4 ms·

> Yes, to be commercialized and privatized by the author. privatize: "transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control.

by kardos 2y ago

> Yes, to be commercialized and privatized by the author. privatize: "transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public to private ownership and control." The outcome here does not include privatizing the scans by the author! I'm not sure we read the same article

dagenleg 2y ago
You're quite right, actually "privatization" would be a wrong term here, but I feel like my point still stands. I am completely supportive of the release of the cultural heritage digitisations into the public domain, and I think mandating a release under the non-commercial license would be a good solution. Equally, I think it should be possible to license these for commercial use, at a reasonable price. What I was trying to say with my "privatization" bit, is that the author did not intend to buy the scans from the museum, but definitely intends to monetize them, and sell the derived work, without commitment to put that work into the public domain. For me this very obvious profit motive seems incompatible with the image of the defender of the public rights that the author tries to cultivate. And once again, I think we have to take into account that forcing the public institutions to give away their 3D scans, without cutting them in at least a little bit, will simply put a stop to the scanning campaigns.
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  They were already cut in, public funding was specifically used for these scans. There could be an argument that this liberalization means these projects need larger funding, but the museum took a different road.
  - dagenleg 2y ago
    "Public funding" is usually allocated for a specific purpose, as in, covering the cost of the scanning itself and after a lengthy bureaucratic process too. It's not free money. The museums are deathly afraid of losing control over their collections, it's their main income generator. Why would the museum admin even bother going through with the 3D scanning projects, if they don't get to keep at least some commercial rights?

by kardos 2y ago

dagenleg 2y ago

You're quite right, actually "privatization" would be a wrong term here, but I feel like my point still stands. I am completely supportive of the release of the cultural heritage digitisations into the public domain, and I think mandating a release under the non-commercial license would be a good solution. Equally, I think it should be possible to license these for commercial use, at a reasonable price. What I was trying to say with my "privatization" bit, is that the author did not intend to buy the scans from the museum, but definitely intends to monetize them, and sell the derived work, without commitment to put that work into the public domain. For me this very obvious profit motive seems incompatible with the image of the defender of the public rights that the author tries to cultivate. And once again, I think we have to take into account that forcing the public institutions to give away their 3D scans, without cutting them in at least a little bit, will simply put a stop to the scanning campaigns.

BlueTemplar 2y ago
They were already cut in, public funding was specifically used for these scans. There could be an argument that this liberalization means these projects need larger funding, but the museum took a different road.
- dagenleg 2y ago
  "Public funding" is usually allocated for a specific purpose, as in, covering the cost of the scanning itself and after a lengthy bureaucratic process too. It's not free money. The museums are deathly afraid of losing control over their collections, it's their main income generator. Why would the museum admin even bother going through with the 3D scanning projects, if they don't get to keep at least some commercial rights?