3D Digitisation of Cultural Heritage Copyright Implications of the Methods, Purposes and Collaboration

• Author: Pinar Oruç
• Position: PhD (QMUL), LLM (Cardiff), FHEA
• Pages: 149-159

3D Digitisation of Cultural Heritage

2020

149

2

3D Digitisation of Cultural Heritage

Copyright Implications of the Methods, Purposes and

Collaboration

by Pınar Oruç*

© 2020 Pınar Oruç

Everybody may disseminate this ar ticle by electronic m eans and make it available for downloa d under the terms and

conditions of the Digital P eer Publishing Licence (DPPL). A copy of the license text may be obta ined at http://nbn-resolving.

de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8.

Recommended citation: Pınar Oru ç, 3D Digitisation of Cultural Her itage: Copyright Implications of t he Methods, Purposes and

Collaboration, 11 (2020) JIPIT EC 149 para 1.

Keywords: copyright law; cultural heritage; laser scanning; photogrammetry; three dimensional; 3D; originality

cal copying or if there is any restoration or creative

contribution involved) and the collaboration of differ-

ent people (ranging from employees to volunteers).

This article will discuss the copyright implications of

the chosen method, purposes and the level of collab-

oration, in order to show that each of these factors

impact the category, originality and the authorship of

the resulting work. It will be argued that it is possi-

ble, and in some instances very likely, for 3D projects

to lead to protectable outcomes under the EU copy-

right law.

Abstract: 3D technology is increasingly used

in the digitisation of cultural heritage and while par-

ties engaging in such projects need copyright as an

incentive, the copyright status of such 3D models

are unclear. It is usually assumed they would not be

protected, as the scans of existing objects are less

likely to be original compared to the 3D models cre-

ated from scratch. However, it is often overlooked

that these projects vary greatly in terms of the cho-

sen method (whether it is laser scanning or photo-

grammetry), the project’s purpose (if it is for identi-

A. Introduction

1

Cultural heritage faces many challenges such as

armed conicts, targeted destruction, natural

disasters and natural aging. To reduce the risk of

such artefacts disappearing and to increase access,

custodians of cultural heritage regularly engage in

making reproductions of the movable heritage held

in collections and the immovable heritage held on-

site. It is not a new practice to make reproductions

of fragile art works or to invest in cast courts for

allowing visitors to experience works in distant areas.

Considering these past practices of reproduction,

embracing the 3D technology and implementing

digitisation strategies seem like the next logical

step. However, these 3D projects also come with the

question of how to control their outcomes, therefore

intellectual property law becomes directly relevant

for incentivising such costly undertakings and for

controlling the commercial exploitation of the

results.

2

There is already a vast amount of scholarly

literature on the relationship between 3D printing

and intellectual property law: some aspects of the

3D printing can be protected by patent law if they

are registered and 3D printing can also infringingly

replicate patented inventions.1 There could be

potential trademark infringements, if the 3D printed

object incorporates existing 2D marks or replicates

another 3D shape mark.

2

There is also the overlap

* Pınar Oruç, PhD (QMUL), LLM (Cardiff), FHEA. Email address:

p.oruc@outlook.com.

1 Simon Bradshaw, Adrian Bowyer and Patrick Haufe, ‘The

Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’

(2010) 7 SCRIPTed 1, 26; Rosa Maria Ballardini, Marcus

Norrgård and Timo Minssen, ‘Enforcing Patents in the Era

of 3D Printing’ (2015) 10(11) JIPLP 850; Lucas S Osborn, 3D

Printing and Intellectual Property (Cambridge University Press

2019) 60-81.

2 Angela Daly, Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution