boingboing.net/2016/06/01/why-3d-scans-arent-copyrig...
- myko 6y ago
  I hadn't thought of that but when you say it, it seems obviously true
- pkaye 6y ago
  What about the cleanup work done on 3d scans?
  - greggyb 6y ago
    It depends on how much original creative effort went into it. Copyright is fuzzy on purpose. Copyright vests automatically and immediately in the creator of a creative work. This can be assigned or licensed to another party in part or in whole, at the discretion of the copyright holder. Whether a work is creative, and therefore protected, by copyright is open to interpretation. Facts cannot be protected through copyright. A creative representation of facts may be protected. E.g. a specific map might be protected, but this wouldn't prevent someone from making another map representing the same places
- gerash 6y ago
  IANAL and I wish those who aren't either mention that. But with that line of argument images from Hubble telescope wouldn't be copyrightable either but they are: http://hubble.stsci.edu/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=92&cat=hubbleimages http://hubble.stsci.edu/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=92&...
  - sio8ohPi 6y ago
    Are they actually copyrightable? STScI is of course free to assert that they are, but that doesn't make it so.
  - javagram 6y ago
    IANAL either but the images from the Hubble have “artistic” work that goes into them just like a landscape photograph does. Choices like the the framing, color saturation levels, etc.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    How does that make sense for a taxpayer-funded resource? I'm sure that some projects that rent time on Hubble have private funding, but does that apply to all of them?
    - Beldin 6y ago
      That images taken by hubble aren't used commercially without paying a license fee to NASA? I imagine the tax payer is okay with getting some money back.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        NASA stuff isn’t copyrighted, and only the logo is even trademarked. > NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not copyrighted. (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html) I believe the reasoning is that everything paid for by your tax money should be free for everyone. I think some state-level governments prefer your argument.
- sgtnoodle 6y ago
  It seems like it comes down to the content, not the form. If I arrange a scene with a bowl of fruit on my dog's head and take a photograph of it, or a 3D scan of it, I can call it a creative work either way. If a photographer operating a photo booth at a party can claim copyright on the photos, then someone making 3D scans of party guests as they pose should be able to claim copyright also. Taking a 3D scan of a random building should be just as copyrightable as taking a photo of the same building. One could argue that neither should be copyrightable, but all the photographers I know would say any photo they take is "creative work", even if it was done with a smartphone camera in auto mode. If simply framing or cropping a photograph is what makes a photo creative, the same concept scales to 3 dimensions just as easily. You have to decide how much of the building to capture, whether to include the parking lot, the nearby power lines, etc. With a bulk capture of geography, I suppose the photographic equivalent of a 3D scan would be aerial photography or Google's street view or something. Is that copyrightable? I assume Google and other companies act like it is. Someone had to decide the resolution and precision to capture at, at least.

The argument is that a photograph is a creative work (there are lots of decisions that go into it) whereas a scan is a mechanical reproduction, and therefore isn't creative, and so can't be copyrighted at all. I don't know what the state of the law on this is. https://boingboing.net/2016/06/01/why-3d-scans-arent-copyright.html https://boingboing.net/2016/06/01/why-3d-scans-arent-copyrig...

myko 6y ago
I hadn't thought of that but when you say it, it seems obviously true
pkaye 6y ago
What about the cleanup work done on 3d scans?
- greggyb 6y ago
  It depends on how much original creative effort went into it. Copyright is fuzzy on purpose. Copyright vests automatically and immediately in the creator of a creative work. This can be assigned or licensed to another party in part or in whole, at the discretion of the copyright holder. Whether a work is creative, and therefore protected, by copyright is open to interpretation. Facts cannot be protected through copyright. A creative representation of facts may be protected. E.g. a specific map might be protected, but this wouldn't prevent someone from making another map representing the same places
gerash 6y ago
IANAL and I wish those who aren't either mention that. But with that line of argument images from Hubble telescope wouldn't be copyrightable either but they are: http://hubble.stsci.edu/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=92&cat=hubbleimages http://hubble.stsci.edu/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=92&...
- sio8ohPi 6y ago
  Are they actually copyrightable? STScI is of course free to assert that they are, but that doesn't make it so.
- javagram 6y ago
  IANAL either but the images from the Hubble have “artistic” work that goes into them just like a landscape photograph does. Choices like the the framing, color saturation levels, etc.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  How does that make sense for a taxpayer-funded resource? I'm sure that some projects that rent time on Hubble have private funding, but does that apply to all of them?
  - Beldin 6y ago
    That images taken by hubble aren't used commercially without paying a license fee to NASA? I imagine the tax payer is okay with getting some money back.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      NASA stuff isn’t copyrighted, and only the logo is even trademarked. > NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not copyrighted. (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html) I believe the reasoning is that everything paid for by your tax money should be free for everyone. I think some state-level governments prefer your argument.
sgtnoodle 6y ago
It seems like it comes down to the content, not the form. If I arrange a scene with a bowl of fruit on my dog's head and take a photograph of it, or a 3D scan of it, I can call it a creative work either way. If a photographer operating a photo booth at a party can claim copyright on the photos, then someone making 3D scans of party guests as they pose should be able to claim copyright also. Taking a 3D scan of a random building should be just as copyrightable as taking a photo of the same building. One could argue that neither should be copyrightable, but all the photographers I know would say any photo they take is "creative work", even if it was done with a smartphone camera in auto mode. If simply framing or cropping a photograph is what makes a photo creative, the same concept scales to 3 dimensions just as easily. You have to decide how much of the building to capture, whether to include the parking lot, the nearby power lines, etc. With a bulk capture of geography, I suppose the photographic equivalent of a 3D scan would be aerial photography or Google's street view or something. Is that copyrightable? I assume Google and other companies act like it is. Someone had to decide the resolution and precision to capture at, at least.