If you drew a sketch that you felt was the ultimate best sketch possible, and without seeing your sketch i drew a sketch of the same subject that i felt was the best sketch possible, we'd come up with two completely different sketches that were each our own interpretation of the original work.

If you took a 3D scan, and i took a 3D scan of the same subject, barring either of us making a mistake, we'd both come up with exactly the same final result.

3D scanning is not the creation of an original work, it's a reproduction. Claiming copyright on a 3D scan is just as crazy as claiming copyright on any other reproduction. I can't rip a DVD and then claim that my ripped MKV file is an original work that i own the copyright to.

The two scans would only be identical if you were using the same equipment with the same algorithms. I don't see it as the same as copying a DVD.

A rip of a DVD is also only identical if you're using the same equipment and the same algorithm. XviD and x264 produce different compression artifacts, but they're still making a reproduction rather than a creative work.

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?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be copyrightable, but I can see how it wouldn't be. It's not transformative, in fact the idea is to get as close to a replica as possible. It could easily be described as utilitarian until it's modified, a description of facts like news, the phone book, or recipes. But let's say it's copyrightable, are we saying that the digital representation of the object is under copyright, or that specific file? That's how fonts work, the shape of the characters are not copyright protected, but the actual font file is, so I can go a recreate a font as long as I re-write it myself (and obviously don't wind up with identical file output in the end).

It's a n interesting subject, personally.

If the 3d scan involved any creative input then it would also be protected. The sketch is understood to have your creative input applied to what you observed.

Consider maps: just accurately capture reality isn't copyrightable, if they have anything that was a creative decision then they do.

Maybe ironically the design and placement of the creative commons false inlay could be make the overall model copyrightable even if just the head part wasn't.