Dodecahedra Girl
@dodecahedragirl.bsky.social
AKA Lorena Hitchens. Archaeology postgrad student, dodecahedra-obsessive. #dodecahedron #dodecahedra
Follow me:
FB: /dodecahedra.girl
Follow me:
FB: /dodecahedra.girl
Magical little spot. When I was there, I looked up and saw two eagles circling a nearby peak.
April 6, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Magical little spot. When I was there, I looked up and saw two eagles circling a nearby peak.
Andy, creating a new work based on copyrighted work is a settled case of violating IP. The photo's subject is irrelevant.
A well-known example is the artist Shepard Fairey's "hope" poster for Barack Obama (see Wikipedia), also in my thread. I won't litigate this with you further. Peace out
A well-known example is the artist Shepard Fairey's "hope" poster for Barack Obama (see Wikipedia), also in my thread. I won't litigate this with you further. Peace out
April 6, 2025 at 1:39 PM
Andy, creating a new work based on copyrighted work is a settled case of violating IP. The photo's subject is irrelevant.
A well-known example is the artist Shepard Fairey's "hope" poster for Barack Obama (see Wikipedia), also in my thread. I won't litigate this with you further. Peace out
A well-known example is the artist Shepard Fairey's "hope" poster for Barack Obama (see Wikipedia), also in my thread. I won't litigate this with you further. Peace out
Clearly, you disagree with that, but that doesn't make you "provably" right, either.
What we do know is that copyrighted photos were used to make another work, and that *is* an IP violation.
I have no more time for this, so carry on but I'm done.
2/2
What we do know is that copyrighted photos were used to make another work, and that *is* an IP violation.
I have no more time for this, so carry on but I'm done.
2/2
April 6, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Clearly, you disagree with that, but that doesn't make you "provably" right, either.
What we do know is that copyrighted photos were used to make another work, and that *is* an IP violation.
I have no more time for this, so carry on but I'm done.
2/2
What we do know is that copyrighted photos were used to make another work, and that *is* an IP violation.
I have no more time for this, so carry on but I'm done.
2/2
Nor can you substantiate your assertions Andy.
It's an area not defined by name in IP law, because it hasn't been addressed yet, and that's what my thread was about.
If a private owner doesn't want others to make unauthorised reproductions and sell them for profit, I think that's up to them. 1/2
It's an area not defined by name in IP law, because it hasn't been addressed yet, and that's what my thread was about.
If a private owner doesn't want others to make unauthorised reproductions and sell them for profit, I think that's up to them. 1/2
April 6, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Nor can you substantiate your assertions Andy.
It's an area not defined by name in IP law, because it hasn't been addressed yet, and that's what my thread was about.
If a private owner doesn't want others to make unauthorised reproductions and sell them for profit, I think that's up to them. 1/2
It's an area not defined by name in IP law, because it hasn't been addressed yet, and that's what my thread was about.
If a private owner doesn't want others to make unauthorised reproductions and sell them for profit, I think that's up to them. 1/2
A shape cannot be copyrighted (that's in IP law). But it's not a general shape. It's a specifc and particular object, privately owned.
April 6, 2025 at 1:14 PM
A shape cannot be copyrighted (that's in IP law). But it's not a general shape. It's a specifc and particular object, privately owned.
I have to get back to doing archaeology now.
The last thing I will say is that it may take a lawsuit to settle the IP case law going forward.
As eBay ruled it an IP violation, and (I'm told) the owner is getting a trademark, trend seems to favour ownership rights.
Any IP attorneys out there?
The last thing I will say is that it may take a lawsuit to settle the IP case law going forward.
As eBay ruled it an IP violation, and (I'm told) the owner is getting a trademark, trend seems to favour ownership rights.
Any IP attorneys out there?
April 6, 2025 at 1:12 PM
I have to get back to doing archaeology now.
The last thing I will say is that it may take a lawsuit to settle the IP case law going forward.
As eBay ruled it an IP violation, and (I'm told) the owner is getting a trademark, trend seems to favour ownership rights.
Any IP attorneys out there?
The last thing I will say is that it may take a lawsuit to settle the IP case law going forward.
As eBay ruled it an IP violation, and (I'm told) the owner is getting a trademark, trend seems to favour ownership rights.
Any IP attorneys out there?
And what law are you basing this assertion on? "it's doubtful that making a model based on an object that appears in multiple photographs is a breach of copyright."
Copyright is copyright. "Multiple" is irrelevant. Public display is irrelevant. Seeing something doesn't make it public domain.
Copyright is copyright. "Multiple" is irrelevant. Public display is irrelevant. Seeing something doesn't make it public domain.
April 6, 2025 at 1:05 PM
And what law are you basing this assertion on? "it's doubtful that making a model based on an object that appears in multiple photographs is a breach of copyright."
Copyright is copyright. "Multiple" is irrelevant. Public display is irrelevant. Seeing something doesn't make it public domain.
Copyright is copyright. "Multiple" is irrelevant. Public display is irrelevant. Seeing something doesn't make it public domain.
Explain how someone can make a 3D model of the dodecahedron in question, without using photographs, all of which are copyrighted?
April 6, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Explain how someone can make a 3D model of the dodecahedron in question, without using photographs, all of which are copyrighted?
They told me they did trademark it. The owners assert that they do own its likeness, and if they don't want copies sold, without their express permission, that's their right. Apparently, the UK IP law agrees with them. Also, don't come at me because of what the owners did. (Are you an IP lawyer?)
April 6, 2025 at 11:45 AM
They told me they did trademark it. The owners assert that they do own its likeness, and if they don't want copies sold, without their express permission, that's their right. Apparently, the UK IP law agrees with them. Also, don't come at me because of what the owners did. (Are you an IP lawyer?)
18) No one has really thought these issues all the way through, but it has happened before. Coins were faked in antiquity, 19th C foundries made thousands of replicas, and antiquities are faked today, on the regular.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
18) No one has really thought these issues all the way through, but it has happened before. Coins were faked in antiquity, 19th C foundries made thousands of replicas, and antiquities are faked today, on the regular.
17) This need for taking a position applies to many objects, now including those original artworks that only exist in 3D printing in art museums. Do those artists want the software the works were made from to not belong to them, because of the medium? Did they think about that?
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
17) This need for taking a position applies to many objects, now including those original artworks that only exist in 3D printing in art museums. Do those artists want the software the works were made from to not belong to them, because of the medium? Did they think about that?
16) Somewhere in between, some best practices need to be articulated around respecting owners' rights, making models available for education/research, and identifying replicas and differentiating them from ancient artefacts. It's really difficult. Currently, it's like the wild, wild West out there.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
16) Somewhere in between, some best practices need to be articulated around respecting owners' rights, making models available for education/research, and identifying replicas and differentiating them from ancient artefacts. It's really difficult. Currently, it's like the wild, wild West out there.
15) I also know (believe me) that there is a deep and evergreen interest in Roman dodecahedra by the public.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
15) I also know (believe me) that there is a deep and evergreen interest in Roman dodecahedra by the public.
14) There are a fair number of privately owned dodecahedra out there, and their owners are concerned about the value, rarity, and authenticity of their objects, and that's fair.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
14) There are a fair number of privately owned dodecahedra out there, and their owners are concerned about the value, rarity, and authenticity of their objects, and that's fair.
13) But there's also an attitude—not so cool—that everything on the internet is up for grabs and copyright and ownership rights mean nothing. That's not okay. As archaeologists with an ethical code about proper citation, we should care about copyrights.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
13) But there's also an attitude—not so cool—that everything on the internet is up for grabs and copyright and ownership rights mean nothing. That's not okay. As archaeologists with an ethical code about proper citation, we should care about copyrights.
12) We are at a point in time when there is democratised technology for making things at home that used to be fiendishly difficult to create (I know, from experimental bronze casting doecahedra!), and that's cool.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
12) We are at a point in time when there is democratised technology for making things at home that used to be fiendishly difficult to create (I know, from experimental bronze casting doecahedra!), and that's cool.
11) I'm sure the seller on EBay isn't a big-time nefarious dealer in fake antiquities, but he's not just a hobbyist making one for his own pleasure, either, if he's selling them for money. He wasn't giving it away pro bono for the good of hard-working cash-strapped volunteer community archaeology.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
11) I'm sure the seller on EBay isn't a big-time nefarious dealer in fake antiquities, but he's not just a hobbyist making one for his own pleasure, either, if he's selling them for money. He wasn't giving it away pro bono for the good of hard-working cash-strapped volunteer community archaeology.
10) I'm not excited about authenticating fake vs ancient dodecahedra for the rest of my career in archaeology.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
10) I'm not excited about authenticating fake vs ancient dodecahedra for the rest of my career in archaeology.
9) People can and do sell fake bronze dodecahedra as authentic artefacts on eBay. I have tried to report them, with little success. (Note that EBay recently changed its policy on fakes, and now it only responds to reports of IP violations, which are clearly a liability to them because of IP law.)
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
9) People can and do sell fake bronze dodecahedra as authentic artefacts on eBay. I have tried to report them, with little success. (Note that EBay recently changed its policy on fakes, and now it only responds to reports of IP violations, which are clearly a liability to them because of IP law.)
8) Where there is a profit motive, fakes can and will be made and sold, which, yes, damages the owners and archaeology in general. It's simple to convert a plastic 3D model into a bronze casting and call it "real." Check YouTube. It's been done with dodecahedra.
April 6, 2025 at 11:17 AM
8) Where there is a profit motive, fakes can and will be made and sold, which, yes, damages the owners and archaeology in general. It's simple to convert a plastic 3D model into a bronze casting and call it "real." Check YouTube. It's been done with dodecahedra.