https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-...
I have no clue if museums are in that space at all though
Then the fight should continue until it can dispose of dysfunctional beurocrats? Set an example? It seems normal to fire people who dont understand their work.
Because among copyright/IP maximalists, the whole point is that they own an idea or a picture or a look or a fashion and deserve to keep it to themselves forever. It's not a rational attitude, but it's a real one and unfortunately rather common.
Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice but it's interesting to think about.
It's essentially how art worked up until last couple of hundred years, it worked just fine. During most of the most important periods of art history, copyright wasn't a thing.
https://www.ageofinvention.xyz/p/age-of-invention-the-origin...
This involved lobbying the local rulers though... so was restricted to few chosen, and I am not certain that the situation would be much different today, because it's hard to imagine enforcement working for widespread ad-hoc licenses ?
Government(s) levy royalties on IP it protects.
I'd feel a lot less grumpy about ever expanding scopes for patents and copyrights if we got something (directly) in return.
Yes, corporations big and small are pretty good at reporting close to zero profit to avoid most of the taxes.
But that has still led us exactly where we are at.
Gervais Principle
Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
That's a common property of all large institutions: the reasons why a decision is made may as well be arbitrary, but by golly will they stick to it and die on the hill, if they can.
Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example)
But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open.
The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal.
As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...
This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum.
Anything else is corruption.
Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market.
Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power.
I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).
I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.
Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.
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!
A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation
Scans of paintings are usually considered public domain, why wouldn’t 3D scans of sculptures be different?
A scan is effectively a digital mold, it’s the same conversation
> 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.
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.
Maybe they were worried about sales of photos of the bust, and other products of the bust but not created using the scans? Could one take all the scans and produce a coffee table book of photos similar to what the gift shops often sell?
Honestly the whole gift shop argument is weird. I have no sympathy for them. You can get plenty of knockoffs now if you wanted: the world is full of Statue of Liberty, Big Ben, Eiffel Tower, etc keychains and trinkets even without scans. Gift shops already have to compete with those.
If many people can experience a 75% compelling viewing of the bust (or the pyramids, Galapagos, Chichen Itza, etc.), the losses in tourism to those sites is far more than the lost sales of scan data.
If the smells, sights, people you meet, experience including entering the country and flying, food, traffic, general cultural things etc are not important, why even have it on your list?
Travel should be about the journey as much as the destination, when possible.
If anything it would reduce overcrowding .
The problem with cases like Mona Lisa is that Louvre never really is that overcrowded, but Mona Lisa attracts a crowd at all times (even if it's less than 1% of all visitors on the grounds of Louvre, that's still a lot).
It’s not like the average tourist has unrestricted opportunities to visit any day of the year, usually it’s only a narrow number of dates.
Because its a lot easier to get someplace early on your day off than it is to suddenly get into another tax bracket. Even poor people usually get at least one day off every single week.
Restricting access by income level is going to leave most people who don't earn enough locked out for their entire lives because upward economic mobility is declining in the EU and a total joke in the US.
Certainly when it comes to travel there's already a high barrier and limitations on opportunity so a lottery might be better than only knowing if you'll get in on the day.
And money is a lot more fungible than time, so in literally the dictionary sense, it is just as fair or even better (assuming the pricing stays below say a monthly salary).
I don’t want to vacation to any tourist attraction anytime soon, let alone the places that are currently overcrowded.
And if this is your own subconscious desire, it’s a bit bizarre to insert it this deep into a comment chain…
Someone mentioned prices should be increased to reduce demand, and here we are.
But either way, you responded to them first: https://imgur.com/a/Q7nFW8t
Be better at this next time.
Edit: If you have confused thoughts I don’t appreciate being dragged into it. Take it somewhere else.
Have a great great day.
I didn’t choose to reach out and engage with you, ‘Tostino’, or ‘thfuran’, nor do I care about who ‘Tostino’ wants to interact with, relative ‘arguments’, etc…, because this user didn’t exist for me until 3 comments ago!
There literally wasn’t enough time to care about this nonsense. So take it and leave already instead of doubling down.
Edit: If ‘Tostino’ wants to intentionally troll, that’s sad, but that doesn’t imply another user has to do this or that…
Edit: It's funny seeing the extra comments you then deleted or edited come through in my email.
My guy, you couldn't understand that when I said "I wasn't involved in any of the above comments." I was talking about your original interaction (with someone else) where you went off the rails, not after I started talking to you in the comment chain.
I feel flattered that a few sentences can flip expressed intentions of leaving, to staying until getting banned for trolling.
If your also being amused then sure I’ll help? IDK what else to say.
Simply, the emotions caused and felt when you experience art live, things that run through your mind and how and who with you live it, are not matched by any of the depictions you can get. Even primal senses like feeling the wind, torching sun and smell of your sweat and sand in the desert as you glance at the pyramids are far more immersive than VR will become for another couple of decades at least.