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.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 month 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.)

[–] unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month 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.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 month 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.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month 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)