3 ms·
They’re afraid of losing out on the revenue from selling replicas, etc. which is probably a very reasonable fear given that the guy filing suit and writing this
by whimsicalism 2y ago
They’re afraid of losing out on the revenue from selling replicas, etc. which is probably a very reasonable fear given that the guy filing suit and writing this blog post runs a company that creates replica artwork?
- squigz 2y agoThe huge piles of revenue? > SPK confirmed it had earned less than 5,000 euro, total, from marketing the Nefertiti scan, or any other scan for that matter. SPK also admitted it did not direct even that small revenue towards digitization, explaining that it was not obliged to do so. In the nearly 10 years since it had created the Nefertiti scan, SPK had completely failed to commercially exploit the valuable data idling on its hard drives.
- whimsicalism 2y agoNot sure if you are intentionally missing the distinction I’m making? Your comment just restates the GP
- squigz 2y agoI'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make, no.
- whimsicalism 2y agoRevenue from “marketing the 3d scans” is not the same as “revenue from selling replicas” and it is the latter that they are trying to protect, not the sale of the scans directly
- squigz 2y agoMy impression from that article was that '3D scans' and 'replicas' were grouped together.
- whimsicalism 2y agoYes, I agree the article very intentionally tries to give that impression, true
- javawizard 2y agoAm I to understand that impression is incorrect then? Where might one look to ascertain the actual revenues involved?
- mandevil 2y agoRight, no one is buying the digital scans. But tons of people buy physical replicas- I have been a volunteer at a different museum and our physical models of our most famous artifacts were very nice money makers for us, so I presume they would be for them as well. And using that digital scan you can make your own competing physical replica. Which is why the museum doesn't really want to make it easy for any 3D printer to compete with them.
- cortesoft 2y agoYou could just buy one replica and scan it yourself.
- romwell 2y ago>They’re afraid of losing out on the revenue from selling replicas You're aware that you don't need a 3D scanner (much less a 3D scan) to produce a replica of a sculpture (..or a replica of a replica), right? There's this ancient technique, known as casting, still in use today - which was used to produce some of the very sculptures being scanned in the first place!
- williamdclt 2y agoThere’s no public access mold of these statues though? What would a manufacturer cast _from_? A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation
- williamdclt 2y agoThere’s no public access mold of these statues though? What would a manufacturer cast _from_? A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation
- saturnV 2y agoWell, apparently the museum really wants to make sure they have a monopoly on the files, to be able to sell the official copies in their gift shop. No doubt these are of high enough quality that those could be the base of a mould? Scans of paintings are usually considered public domain, why wouldn’t 3D scans of sculptures be different?
- necovek 2y agoAs illustrated in a number of cases mentioned throughout this thread, this revenue is minimal. It is simply easier to say "no" instead of going out on a limb and saying yes and then your bosses coming at you for doing what you shouldn't have done. Nobody will be reprimanded for saying "no", but somebody might for just granting access to these 3d scans.
- whimsicalism 2y agoPoint me to a single case?