Slashdot Mirror
Smithsonian Aims To Make Objects In Museum Collection 3D-Printable
PatPending writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"With just 2 percent of the Smithsonian's archive of 137 million items available to the public at any one time, an effort is under way at the world's largest museum and research institution to adopt 3D tools to expand its reach around the country. CNET has learned that the Smithsonian has a new initiative to create a series of 3D-printed models, exhibits, and scientific replicas — as well as to generate a new digital archive of 3D models of many of the physical objects in its collection. ... They've got technology on their side — with minimally invasive laser scanners they can capture the geometry of just about any object or site with accuracy down to the micron level."
Along with the claims that physical objects are copyrighted?
The estate of a sculptor who died before 1942 has no case.
If they release these models into the public doman this might just be the self justification I need to convince myself to get a 3D printer. They should sell the printers and printer consumables off their website, and give away the models for free.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Can the lasers penetrate the insides too, or is the 3D object just a convex hull?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
That depends on what a "printed home" is; your link just goes to a Go Daddy parking page. I will tell you this: Architectural works are just as subject to copyright as sculptural works.
my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.
my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.
I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.
Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.
show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.
You can take a picture of the polygraph (copying device "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph_%28duplicating_device%29") at the Smithsonian, a favorite of Jefferson's, but you cannot publish it in the Wikimedia Commons (at least not without some tortuous-to-obtain special permission), so how are you going to get the whole device (copied) out under less restrictive permissions? - Leonard G.
2) The data points & measurements will surely be of interest to historians & scholars.
3) I would love to see the scans in a high rez 3d display; could drive useful virtual reality tech. I don't have days (weeks?) to visit the actual museum. And if I ever do get the opportunity to go, I would love to preview the collection and come up with a short list of what I want to look at in person.
4) Self funding: I suspect the Smithsonian doesn't have as much budget as they might wish. The museum could sell replicas. I wold love to be able buy a nice bit of sculpture or history to display. I'd love to see the patent office do this for some of their old-school "models".
my interest in a museum has never been to see a reproduction of an historical achievement. I've no interest in seeing a photograph of the first telephone, nor in seeing a model of the first telephone, nor in seeing a drawing of the first telephone, nor an impressionist painting of the first telephone, nor a spot-on to-the-micron reproduction of the first telephone.
my interest in a museum is to see the first telephone. Not something created ten minutes ago for me to see, but something created ages ago as an achievement.
I could care less about the reproduction. Actually, that's a lie. I'd feel ripped off by it.
Quite frankly, I'd be upset to hear that my country spent good money to create the reproduction, store the reproduction, and hide the original from me.
show me the original, or destroy the original because it can't be shown.
Under U.S. law, copyright in most architectural works goes to the architect as an independent contractor, rather than to the employer (Source: Wikipedia, citing Bonner v. Dawson and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid).
Crown copyright applies to works first published by a government, and its term may differ from that of an individual author's copyright. For example, the copyright term of a work of the government of Canada or Great Britain is shorter (50 years instead of 50 or 70 pma), and that of a work of the United States government is zero.
Just from watching the stargate SG-1 props go at eBay lately, I fuckin thought damn, IF I could only make teok' o's gauaould prayer statue,. (1 of 6 or whatever just went for like $125 on eBay) OH how I love those black temple cats, even though the object is basically for show and made like a piece of shit, when you look up close. But yeah, if only the banksters and government were not trying to make a NWO, maybe we would have money to buy some American plastic shit? But as it is this fucking treasonous bailouts, the fed printing money devaluating the dollar, the unconstitutional not declared endless wars now driving gas and commodities way the fuck up, and all these bullshit new laws have fucked me leaving me in a quazi legal limbo with copyright, and along with the NDAA, someone just posting a rant could end me up raided, spied on, tortured, no trial or, struck by a fucking drone by my own fucking country by these fucking treasonous psychopathic tyrants. I digress.
I think the IDEA is genius, 3D artifacts, awesome.
Nobody globally is going to have thousands to pay for a giant plastic King Tut Casket in this monetary enviornment. And if they do it won't be much longer.
Ya think I'm wrong?
1) as close as we can get doesn't make it good enough for anything. just means that unknown errors become major problems. the idea of an original is that it's definitely correct. not actually correct, definitely correct. there's a big difference.
2) "of interest" is rarely worth anything. Think about how much anyone cares about 10'000 year old pots, and what they can teach us about prehistoric civilizations. Now imagine that you actually have a near-perfect replica of that bowl. by the way, in different materialsp it's totally meaningless. more so, it devalues the original, because people don't know any better.
3) a 3d replica of a sculpture is no different than a photocopy of a photograph. or a copy of a painting. if you had a pro painter copying the mona lisa on every street corner, are you saying that you won't need to see the real thing? that you'd want to see the copy before seeing the real thing? you're talking about turning every one of humanity's expressions into an academic exercise. and yeah, people will care about them the same way any elementary school student always does -- not at all. but teachers will drag them just the same.
4) yes, money will be made, just like most bad ideas make money. most illegal ideas too, by the way. and I too would very much enjoy having archie bunker's chair in my living room. but it's just as cheesy to have a replica as it's always been. someone somewhere has the real 50 million dollar painting, and I have the $10 reprint. look how nice my wall is. I also have a build-your-own ferrari in the garage, and very large fake gold statues on my lawn.
you've always been able to have fake stuff at a fraction of the cost. but only the most impoverished have ever cared. to everyone else, it winds up being cheesy.
so, like with every advancement, when the ability to copy is new, having a copy is having an original copy. it's the ability to copy that's impressive. and the moment it's common, they all become valueless.
and that's called devaluing an entire industry. and that's exactly what you'll get. you already have people on minimum wage with music collections larger than the wealthiest audiophiles of the 1980's. and so, music has zero value today. and not just the music. speakers suck, concert venues suck, car stereos suck. the actual quality of the music has dropped because the entire industry is now consumerized.
if you want the same to happen to everything, that's what you'll get.
I really wish the consumer level 3D printers could match the quality of the ones they're using. (Disclaimer: I've never handled the output from either so I'm just looking at pictures. But the ones shown in the link look much better without any obvious pixelization or should I say "voxelization"?).
Oh well, another 5 years I guess. (Still I'm glad to be living now and not, say, during the middle ages!).
Although having 3d models of things in the museum is a great idea, I think the idea that people will actually 3d print these replicas really is sad.
I doubt it will really happen much in a home environment (just like nobody really prints a book at home), however, I notice lots of people wasting paper/ink printing things in the office (where it is "free"). Fortunatly most businesses don't have 3d printers yet, but I can see a day where people are printing out things for meeting and for show & tell. I see people still actually printing color slide handouts for people to look at during meetings and these are the same people that would not think twice about printing 3d objects if they had access to that capability...
Hopefully some sort of cheap virtual reality technology will make these 3d printable objects stay in the digital world where they won't damage the environment. If that happens, in theory you can print them, but nobody would...
I want to print Archie Bunker's chair and Mister Roger's sweater, both in the Smithsonian collection.
these two guys are focusing on many organic items, that in time will degrade. It is a pity that the article did not stress that aspect. Yeah, 3D printing is the new buzz, but being able to document the geometry of things that crumble with time and oxidation is a service that is invaluable.
You're only looking at this from only one angle. The angle of replicas on display in museums, and you protest as if this was something new. It isn't, museums have been showing replicas for as long as they've existed. Virtually every dinosaur display is a cast of the real thing. The world you think exists is already mostly a dream. The difference with this though is we can have our own copy where before the process was so expensive it wasn't possible. You don't value this, I don't begrudge your opinion on the matter, but don't you dare say its worthless because YOU don't find worth in it.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
it's worthless because it devalues everything. yes, I miss the days when I saw real dinosaurs in exhibits.
but it's important to explain to people who don't know better that they too should find it worthless. otherwise, you get marketing industries generating value where none exists. and that's just bad for civilization as a whole.
it's not I who finds it worthless. it actually is worthless. the fact that someone can be conduced into attributing value to the item doesn't actually ascribe that value. it just fakes that value. and faked values are called bubbles in the finance world, and much much worse things in the biological world.
Anyone know if the 3d models (of those things they've scanned so far) are already available as a download somewhere? It'd be cool throw Jefferson into a render or two...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Excellent! They can use TPB's physibles category.
cool story, bro
care to share with us any other "absolute truth"?
it's worthless because it devalues everything. yes, I miss the days when I saw real dinosaurs in exhibits.
When did they ever have *real dinosaurs* in exhibits? Most fossils aren't the real thing, but mineralized casts, and I'm pretty sure there aren't any whole frozen dinosaurs.
but it's important to explain to people who don't know better that they too should find it worthless.
...snip
it's not I who finds it worthless. it actually is worthless.
Contradict yourself much? How about a citation as to the actual worthlessness you keep referring to?
the fact that someone can be conduced into attributing value to the item doesn't actually ascribe that value. it just fakes that value. and faked values are called bubbles in the finance world, and much much worse things in the biological world.
"Value" is a matter of perception and relative to context, and therefore subjective. It's all "fake". On that note, what exactly are "faked values" in the biological world, and what are they called? I'm curious.
You opinions, no matter how strongly you feel about them, are not facts. When you learn the difference, your arguments will make much more sense.
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
1 + 1 = 2, most of the time.
easily-produced replicas will eliminate all of the tourism in washington dc.
it'll take you another 20 years to prove it to yourself.
At last, I can make a 3d model of the archie bunker chair. I hope they scan that before the padding goes away. If it worked for Archie to sit around in, it may make a really good programming chair.
At the core of your argument is that you only 'value' some particular quality but not another and you have the gall to speak like you're an authority on the matter "it's important to explain to people who don't know better", the arrogance of that statement is truly amazing. We know it isn't the authentic item, that in no way diminishes our enjoyment of it. That's like saying because grape juice exists suddenly an aged fine wine has had its existence devalued.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Some people ARE interested in what is in a museum. Builders of historical instruments, for instance. As an instrument builder, I like this tremendously. The object of my interest can now be printed, and I can take a good look up close. In the museum, the object is behind glass, unless you make an appointment to measure it. In the case of the Haags Gemeentemuseum, for example, this fails.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The guy who was hired to prepare a replica of Pres. Thomas Jefferson's lap desk charges a modest fee for the plans which I've never been able to justify --- just being able to download a file w/ accurate dimensions would let me make my own.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
easily-produced replicas will eliminate all of the tourism in washington dc.
That sounds like the same logic that the MPAA and the RIAA use.
Tons of dinosaurs and other creatures lie 'undiscovered' because the holotypes are sitting in a museum basement and no one has gotten around to describing them. If museums were able to scan their entire collections, and were willing to put up the data in an open-access way, paleontologists could get a lot more done. Of course, at some point someone would have to actually brave the dust and examine the fossil itself, but for cladistic studies and searching for new material to work on, it seems like a heck of a resource.
"[A]n effort is under way at the world's largest museum and research institution to adopt 3D tools to expand its reach around the country."
Buried lede: Smithsonian Gives Nation A Reacharound