‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Treachery in the Rodin Museum 3D scan verdict

325 points · 192 comments · CosmoWenman

  1. simonw · · focus · HN ↗
    I really want to understand the perspective of the other side of this case. Why did this museum care so much about this issue? They appear to have put an enormous legal effort into preventing the release of these point cloud scans. Why?
    1. p1anecrazy · · focus · HN ↗
      Nicely summarized by another commentator:

      “FOI is for administrative documents to increase transparency in government. Detailed 3D scans a museum does for research or preservation isn't an administrative document.

      If you want a 3d scan of these statues, there's a lot of them around in scannable places like parks etc. If you just want to win, you're wasting everyone's time for no good reason.”

      To put it differently, imagine the museum trained a RodinGPT on artworks and other data. The activist now bases his claim to the model on the fact that the model is a document.

      1. probably_wrong · · focus · HN ↗
        The other commenter didn't answer any of the pertinent questions, namely, on which legal document they based their answer on what a "document" is and isn't. And one of the replies [1] points out to a possibly relevant EU directive against that point.

        I'm not saying you're wrong, but saying "FOI is not meant for that" is the type of answer that requires some solid evidence that the other comment didn't provide.

        [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49951807">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49951807

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.