this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
423 points (99.5% liked)

Games

32584 readers
1545 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Who preserves historical artwork? Who makes sure it is available for all to enjoy?

I think governments and nonprofits (like museums) need to consider that archival of an interactive artwork means allowing it to continue being accessible and interactive. That'd be the real preservation.

Laws that say if you create something like this and it reaches some metric, then you are required to turn over all resources regarding it to open source public consumption once you are done actively maintaining it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Art restoration is actually sort of similar to cracking games. (A difference being those games are still protected by copyright so it's technically illegal.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Going by US laws (life + 70 years), all of Picasso's art is all still copyright protected in the US until 2043, so it's even less of a difference than you may realize.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know where the line is because with art restoration you're actually modifying a physical object. I guess a better comparison would be modifying an arcade cabinet or something.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

It's not the most robust analogy, but I actually really like your comparison to painting restoration; to do it well, one must understand the techniques and materials used in the original (even stuff below the visible surface).

Not a lawyer, but I think the original work is still copyrighted, and that restoration wouldn't (or certainly shouldn't) constitute a new artwork. Though now I'm wondering about that terrible Jesus painting restoration from a few years back — it's certainly different from the original, and whilst it might not seem reasonable to call it a new piece of "art", it's certainly inspired a great many people(to make memes)