[iNerdier]

This is one of the more interesting things to come out of the overlap of technology and artworks to my mind. If we continue to have arrangements like that of the Elgin Marbles in London some kind of compromise where a good quality facsimile like this can be created for relatively cheap and displayed to the public then at least we get to have a freer access to our shared heritage.

It's a crying shame they had to resort to doing it undercover though. What exactly has the museum really got to lose?

[acomjean]

Harvard reopened its art museum last year. Its not creative commons, but pretty much everything is now online and searchable.

While not everthing is high-res (picasso cough..) and the interface is meh (you have to zoom too much, its really a good start.

I think they allow visitors to take pictures too. I think you can't stop it cell phones being cameras now.

http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/291708?p...

http://www.harvardartmuseums.org/collections

[roywiggins]

Probably portable 3D scanners makes it easier, but facsimile art isn't new at all. The V&A museum in London has a huge set of Victorian-era plaster casts of EVERYTHING: http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/c/cast-courts/

There's a whole industry of manuscript fascimiles: http://www.facsimilefinder.com/

[Turing_Machine]

Yes, people have been making facsimiles for a long time. The Spurlock Museum in Urbana, IL has a set of copies of the Elgin Marbles, for instance.

[justincormack]

Yes, was about to say the same, the Convention for Promoting Universal Reproductions of Works of Art was in 1867. 3D printing of sculptures is hardly new...

[ry_ry]

If i had to hazard a guess? Some slightly muddled thinking, mired in the ill-considered application existing digital copyright law concepts.