without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand with a result that rivals the scan. so in that case it becomes a question of resolution or fidelity. the question is, how accurate does a reproduction need to be to violate copyright?
> without using a 3d scanner, i can take very precise measurements by hand
Ignoring the practical part of this, which is that the Museum isn't going to let you close enough to the bust to do this. But assuming they did for a second -
> with a result that rivals the scan
The linked scan contains nearly 6.5 million tesselated polygons, and surface color data in Ptex format. You are not going to be able to get within cooee of that. Any hand measured copy is going to qualify as an artists interpretation and would not violate copyright I should think.
of course. it's a thought experiment. theoretically given enough time and extremely precise instruments it would be possible to get measurements close enough. so the question remains- is this really an issue of "artistic interpretation" or just accuracy?
As I posted elsewhere, I think I have a philosophical issue with the idea that you can undo or reverse the creative process through creating an additional derivative work.
Say you take a lot of photographs of an object, and they are stipulated to be creative. Then you can use photogrammetry to derive a 3D model. So if the direct antecedent of your work was creative, how can your model be noncreative?
If I take one of those photos and I use a color picker on the first pixel, and I obtain the value #55A3FF and I write it down, is that value a creative work due to originating from those pictures?
Photogrammetry generally disregards essential components of what makes a photograph a creative work.
My question is, if it's not a creative work, does it violate the copyright of the owner of the object photographed, if the photo was a legitimate creative work?
