Discussion of session 7 readings: Verdiani 2015; Mendis 2015

[gabrielbodard]

• Giorgio Verdiani. 2015. "Bringing Impossible Places to the Public: Three Ideas for Rupestrian Churches in Goreme, Kapadokya Utilizing a Digital Survey, 3D Printing, and Augmented Reality." Open Archaeology 1.1. Available: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opar-2015-0007/pdf
• Dinusha Mendis, Davide Secchi & Phil Reeves. 2015. A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing: Executive Summary. Project Report. London: Intellectual Property Office. Available: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/21874/

[FabioDFernandes]

Summary of Giorgio Verdiani – Bringing Impossible Places to the Public: Three Ideas for Rupestrian Churches in Goreme, Kapadokya Utilising a Digital Survey, 3D printing, and Augmented Reality

The Göreme area in Kapadokya (Cappadocia), Turkey, is famed for its unique geological landscape which has been exploited since antiquity – most notably its system of rupestrian (art done on rock or cave walls) churches and refuges of early Christianity. The vast heritage at offer, however, faces slow and progressive degradation. This makes access for visitors and researchers unsafe, complicating effective research. The maintenance interventions for consolidation (metal ladders, scaffolding, coatings, and stone/concrete structures) might help slow the process of erosion and contain collapses whilst easing access, but also deprive the spaces of their original features by altering their appearance. Thus, certain innovative digital technologies allow for documentation, visualisation, dissemination and virtual visitation of these monuments without further compromising them and risking safety.

Three churches in particular comprise the case study – those of St. Eustache, the Meryemana and St. Daniel – all facing varying degrees of degradation and thus have limited access.

Digital Survey: The initial phase of documentation for these caves churches was based on a careful digital survey. Multiple tools were used, all organised around the use of.a 3D laser scanner unit. This was carried out over two campaigns in 2012 and 2013. With their particular choice of laser scan (a Cam/2 Faro Focus 3D), which was easy to handle and compact, they were able to attain good accuracy in an environment marked by narrow tunnels and cramped stations. Numerous scan stations were set up, all of them operating in full panoramic mode – each single panorama was made from 60 pictures. A total of 303 scans were taken (my own calculation based on the set of numbers given). Attention was given to not over-measure the surfaces, by trying as much as possible to have valid margins of overlap between each scan.

The scanning also proved useful in tracking damage. The presence of a large crack with a visible detachment in the Meryemana, the most degraded of the three, was inspected and documented through an additional set of stations. A laser scanner unit was placed along the crack and centred on its axis, so that it was possible to have the laser beam capturing the two sides of the crack at a certain depth. It became clear that the crack was particularly serious and thus the church needed to be documented as soon as possible.

In terms of the alignment of all the scans taken, the long distance points were not used directly as references (despite their good quality), but instead points closer to the scan, as these areas proved to be clearly legible without causing any mismatch. This made it possible to produce an organic and detailed space from the aligned point cloud, a model able to accurately show the landscape otherwise afflicted by a difficult geometric representation.

Although the stone surface responded well to the laser signal, the application of planar targets, commonly used on manmade architectural structures, proved difficult, as the soft shapes and organic surfaces of the stone are brittle and have a sandy layer. Also, the environmental conditions (wind wedged in spaces, temperature changes between day and night, and sometimes high humidity) made it preferable to avoid applying temporary targets fixed on the walls or in the area nearby. Thus, some mobile targets were implemented for the alignment of scans.

The Treatment of the Data and Modelling: Thereafter, the single scans were processed to form a complete, aligned point cloud, which allowed for a comprehensive model of the churches/complexes, creating specific archives with the three-dimensional descriptions of each architectural structure. Later, they were going to be combined in an overall model of the rupestrian settlements of the area. The point clouds were available in variable densities, the denser for the interior and sparser for outer surfaces. There were some appreciable holes in the scans on the exterior, due to the inaccessibility of some areas and the presence of some large elements opposed to the viewpoint of the station, though they were not an impediment to the legibility and completeness of the collected data. To close optimise and close the remaining gaps in the surfaces, they sought to generate a mesh surface free from ‘holes’ through different solutions depending on the church and purpose of the model – for the most part, the classic processes of association between the image point and the vertex on the surface were used.

Following this, the extraction process of two-dimensional drawings was started, which allows for the production of traditional representations useful for reading and understanding each structure. One will see the definition of plan view, elevations and sections, allowing a rapid interpretation of the complex, especially in relation to the system and the morphology of the territory in which the structures are located. Whilst the structures have significantly changed from their original form, the readability of the relationship between the compartments and the structuring logic of many areas is still clearly understandable. This is particularly useful in that the drawings highlight the dimensional relationship and alignment between excavated spaces, even when they are located at a significant distance one from the other, and they can propose an architectural image of the settlements useful for research and for presentation to a general audience.

The Design of the Museum (proposed solutions) The authors propose that the digitisation of these churches can be translated into a museum space for the use of a wider audience. This would not necessarily strive to mimic the original, but to produce an enhancement based on advanced, but not intrusive, digital solutions, allowing visitors to obtain knowledge of these environments. They propose 3 different levels: 1 – Church of St. Daniel – the main church and its monastery are not easily accessible. Thus, the proposed solution is a traditional layout based on educational explanatory panels and scaled three-dimensional models, all the data derived from the 3D laser scanner survey or photographic materials produced during the campaign. The models are put on display to the public with solutions of direct contact, so visitors can touch and move them. Like this, without exposing the actual monuments, visitors can understand the shapes and articulation of the system formed by the churches and refuges, as well as the actual structure of the complex and the relationship between parts. 2 – The Meryemana – the building is inaccessible due to a collapse hazard. It is impressive for its wall paintings and architectural aspects. Thus, the proposed solution is based on a digital model made with the 3D printing process, scaled or even reproduced to the true scale, but for which the entire apparatus of the wall paintings is displayed over the physical model by an augmented reality system. The model will be able to be viewed directly on a personal device, such as a tablet or a smartphone. 3 – Church of St. Eustache – the building has no access solutions from the ground. Thus, the proposed solution consists of a real scale cloned physical model of the rock church, via a 3D printer, not an exact reproduction but instead adopting a ‘clean’ space with great detail from the artefact. This would produce a set of elements divided into portions. A partial experiment where a small portion was built showed how the shape can be dismantled and composed from a certain numbers of blocks and can be easily assembled and reinforced by a steel frame, so the entire system was removable and transportable.

Overall, I thought it an interesting article.

• The proposals of how to format these 3D laser scans into a museum context through 3D printing and augmented reality are certainly a good way of assuring an interaction with these fragile monuments without actually entering and thus further compromising them. They say that the 'digital version of the monument is not necessarily a reductive moment or a compromise compared to the real visit' - I suppose this might be true in the sense that the models enhance details and can be very interactive, but does anything quite add up to the actual intimate experience of visiting an ancient monument?
• While the digitisation of the space for preservation and dissemination for research in detail is already an increasingly common process, I was not previously aware that 3D digital surveying could be used to look quite so directly into damage (such as the crack in the Meryemana), which is encouraging in that with this technology we can further perhaps become more aware of the fragility of particular spaces.

Sorry, I just realised how long this was! Hope it is quickly readable enough.

[PAZHames]

A brief sidebar - Astrid was the absolute highlight of my week, hope everyone else enjoyed the lecture!

[PAZHames]

@FabioDFernandes thanks for your summary! Gloriously detailed. I think your point re the digital version not necessarily being a compromise was really interesting. I personally find it fascinating that the authors bothered to make this point, as the bigger issue at stake seems to be that the process guarantees preservation and also (especially in the case of the Church of St Eustache) vastly improves access. I agree that nothing can compare to actually visiting an ancient monument. For one thing, the 3D model only takes into account one of the senses - the effect of low light, sound and smell in an experience like this is not to be played down. But I also worry that in getting caught up with this question we risk moving away from the real point of the project - which is that in its completion, many many more people will have 'access' to this space than did before - and that is excellent. Hence why it seems slightly rogue to bother making such a big claim!

[PAZHames]

Although the authors do concede to it not being exactly the same in their conclusion

[FabioDFernandes]

@PAZHames Thank you, Phoebe! I suppose I did not quite process their concession in the conclusion! There certainly is a 'romantic' element to visiting an ancient monument in person and experiencing it in with all the senses, as you put it so well. Still, as you say, the main point is that it opens 'access' to an extent that would never be possible in the actual monuments due to their degradation. So, a lot more people are going to see it this way, and in its high resolution and detail it will allow for a perhaps even more comprehensive (and safe) study of the churches by researchers. I have seen this technology being applied to other ancient structures that are usually quite similar in nature to these (catacombs, etc. - like what we encountered in a reading earlier on in the course), and I do really hope more of this is applied to disseminate these places.

[RebeccaKimberlin]

Summary of A Legal And Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing, compiled by Dinusha Mendis, Davide Secchi and Phil Reeves

The report was commissioned by the IPO (Intellectual Property Office), following the recommendations of a report from the Big Innovation Centre in 2012 that detailed a number of other recommendations for considering policy around 3D printing. The main reason for reviewing the IP implications was a lack of empirical evidence, in addition to limited research on the impact of 3D printing on IP law. The report therefore aims to deal with both of these issues, and highlights the use of new data and findings. The report summarises two studies: Study I (A Legal and Empirical Study of 3D Printing Online Platforms and an Analysis of Human Behaviour) and Study II (The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing within the Industrial Sector: An Analysis of Six Case Studies).

The report begins by offering context, the history of 3D printing. The first patent was granted in 1977, while the 3D printer emerged in 1988, with its patent granted in 1986. The point is made that 3D printing and 'Additive Manufacturing' (AM, the name given by the American Society for Testing and Materials) are often used interchangeably, but refer to different activities. 3D printing is the term used in Study I, while AM is used in Study II in the context of businesses or consumers.

Purpose, Scope and Methodology Study I offers a legal analysis. The first section looks at copyright implications for three different actions: creation of a design object file; modification of an existing design; scanning of the object. It also considered three online platforms dedicated to 3D printing: Thingiverse, 123D and GrabCad. The second section was more exploratory, using data from 17 online platforms to explain both how they operate and how users approach the sites and carry out activities.

Study II looked at how 3D printing is currently used within the business sector, and its impact, through six case studies. The first two, grouped as "Replacement Parts", were concerned with the impact of AM on supply to the consumer. The second two, "Customised Goods", looked at how AM, and in turn IP law, is impacted by the increased role of the consumer in designing products. The final two, "High Value Small Status Goods", considered how AM impacts on goods with a low functional purpose (example given of figurines or sculptures), and also how artists/designers are protected against IP infringement.

The methodology for each study varied, given the difference in approach. Study I employed black-letter law (i.e. known and accepted principles of law) and a quantitive method for the empirical analysis. A qualitative methodology was used for Study II, involving interviews of key stakeholders in the selected industrial sectors.

Findings and Conclusions The major finding was that 3D printing does not yet require legislation, as Study I found that activity is not yet a mass phenomenon, while Study II suggested that there will be little commercial impact within the next decade.

However, the report did recognise, since interest in 3D printing is growing exponentially, that there are potential areas for IP issues to form or develop, such as the limited percentage (35%) of users who licence their work on online platforms, or the traceability of printed products in the car spare parts sector.

Key Recommendations Under recommendations for government, the report advises that clearer guidance be given regarding copyright protection for CAD files, and that the UKIPO sets up a Working Group so IP issues that arise in the future can be dealt with. For Online Platforms, the report recommends that guidance be given on the different types of licences for its users, and that the most appropriate licence is offered as the default option. It also recommends that tools used in the creation, modification, and transformation of object-designed files be monitored. For Industry, the recommendations included the adoption of a 'pay-per-print' business model for the distribution of 3D CAD files, to avoid sending individual files to consumers, and wider licensing of CAD files (to avoid a monopoly). The report includes a particular recommendation to the automotive industry to consider the traceability of 3D-printed parts.

Thoughts:

• my key take-away from this article was how it anticipates various issues that might emerge regarding IP law and 3D printing, in a sense then aiming to operate a preventive strategy to infringements that relate to IP
• I was interested in how the research/3D printing itself has developed in the six years since this report was published. A study in 2018 built on the 2015 study and looks at the current and potential relationship between IP law and 3D printing in China, France, India, Russia, Singapore and the UK. Again, it doesn't recommend specific legal reforms, but does recommend continued monitoring of the technology's progression, and clarification around existing IP issues revealed by 3D printing, for example, secondary infringement. For the UK (and the EU) specifically, it draws attention to the resolution brought by the European Parliament in 2018, that acknowledges the potential for legal reforms regarding 3D printing

[ChantalvanEgdom]

Thanks for the summaries, both! I wonder if the presence of these scans would change anything regarding the ethics of renovation of these churches. The churches will probably keep declining in quality over the years and restoring would be tricky (if even possible?) as it would change elements of the original (and then you could get into the whole "Theseus' ship" argument, with the orgininal being altered and the scan existing). Just wondered if anyone had some thoughts about compromising the monuments' authenticity to improve their lifespan and accesibiliy in real life, and if the existence of 3D scans changes anything about that?

[K-Doering]

@FabioDFernandes thanks for your summary! Gloriously detailed. I think your point re the digital version not necessarily being a compromise was really interesting. I personally find it fascinating that the authors bothered to make this point, as the bigger issue at stake seems to be that the process guarantees preservation and also (especially in the case of the Church of St Eustache) vastly improves access. I agree that nothing can compare to actually visiting an ancient monument. For one thing, the 3D model only takes into account one of the senses - the effect of low light, sound and smell in an experience like this is not to be played down. But I also worry that in getting caught up with this question we risk moving away from the real point of the project - which is that in its completion, many many more people will have 'access' to this space than did before - and that is excellent. Hence why it seems slightly rogue to bother making such a big claim!

Thanks to both for the summaries and @PAZHames for your thoughts here! The authors' comment also stood out to me and I think there is certainly a danger in trying to serve two masters: the visitor and the archeologist. I think that the use of AR to explore the churches would allow for more engagement and the preservation of the sites and I believe that at a certain point, the preservation needs to be prioritized over the visitor experience. The AR could then be disseminated, secondarily, as an exhibition tool. On the other hand, I wonder if future archeologists would be expected to solely utilize AR for further study of the sites? I do think not physically being onsite would compromise archeological results. Although, of course, I concede that I am not a scientist or archeologist!

[K-Doering]

Thanks for the summaries, both! I wonder if the presence of these scans would change anything regarding the ethics of renovation of these churches. The churches will probably keep declining in quality over the years and restoring would be tricky (if even possible?) as it would change elements of the original (and then you could get into the whole "Theseus' ship" argument, with the orgininal being altered and the scan existing). Just wondered if anyone had some thoughts about compromising the monuments' authenticity to improve their lifespan and accesibiliy in real life, and if the existence of 3D scans changes anything about that?

Thanks for this @ChantalvanEgdom! In a similar vain to my other comment, I am not clear on the goal of preservation. I certainly agree that preservation is good for the sake of it but if visitors aren't coming in and archeologists aren't studying it then is the preservation just for future generations to rediscover? In this case, the use of AR and laser scanning of the sites is imperative for our interactions with the site since the only people permitted on the sites would be those undertaking preservation work.

I think this is definitely an ethical question as you mention, Chantal. There can definitely be a fine line between restoration and reinterpretation after a certain amount of decay as well.

[nicolealexandra33]

Mendis's article is very interesting regarding the future legal and copyright issues surrounding 3D printing once it becomes more widely used. I find it particularly interesting that they stated that one of the future potential widespread uses would be for arts and crafts purposes, and I can certainly see that this would open up issues regarding copyright infringement. Not sure if this is a silly or imaginative point, but I do wonder if 3D printing would also allow for the increased creation of 'fakes' and 'forgeries' of both designer items as well as antiquities and other material culture

[despinaborcea]

Thank you both for your excellent summaries! RE @ChantalvanEgdom: What an interesting point! With regards to the accessibility to a deteriorated/ing site, I think 3D methods can help in that they can show/estimate both damage visible to the eye (e.g. the discolouring of the frescoes of Meryemana) and imperceptible damage (e.g.: structural, with risk of collapse hazards and others). The way I see it, they can enable preservation in two ways, by allowing ‘virtual tourism’ without damaging the site and also by enabling researchers to gain a better understanding of a monument’s state of decay. The other advantage of these techniques is that despite the potential renovations which might alter the authenticity of these monuments, we can always have virtual collections of the ‘originals’ (that is, if renovation altering the original is implemented).

[RebeccaKimberlin]

Mendis's article is very interesting regarding the future legal and copyright issues surrounding 3D printing once it becomes more widely used. I find it particularly interesting that they stated that one of the future potential widespread uses would be for arts and crafts purposes, and I can certainly see that this would open up issues regarding copyright infringement. Not sure if this is a silly or imaginative point, but I do wonder if 3D printing would also allow for the increased creation of 'fakes' and 'forgeries' of both designer items as well as antiquities and other material culture

I don't think this is a silly/imaginative point at all - it's really interesting! I actually read this week that an artist made a freedom of information request for 3D scans of sculptures by Rodin and is taking the Musee Rodin to court because they refused - there are various points of interest here including the classification of CAD files and moral rights, but the artist also mentioned that 'authenticity cannot be reproduced via a scan', so implying that in the art world at least authenticity would be more emphasised than ever if 3D printing became more universal.

[nicolealexandra33]

Mendis's article is very interesting regarding the future legal and copyright issues surrounding 3D printing once it becomes more widely used. I find it particularly interesting that they stated that one of the future potential widespread uses would be for arts and crafts purposes, and I can certainly see that this would open up issues regarding copyright infringement. Not sure if this is a silly or imaginative point, but I do wonder if 3D printing would also allow for the increased creation of 'fakes' and 'forgeries' of both designer items as well as antiquities and other material culture

I don't think this is a silly/imaginative point at all - it's really interesting! I actually read this week that an artist made a freedom of information request for 3D scans of sculptures by Rodin and is taking the Musee Rodin to court because they refused - there are various points of interest here including the classification of CAD files and moral rights, but the artist also mentioned that 'authenticity cannot be reproduced via a scan', so implying that in the art world at least authenticity would be more emphasised than ever if 3D printing became more universal.

Wow! That's really interesting! The 'authenticity cannot be reproduced via a scan' point is really interesting, and while I am sure steps have been put into place to have this for several well-known works of art, I wonder if there will new ways created to try and authenticate other materials.

[ChantalvanEgdom]

Thank you @K-Doering and @despinaborcea ! Those are some great points. To jump on @RebeccaKimberlin 's comment that 'authenticity cannot be reproduced via a scan', I was thinking about if we could enhance the churches accessbility through restoration (purely hypothetical), combined with having the scanns of the original monuments, if that would justify making such restorations (in order to enhance tourism for example)?

[Kiamanx]

I'm so happy that the cave churches in Cappadocia are being scanned! An absolutely beautiful part of the world. While yes, there is no beating the real thing, a CAD version of these cave churches is a fantastic method of preserving them. That area requires real care in preservation as erosion and other factors have already damaged the rock formations - which is the basis for the way of life of the locals. Having a digital version of these areas uploaded preserves them as they were before any further damage and allows for an accurate backup point for any restorations that may occur. @despinaborcea makes the great point of imperceptible damage - which I honestly hadn't even considered. I believe that an easily scrutable digital version of these places would reveal some details that would escape the naked eye.

[despinaborcea]

Just to build on @Kiamanx point about the preservation - those original scans could also be used for 3D 'copies' I think. While it is not possible to ''print'' a cave church, it might be worthwhile reproducing a wall with frescoes with AR or actual paint/ 3D methods for say, museum exhibitions - perhaps that could render a personal feeling coming closer to the experience of actually visiting the site, but without causing any damage to it.