# Enterprise Proposal for Smithsonian



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

Hi, I'm looking to catch the interest of anyone who is connected with or has pull with the conservation/restoration project of the Enterprise model at the Smithsonian. I have some thoughts on it, but if I've drawn some erroneous conclusions, feel free to correct me, as I may have missed some information that's out there.

As far as I know, the model is currently laying disassembled at the Udvar-Hazy facility (I found reference to a plan to have it painted by April…so maybe not), but at some point, maybe not too long from now, it will be put back together, and ultimately placed on display, where it will most likely sit untouched for years to come, and the Institution's interests will move on to other subjects. That's why I'm interested in something occurring while the opportunity still exists.

Now, I know that the model has been photographed, measured, X-rayed, probed, and spectroscoped (amongst other procedures), but I have not heard that it's been 3D scanned. If it has, then forget all this. But if not, I really hope that it can be arranged.

A very high-fidelity scan encompasses an enormous amount of data points that can't be obtained via any other means short of molding the ship parts, which isn't going to happen. Even a detailed set of measurements, used to create a blueprint or 3D model, will require an estimation of an object's true and complete form. If one were to scan a marble bust, it'd be obviously superior in accuracy to a replica made with a set of key dimensions and an artist's skill. I think the deceptively simple shapes of the Enterprise model could convince many that a scan is not necessary. Perhaps it isn't, depending on your point of view. But it would be incredibly useful and superior to the alternatives.

A great scan, released to the public, would contribute to the ultimate documentation of the model, and provide the sound basis for all subsequent representations. The scan could be used to create a model more suitable for CG renders and animations, for model building plans and diagrams, for ship schematics, for injection molded plastic kits and toys, and for 3D prints. It would beget all these things, and more.

Perhaps the Smithsonian has already done or plans to do this. Maybe they have the technology in-house or through affiliates. But maybe they haven't thought of doing this, or dismissed the need. Or they don't have access to the resources to do so. If that's the case, then maybe someone here, or somewhere, can ask and encourage them to do this.

I know there is an advisory committee, and maybe one of them is reading this, or someone can refer them to this post. I would try to contact the Smithsonian directly, but I think an influential intermediary would be more effective.

I also want to gain the interest of the fans who care about this and could benefit from this. I really hope that I'm not alone in thinking that this should be done. I only explained my thinking to this degree because I worried my proposal would be shot down without consideration.

Also, I was hoping that the wisdom of the crowd could suggest what would be the best scanning technology to use, as there are a number of different methods, with, I assume, varying levels of quality and fidelity. Hopefully the highest standards of both could be obtained. If there are companies with scanning services near to the facility the Enterprise is at, maybe we could inquire if they would want to participate voluntarily, as this is a non-commercial activity, and could be fun for them or seen to have PR potential. If a company would have to be compensated, then perhaps the fan community could crowd-fund it.

It's possibly too late to scan the model disassembled, as opposed to whole, should its restoration have reached the painting stage. If so, they might be closer to moving it out on display than we know, and the window of opportunity is closing. I would appreciate any consideration of this as well as any help getting the right people involved. And if you think there are other places I should post this for the right people to see it, let me know. Thank you.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I am not ascribing, implying or inferring any intent on what the original poster has written. I am simply making a generic comment on the base concept. Or in modern language, I ain't hate'n, just sayin'. 

The post can be boiled down to this: "I want a digital model of the 11 foot filming model of the Enterprise to play with"

That's not going to happen. That's not preservation or conservation. That's not the mandate or the reason or the purpose of the work of the Smithsonian. 

And honestly, would it REALLY be desirable? A digital model with all the flaws and quirks and hand-crafted errors and mistakes (like the saucer not being true round)?

"But then I can fix it!"

And then it's no longer an accurate record of the actual miniature. It's really no different than the digital model that created the 1/350 model kit at that point. 

"But no, you're wrong! it's the REAL THING only fixed!"

And that can go round and round and round. 

Did the Smithsonian do 3D scans? Could be. They seem to be doing a LOT of stuff. Will they release the files? Not to the general public, I can't see a reason why they should. Might they sell it? They could, but if they did I would expect they would price the files at a 'professional' level, thousands of Dollars. 

Whatever plans the Smithsonian has, have been codified and mooted long ago by the bureaucracy and pretty much set in stone. That's how that stuff works. Sorry.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Don't forget that Gary Kerr physically handled, photographed and measured the Enterprise himself during the 1992 restoration. The Polar Lights kit was therefore created with some of the best accurate information available to the time. Gary's on the current restoration team too, taking even more notes for us to use to fix up _that _model if we want.


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

I personally would have little use for a digital model. I don't do any CG work. I'm interested in the opportunity of a public institution putting information into the public domain that lots of different people with lots of different uses would want and can use. There are several highly accurate sets of plans out there, both private and publicly available, as well as lots of accurate physical and computer models, but they are not exactly ground truth and that's an idea I find compelling. I am fascinated by true representations of physical objects, and this interest of mine extends beyond this particular subject.

I'm not sure why they would not release scans, if they had them. They've done so with plenty of other things. Concerning this model, they released the X-rays imagery. Their work is generally in the public domain as a gov't institution. The things they hold back have to do with reference images they received from individuals who did not give permission for their release. The Smithsonian owns the Enterprise model, as an object, outright.


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

Just a quick example:

blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/bell-x-1-in-3d/

Contains link to download file of the Bell X-1.

A better example that includes the raw laser point cloud of Lincoln's lifemask:

3d.si.edu/downloads/26

This is basically what I'd like to happen with the Enterprise too, if possible. &#55357;&#56833;

By the way, this is a big movement with museums. They scan stuff, and sometimes they release it and sometimes not. The Nefertiti bust in a German museum had it's 3D scan leaked recently as the museum was keeping it private. But like I said, US institutions have different requirements over their works.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm not sure the Smithsonian actually owns the 11 foot Enterprise outright or if's what's considered 'on permanent loan' from Paramount nee CBS.

The physical form, the design, is a trademarked and copyrighted product owned and protected by Paramount/CBS.

Selling or giving digital scans or actual digital models would seem to be a violation of Paramount/CBS rights.


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

I've always heard it as a pure donation.

By the way, I just heard that the model has, in fact, been painted. I hope they got Miarecki to do it and it's perfect. Would be nice vindication, heh.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I'm not sure the Smithsonian actually owns the 11 foot Enterprise outright or if's what's considered 'on permanent loan' from Paramount nee CBS.
> 
> The physical form, the design, is a trademarked and copyrighted product owned and protected by Paramount/CBS.
> 
> Selling or giving digital scans or actual digital models would seem to be a violation of Paramount/CBS rights.


tell 'em SteveDave
The museum may have the physical model but they do not own the rights to sell pictures of it


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

This would be non-commercial.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Lt. Washburn said:


> This would be non-commercial.


I think maybe you're in a tad bit of denial now. The Enterprise is Paramount/CBS' no matter what. They aren't going to give their intellectual property away. Anything the Smithsonian wants to do with the results of their restoration/conservation has to be approved by Paramount/CBS. 

X-Rays or CT scans of a 50 year old model are of historical interest and it's worth their effort to show some of those, there are no actual trade secrets that would be revealed (not that even back then there wouldn't have been any secrets TO reveal but studios were more uptight about effects work back then).

I have hope of a nice, large coffee table book called 'Secrets of the Enterprise' or something like that encompassing the work but I think that's a thin, thin hope, more a wish really. 

You're not getting your government provided free digital files, friend. It's not going to happen. You can't have that. No matter how you word it, how you dance, whatever wiki nonsense you throw, whatever shaving or misunderstanding of statements you use, it just isn't going to happen. You'll sleep better at night accepting that reality. Honest.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

A _licensed_, professionally produced DVD/BluRay documentary of the restoration with an accompanying Coffee Table book would be wonderful.
I would like to see more of what we have just gotten occasional glimpses of- but I think they are more focused on doing the actual work than posturing in front of cameras...


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

Sorry, but I think it would conceivably be transformative and fair use. My main view of the matter is that CBS does not own any of these "trade secrets". They do not own the model. They can't scan it and monetize it. They own copyright to the subject matter, i.e. representations of the model that don't constitute fair use This threatens no business interest that they have. As has been pointed out, they license model kits based on blueprints of this model, not the same thing. After all, Gary Kerr is not a thief because he measured it. What would violate IP, would be for anyone, the SI or otherwise, to use that data for commercial use, such as in a garage kit. But then CBS is lenient with such things, as they are with fan films. Unless they get up to shenanigans like Axanar. I would like see, and would enjoy a conversation with a different take, but your argument doesn't answer certain issues. And I have no certainty on anyone's part here. If CBS wanted to complain, they might do so, and the SI might defer to be nice, but that's a rather different matter than the one alleged that it's strictly illegal. I get the sense you view this like ripping an album or movie and uploading it, but that's not transformative. Like I said, I think it's an interesting issue, and I can be persuaded by some legal insights, but I can't just agree with assertions.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Lt. Washburn said:


> Sorry, but I think it would conceivably be transformative and fair use. My main view of the matter is that CBS does not own any of these "trade secrets". They do not own the model. They can't scan it and monetize it. They own copyright to the subject matter, i.e. representations of the model that don't constitute fair use This threatens no business interest that they have. As has been pointed out, they license model kits based on blueprints of this model, not the same thing. After all, Gary Kerr is not a thief because he measured it. What would violate IP, would be for anyone, the SI or otherwise, to use that data for commercial use, such as in a garage kit. But then CBS is lenient with such things, as they are with fan films. Unless they get up to shenanigans like Axanar. I would like see, and would enjoy a conversation with a different take, but your argument doesn't answer certain issues. And I have no certainty on anyone's part here. If CBS wanted to complain, they might do so, and the SI might defer to be nice, but that's a rather different matter than the one alleged that it's strictly illegal. I get the sense you view this like ripping an album or movie and uploading it, but that's not transformative. Like I said, I think it's an interesting issue, and I can be persuaded by some legal insights, but I can't just agree with assertions.


*checks watch* Right on time and everything I predicted.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

On the practical side, the restoration was complete last week and it's likely nowhere that a digital 3D scan could be done.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's done?! That was fast!


----------



## Lt. Washburn (Mar 4, 2014)

By the way, I was told that the team who painted the model consisted of Kim Smith, John Goodson, and Bill George. Hopefully not much longer to a reveal. This will be fun to see their work, and the nacelle effects!

I went to NASM when I was a kid. I think the model must have been on display then, but I honestly can't remember seeing it. I hope to make it out there again sometime to see it newly restored.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Gary posted a link about it. 

It's been several months since I'd seen an update about it. Plus, it's been gone from the gift shop for over a year - I had arranged to view at the Udvar-Hazy Center last June, but they were doing filming in the restoration room it was in, so I couldn't. RRRrrr.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> Gary posted a link about it.


Are you going to post this link or should we look for it ourselves??


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

If he did, what would happen to man's search for knowledge?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

The Smithsonian Facebook site seemed to indicate the model is completed. They posted photos of the crew's faces during the unveiling, but naturally none of the model itself. Apparently they were all very pleased. Only thing it posted was the model was back together and ready for view in July. I hope we get to see photos and videos soon.

UPDATE: I was wrong. It was Gary Kerr's Facebook page that showed the photo of those who worked on it and their reactions at the unveiling.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Opus Penguin said:


> The Smithsonian Facebook site seemed to indicate the model is completed. They posted photos of the crew's faces during the unveiling, but naturally none of the model itself. Apparently they were all very pleased. Only thing it posted was the model was back together and ready for view in July. I hope we get to see photos and videos soon.
> 
> UPDATE: I was wrong. It was Gary Kerr's Facebook page that showed the photo of those who worked on it and their reactions at the unveiling.


You weren't "wrong." You were merely "mistaken." :thumbsup: :wave:


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You weren't "wrong." You were merely "mistaken." :thumbsup: :wave:


Reminds me of the joke: "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken."


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I was wrong once. No wait, twice.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Lt. Washburn said:


> Hi, I'm looking to catch the interest of anyone who is connected with or has pull with the conservation/restoration project of the Enterprise model at the Smithsonian. I have some thoughts on it, but if I've drawn some erroneous conclusions, feel free to correct me, as I may have missed some information that's out there.
> 
> As far as I know, the model is currently laying disassembled at the Udvar-Hazy facility (I found reference to a plan to have it painted by April…so maybe not), but at some point, maybe not too long from now, it will be put back together, and ultimately placed on display, where it will most likely sit untouched for years to come, and the Institution's interests will move on to other subjects. That's why I'm interested in something occurring while the opportunity still exists.
> 
> ...


1. The Smithsonian obviously has made detailed measurements by now. They would have had to in order to create the internal bracing that they machined.

2. The Smithsonian is a government entity.

3. As a government entity, the Smithsonian is subject to FOIA.

4. If you're interested in all the details, you should submit a FOIA request to the Smithsonian and ask for information you want. In fact, the Smithsonian has a department for responding to FOIA requests. You might want to wait until the project is finished.

Your tax dollars funded all this research. It's not just the insiders who can have access. You, as a citizen, have the right to the data that has been collected.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

bigjimslade said:


> 1. The Smithsonian obviously has made detailed measurements by now. They would have had to in order to create the internal bracing that they machined.
> 
> 2. The Smithsonian is a government entity.
> 
> ...


Yes, but the OP isn't asking for info that has already been accumulated by the Smithsonian. The OP wants a 3D scan of the model, which has NOT been done (at least, as far their public comments would indicate). And, while the museum is funded by tax dollars this is an intellectual property owned by an American corporation with trademarks and copyrights on this Enterprise. It isn't that simple.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

RossW said:


> is an intellectual property owned by an American corporation with trademarks and copyrights on this Enterprise.


Quite a few people saying that but can anyone point to any evidence that the model had any stipulations on the donation? If it was an outright donation to the museum with no conditions there's no reason a file of detailed XYZ measurements couldn't be released. How is that different than releasing detailed photos or any other data on the model?

People seem to be jumping a step ahead, if they released 3D data and someone built and sold a model from that data, that person would be in violation of trademark/copyright, same as any garage kit. But simply putting the 3D data out there is no different than pictures from all angles, X-Rays, or a list of dimensions. If one is a violation they all are.

Now I doubt they did any 3D scans because there really is no reason to do so in order to do the work they were doing on the model.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

We will eventually find out about if any 3D scans were taken but I do not hing their existence would really help anybody. Aside from the historical context, the scans would be fairly useless to people wanting a 'perfect' replica. The filming model as built had some physical distortions and those would need to be corrected, once you start cooking the data you might as well just find a good existing mesh and use the measurements to bring it into line.
It was built to look good on camera and things like the saucer being perfectly round or the curves of the secondary hull not being perfect simply did not matter. Any scans of the model would still have those issues.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Richard Baker said:


> the scans would be fairly useless to people wanting a 'perfect' replica. The filming model as built had some physical distortions and those would need to be corrected,


Why would someone that wanted a perfect replica make any corrections? There are already plenty of corrected/idealized models out there.

The quest for the perfect replica is kind of a waste of time at this point, considering the way the model has been treated over the last 50 years. But I guess there are plenty of people that would want an exact model of what ever condition the thing is in at the moment.

I suppose if the museum were doing a web page with a virtual tour of the model they may have done some 3D scans, but those wouldn't need to be high resolution, certainly not high enough to see if there are things like sub millimeter ripples in the vacuform, you know, the stuff only rivet counters would care about....


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

On the 3D scan issue:
Legal issues that arise from creating a 3D file by scanning an object | New Media Rights


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Seems like that site is thinking 3D scanning is like photocopying. Most of the time it isn't really, but I guess it could be thought of that way.

I wonder if there have been any cases to set that as precedent?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

If you just use the data to animate or render the mesh in a 3D program it is not, but I think 3D scanning is like photocopying when you use the data to 3D print out a replica of what you scanned. 
Both use a scanning device to create a copy of the original (although 3D is usually not in the same scale), the only real distinction is between 2D and 3D.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Richard Baker said:


> If you just use the data to animate or render the mesh in a 3D program it is not, but I think 3D scanning is like photocopying when you use the data to 3D print out a replica of what you scanned.
> Both use a scanning device to create a copy of the original (although 3D is usually not in the same scale), the only real distinction is between 2D and 3D.


That's what I've been thinking, using a scanner to generate a 3D mesh shouldn't be considered any different than using a camera to take a bunch of photos. It's what you do with the files that matters.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> That's what I've been thinking, using a scanner to generate a 3D mesh shouldn't be considered any different than using a camera to take a bunch of photos. It's what you do with the files that matters.


But we're really in an entirely uncharted world with this concept, the way to protect original work, ownership and money generation. 

So, Marty, let's say you create a 3D mesh of the Enterprise, and I, working for Paramount, figure it's pretty good and I take it, make a poster from it, maybe 'shop in some Hubble space telescope picture as a background, and sell it as an art print, with my name as sole creator.

You're OK with that, right?


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

MartyS said:


> That's what I've been thinking, using a scanner to generate a 3D mesh shouldn't be considered any different than using a camera to take a bunch of photos. It's what you do with the files that matters.





Steve H said:


> But we're really in an entirely uncharted world with this concept, the way to protect original work, ownership and money generation.
> 
> So, Marty, let's say you create a 3D mesh of the Enterprise, and I, working for Paramount, figure it's pretty good and I take it, make a poster from it, maybe 'shop in some Hubble space telescope picture as a background, and sell it as an art print, with my name as sole creator.
> 
> You're OK with that, right?


That's an odd leap to make but that would clearly fall under "what someone does with the mesh"...

It would be the same as me taking a photo of the Enterprise on display somewhere, and then someone else taking that photo and selling copies of it.

Now, I'm not sure but I don't think I could sell copies of the photo either, but I would still have copyright on the image I took.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Photographing copyrighted material:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use

By the way, it seems unlikely that if we photograph a copyrighted work, that we would have copyright of those images. Why? Because they are derivative works, containing material for which another party (i.e. Paramount) owns the copyright. In other words, we can't copyright our images of the Enterprise, because they are derivative of the original copyrighted material: the Enterprise model itself.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SteveR said:


> Photographing copyrighted material:
> http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf
> 10 Big Myths about copyright explained


Very interesting! Seems to me that puts paid to any wiggling about "but I want to!" nonsense. 

Not that it stops such thinking. I have seen people twist themselves into 5th dimensional knots attempting to justify their actions for years and years and years. It always, ALWAYS boils down to "but I WANT to! I WANT it! Stop telling me I can't, that's not fair, because I WANT IT" . :grin2:

ETA: You added stuff after I quoted, but I can't 'like' the post enough, there is no 'super like' button.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Bottom line: no matter how much we like the Enterprise, and how much money we've spent paying tribute to it over the years, it doesn't belong to us.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Did you folks actually read those pages? It all comes down to what you do with the images. 

If you take a photo of a building that has a corporate logo on it the copyright doesn't transfer to the corporation, you still have the copyright as soon as you press the shutter button, but you are limited to what you can do with that photo, use it under fair use rules or get permission/pay royalties if making a profit. If you violate fair use rules the corporation can come after you for damages, but they still don't get copyright on your photo to do with as they please.

All I've been saying is that 3D scans should be considered the same as photographs, so there's no uncharted waters, it's all been hashed out a long time ago. If the Smithsonian is able to release photos of the model it would be no different to release a 3D mesh.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Did you folks actually read those pages? It all comes down to what you do with the images.
> 
> If you take a photo of a building that has a corporate logo on it the copyright doesn't transfer to the corporation, you still have the copyright as soon as you press the shutter button, but you are limited to what you can do with that photo, use it under fair use rules or get permission/pay royalties if making a profit. If you violate fair use rules the corporation can come after you for damages, but they still don't get copyright on your photo to do with as they please.
> 
> All I've been saying is that 3D scans should be considered the same as photographs, so there's no uncharted waters, it's all been hashed out a long time ago. If the Smithsonian is able to release photos of the model it would be no different to release a 3D mesh.



*ahem*

"But you aren't LISTENING! You don't UNDERSTAND! *I* Want this and stop telling me stuff I don't want to believe!!!"

You're welcome.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

MartyS said:


> Seems like that site is thinking 3D scanning is like photocopying. Most of the time it isn't really, but I guess it could be thought of that way.
> 
> I wonder if there have been any cases to set that as precedent?


Photos and photocopies aren't quite the same thing as a 3D scan. It's like the difference between taking a woman's photo and taking a pap smear.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

1D - audio recording
2D - photograph
3D - scan

Principles are the same, it is just more data being collected of the subject.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

MartyS said:


> If you take a photo of a building that has a corporate logo on it the copyright doesn't transfer to the corporation, you still have the copyright as soon as you press the shutter button, but you are limited to what you can do with that photo, use it under fair use rules or get permission/pay royalties if making a profit.


Below is one definition of copyright. 


Note the word "exclusive." If I shot a picture of the Enterprise, I would not have copyright over that image because I would not have _exclusive_ legal rights over its use as outlined below. Could I say to Paramount that they could not use my images because of copyright? No, because I never had the _exclusive_ rights to depictions of the E. Do Paramount and I have shared copyright? No, because that was never negotiated nor paid for. So, in other words, I do not have _copyright_ over that image I shot, so I can't do _everything_ I'd want with it.

Yes, we can take photos of the Enterprise for our own personal use (as you indicate) such as our own desktop wallpaper or pasted on our fridge, but we do not have _copyright_ over those images we shoot. 

If we are _limited_ in what we can do with the images of Paramount's property (under fair use or personal use), we do not have _copyright_ for those images. _Paramount_ has copyright, because it is _not_ limited to fair use or personal use.

Note that disseminating images on the internet is not personal use: that's publishing, even though we don't make money on it. Paramount can C&D that sort of thing at any time.

*
1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.*


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

SteveR said:


> Could I say to Paramount that they could not use my images because of copyright? No, because I never had the _exclusive_ rights to depictions of the E.


This is incorrect. And it must be where we keep getting crossed up.

Paramount can not use anyone's image without their consent even if the photo has in it something with a trademark or copyright they own.

Copyright lets Paramount tell people what they can't do with their photos but it doesn't give them ownership of them. If you use a photo in a way they don't want you to they can order you to stop and seek compensation, but they don't own the photo and can't do with it as they please.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> This is incorrect. And it must be where we keep getting crossed up.
> 
> Paramount can not use anyone's image without their consent even if the photo has in it something with a trademark or copyright they own.
> 
> Copyright lets Paramount tell people what they can't do with their photos but it doesn't give them ownership of them. If you use a photo in a way they don't want you to they can order you to stop and seek compensation, but they don't own the photo and can't do with it as they please.


And that means if NA&SM did a full 3D scan of the 11 foot Enterprise model ('taking a picture') Paramount/CBS can prevent them from giving or selling it. NA&SM can 'own' such a set of scans but can't distribute them.

Well! Glad we've got that all cleared up! Problem-SOLVED.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> And that means if NA&SM did a full 3D scan of the 11 foot Enterprise model ('taking a picture') Paramount/CBS can prevent them from giving or selling it. NA&SM can 'own' such a set of scans but can't distribute them.
> 
> Well! Glad we've got that all cleared up! Problem-SOLVED.


Would Paramount or CBS risk bad publicity by objecting to a 3D rendering being released? If anything having the Enterprise get a web page similar to the Wright Flyer would be good for the brand.

For a virtual tour it would be way less costly for the museum to ask CBS for one of their CG models and modify it to look like the filming model. Even using the best 3D scanners available it would take a lot of work for someone at the museum to turn a scan into something usable for a virtual tour. The dot cloud would be a mess with all the overhangs and shadow areas, it would take a lot of time to get the scan into a 3D mesh that looked like the model, then add all the time needed to add textures, I doubt they had the budget to do all that. Scanning each part would work well and be much easier to deal with, but it would have taken days out of their schedule, hours for each part, so again, unlikely.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> Would Paramount or CBS risk bad publicity by objecting to a 3D rendering being released? If anything having the Enterprise get a web page similar to the Wright Flyer would be good for the brand.
> 
> For a virtual tour it would be way less costly for the museum to ask CBS for one of their CG models and modify it to look like the filming model. Even using the best 3D scanners available it would take a lot of work for someone at the museum to turn a scan into something usable for a virtual tour. The dot cloud would be a mess with all the overhangs and shadow areas, it would take a lot of time to get the scan into a 3D mesh that looked like the model, then add all the time needed to add textures, I doubt they had the budget to do all that. Scanning each part would work well and be much easier to deal with, but it would have taken days out of their schedule, hours for each part, so again, unlikely.


But again, you're doing an apples to kumquats comparison. The Wright Flyer isn't the star of a multi-billion Dollar franchise owned by a giant corporate entity. Neither is the Bell X-1. 

And now you're trying to push the idea of a VR tour with a 'scratch built' digital model that's been modified to look like the 50 year old filming miniature? What's the point of THAT?! Grief, anyone with the skills to create 3D models could do that right now, using information from right here on Hobbytalk. Just looking at the pics in one of Shaw's threads would be enough to get it done. 

But why? It's only intense freaks like us that would ENJOY looking at that left side with the holes and the wires and all the crap hanging out. The wider audience, the general public, wouldn't care squat about it. 

You seem to suddenly discount the ability of the Smithsonian people in their ability to do 3D scanning, and it may be that if they did desire to scan the model they would have gone to professionals who could meet their standards. It likely wouldn't have been a high-profile company like Gentle Giant. 

I dunno, man. You're talking a lot but all I still hear is "because I want it".


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> I dunno, man. You're talking a lot but all I still hear is "because I want it".


Then maybe you should clean your ears. I don't give a #$%@ if they release a 3D model or not. 

I'm just responding to the knee jerk "they can't" garbage.

So you don't think it would be good PR for the brand to have the Smithsonian do a virtual tour of the model on their website? For some reason you think they would automatically send a cease and desist order if it happened.

Do you know anything about 3D scanning? Or the work involved in getting good output? Did I say the museum couldn't do it? NO. I said I doubt they had the budget and time on this project to do it. If they want a virtual tour it would be way more cost effective to ask CBS for them to provide a CG model they already have.


----------



## alensatemybuick (Sep 27, 2015)

Man, some of you like to blather on about crap you know nothing about; guess that's what I get for not staying logged in and my ignore function consequently not working.:devil:

Not sure why I even bother to post the following digital 3D model of the Enterprise; guess it's more for the interest of others who haven't completely tuned out. Is it relevant to the O.P.'s original interest? Probably not exactly, but no less so than the last 3+ pages of drivel. 

https://sketchfab.com/models/5732479249ad4541b77f2f9e606d172f


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I like the click and rotate feature.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

irishtrek said:


> I like the click and rotate feature.


Bookmarked! :smile2:


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> And that means if NA&SM did a full 3D scan of the 11 foot Enterprise model ('taking a picture') Paramount/CBS can prevent them from giving or selling it. NA&SM can 'own' such a set of scans but can't distribute them.
> 
> Well! Glad we've got that all cleared up! Problem-SOLVED.


Unless you can find a FOIA exception: Wrong. If NASM made such scan for the purpose of restoration, they are a government record and are discoverable through FOIA.


----------

