Copyright Protection of 3D Digitized Artistic Sculptures by Adding Unique Local Inconspicuous Errors by Sculptors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The key idea of the paper is to endow the 3D-model of e.g. an artwork or a cultural heritage with an aölmost unnoticable detail, which allows to detect misuse por fraud, when publicly presented via internet.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Please note that the line numbers correspond to the PDF version of the revised manuscript without the Track Changes option.

We have addressed all comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Please follow our detail responses to the comments bellow:

Reviewer comment:

The key idea of the paper is to endow the 3D-model of e.g. an artwork or a cultural heritage with an almost unnoticeable detail, which allows to detect misuse or fraud, when publicly presented via internet.

 

Response:

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive opinion and his detailed explanation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article that contributes to larger discussions around artistic integrity, intellectual property, and copyright for the fine arts with digital technologies. Consequently, while the methods, study and discussion are performed with detail, the introduction would be stronger with a literature review that situates the paper around intellectual property. There is also some ambiguous language which could be clarified, especially for international audiences - such terms include 'abuse', 'protection', 'value', etc.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Please note that the line numbers correspond to the PDF version of the revised manuscript without the Track Changes option.

We have addressed all comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Please follow our detail responses to the comments bellow:

Reviewer comment:

This is an interesting article that contributes to larger discussions around artistic integrity, intellectual property, and copyright for the fine arts with digital technologies. Consequently, while the methods, study and discussion are performed with detail, the introduction would be stronger with a literature review that situates the paper around intellectual property. There is also some ambiguous language which could be clarified, especially for international audiences - such terms include 'abuse', 'protection', 'value', etc.

Response:

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive opinion and his detailed explanation. Chapter Introduction was reorganized and a literature review that situates the paper around intellectual property was added. Please see lines 59-74. In the revised version of the manuscript all ambiguous expressions are explained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Unique local digital protection of 3D sculpture proposed by scuptor" is an interesting research which is focused on the autenticity preservation of assets. From the reviewer's point of view is scientifically soundness. The manuscript is well written, structured and organized.

Just only some minor comments before being suitable for publishing:

Title of the work: from my point of view the title is quite confusing. I am expert in remote sensing (not in scuplture) and the title is not really clear for me. Could you reformulate it???

Line 69: please add a citation to support this.

Line 122: cloud you add the software GRAPHOS is open-source, as well as tis corresponding citation?:

González-Aguilera, D., López-Fernández, L., Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, P., Guerrero, D., Hernandez-Lopez, D., Remondino, F., ... & Gaiani, M. (2016). DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALL-PURPOSE FREE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOOL. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 41.

Line 215: please reformulate this sentence: “Paper [55] …..”

Line 285-Line298: this part of the manuscript is more suitable within the conclusions of the works because you discuss the limitations and advantages of you approach in comparison with other ones. Additionally, you expose some future works.

It could be of great interest if authors add a discussion about the min size of the feautes taking into consideration the accuracy of the digitalization methods as well as the accuraccy of the 3D printers. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Please note that the line numbers correspond to the PDF version of the revised manuscript without the Track Changes option.

We have addressed all comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Please follow our detail responses to the comments bellow:

Reviewer comment:

The manuscript entitled "Unique local digital protection of 3D sculpture proposed by sculptor" is an interesting research which is focused on the authenticity preservation of assets. From the reviewer's point of view is scientifically soundness. The manuscript is well written, structured and organized.

Response:

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the positive opinion and his detailed explanation.

 

Reviewer comment:

Just only some minor comments before being suitable for publishing:

Title of the work: from my point of view the title is quite confusing. I am expert in remote sensing (not in sculpture) and the title is not really clear for me. Could you reformulate it???

Response:

The title of the paper was reformulated and the new title of the paper is: Copyright Protection of 3D digitized artistic sculptures by adding unique local inconspicuous errors by sculptors.

Reviewer comment:

Line 69: please add a citation to support this.

Response:

A citation was added to line 87. Please see line 87 and reference number 15.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 122: cloud you add the software GRAPHOS is open-source, as well as its corresponding citation? :

González-Aguilera, D., López-Fernández, L., Rodriguez-Gonzalvez, P., Guerrero, D., Hernandez-Lopez, D., Remondino, F., ...&Gaiani, M. (2016). DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALL-PURPOSE FREE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOOL. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 41.

Response:

The software GRAPHOS was listed as open-source software. Please see lines 141-143 and reference number 25.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 215: please reformulate this sentence: “Paper [55] …..”

Response:

The sentence was reformulated, please see lines232-234.

 

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 285-Line298: this part of the manuscript is more suitable within the conclusions of the works because you discuss the limitations and advantages of you approach in comparison with other ones. Additionally, you expose some future works.

Response:

The part of the manuscript (lines 285-298) were moved to the conclusion. Please see chapter Conclusion and lines 873-885.

Reviewer comment:

It could be of great interest if authors add a discussion about the min size of the features taking into consideration the accuracy of the digitalization methods as well as the accuracy of the 3D printers.

Response:

In the revised version of the manuscript discussion about the min size of the features taking into consideration the accuracy of the digitalization methods as well as the accuracy of the 3D printers was added. Please see chapter Discussion and lines 820-845:

 

In this research, we did not deal with the error that occurs during 3D printing and data transfer from a 3D digital model to a 3D printed model. The accuracy of the scanner and the resolution (point distance) should be such as to enable 3D digitization of all details that are important for a quality visual presentation of the sculpture, i.e. added protective errors. In case it is planned to make a replica with an error using a 3D printer, it must have the accuracy and resolution that allow the production of the finest details. However, we will briefly look at the topic of accuracy in 3D printers.

Despite the rapid growth of 3D printing techniques the accuracy of 3D printed models has not been thoroughly investigated [81]. The deviation of the dimension of the 3D printed model from the dimension 3D digital model represents the accuracy of 3D printing. Dimensional accuracy of 98.81% was achieved for the commercial FDM 3D printers [82]. Various factors affect the accuracy of the printed 3D model, these are temperature on the nozzle, the nozzle thickness, the filament scale, the built-in plate’s temperature, the basis for printing, layer height, infill density, printing speed while printing with pure polypropylene, deformation, filament entry, the flow of material, the gap between the nozzle and the board [83]. That means that even if the model is digitized with high precision, that precision and level of details can be impaired in the 3D printing process. Dimensional and geometrical deviations which occur on a printed 3D models and the size of the deviations may also depend on the type of file transfer format [84]. A new approach in the field of 3D printing, the so-called powder-based 3D printing has improvements in dimensional accuracy, printing resolution, and production speed. It has the flexibility in designing the complex structure, usage of different materials within a single design, reduced material cost for manufacturing, and on-demand manufacturing of customized products [85]. This approach also has its limitations like higher material cost, longer printing time, laborious post-processing, a thermal distortion that leads to warping, and limited material selection. The new 3D printing technique is color 3D printing which also has its limitations [86].

 

The second paragraph (lines 827-845) can be removed if the Reviewer thinks so, because that is not the topic of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have tended to my concerns