10 ms·

> The court ruled that the museum’s revenue, business model, and supposed threats from competition and counterfeiting are irrelevant to the public’s right to ac

> The court ruled that the museum’s revenue, business model, and supposed threats from competition and counterfeiting are irrelevant to the public’s right to access its scans, a dramatic rejection of the museum’s position It would have helped the museum and government ministry if this had been clear before the government-funded scanning program was started. (Maybe it was, I don't know.) I was initially sympathetic to the museum, as it's common for public funding to be tight, and revenue from the gift shop or commercial licencing of their objects can fill the gap. I don't know about France, but I expect the ministry has been heavily pushing public museums to increase their income in this way. However, that doesn't justify the deception described by the article.

BlueTemplar 2y ago
In the previous story over the Nefertiti bust, the German museum tried to use this gift shop defense, but then when pressed, you could see that they made almost no money from it.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
This the law of unintended consequences in action. I suspect that neither the government nor museums thought there was any legal obligations to make 3D scans public and I'd wager that the legislator did not have that in mind when they drafted the freedom of information laws. But then, suddenly (as per linked article): "The Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) ... had never before considered any dispute about 3D scans. It affirmed my request that musée Rodin communicate copies of its scans to me, determining for the first time that public agencies’ 3D scans are in fact administrative documents and by law must be made available to the public." A decision which has been going up the chain of courts since and is apparently close to the possibly dramatic climax. Indeed, the commercial argument is therefore irrelevant to this and the museum was clutching at straws there, really...
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  Good laws try to be future-proof. Transparency of government is a big deal in liberal democracies. It's incongruous for a museum to resist something like this, when exhibiting artifacts to the public is one of the main reasons for their very existence.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    Legislators are human beings. "Future-proof" is one thing, guessing all possible cases is quite another and perhaps their aim simply wasn't things like 3D scans at all, as mentioned, because freedom of information laws came about to tackle a completely different issue (which was indeed transparency, not scans of sculptures...) That's how it is and key to this case, and not really discussed in any comments. I am not commenting on the museum's actions to defend against this, which they must think is in their interest. So I don't understand the hate... it's getting difficult to discuss on more and more topics.
    - BlueTemplar 2y ago
      Ok, I guess "transparency" doesn't begin to cover all potential cases, CADA's role is to ensure the freedom of access to administrative documents, but also to public archives and to the re-use of public information. And any document created during a public service mission is concerned, regardless of whether it's in a text, visual, audio, etc. format, the law specifically abstaining from giving an exhaustive list or even type of documents, considering their variety. And why would point clouds of statues be exempt when point clouds of buildings or landscapes are not ? Legislators are human beings indeed, not computers, they are able to try to convey "the spirit of the law", and hope that their successors will be able to understand them. The "hate" is from, yet again, taking taxpayer money, while basically doing the opposite of their job. P.S.: Something to cheer you up : https://youtu.be/sQ9I4t0kJxg https://youtu.be/sQ9I4t0kJxg
- myrmidon 2y ago
  How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! I also dont see at all how this is even a problem for the museum: Their gift shop is basically a rounding error in their revenue stream in the first place, availability of cheap replicas online would only marginally affect gift shop sales anyway, and what person would ever go like "oh no lets cancel the trip to the museum because there is a good 3d model of their main exhibit on thingiverse"?!
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    As per quote in my previous comment the crux of the matter is that 3D scans were deemed "administrative documents" in the sense of the freedom of information laws. This might be why they are fighting tooth and nail because if that is ultimately upheld this will apply to all scans in all public institutions, which all become accessible.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >This might be why they are fighting tooth and nail because if that is ultimately upheld this will apply to all scans in all public institutions, which all become accessible. Which is a pretty sweet comeuppance for not handing over these specific scans when asked.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! Perhaps it's unintended in that they never thought they'd be called on it. Requests for public funding almost always claim it's for the betterment of the public despite almost never being so and no one ever gets called out on it.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > Requests for public funding almost always claim it's for the betterment of the public despite almost never being so and no one ever gets called out on it. That's just corruption and we should absolutely be calling out every instance of it. If that's not the exception right now, I hope that changes in the near future.
- necovek 2y ago
  The fact that this was the first time release of 3D scans was being requested does not imply those were not intended consequences: for any type of document, there has been a first.
rkangel 2y ago
I very quickly had no sympathy at all with the museum. It obtained funding to do the scans with the express purpose of providing to the public, and then decided not to.
- thfuran 2y ago
  That's ISP-tier behavior that I wouldn't except from a museum.
ACS_Solver 2y ago
This same person fought for years to get the Berlin Egyptian museum to release 3D scans of the famous Nefertiti bust. The museum also claimed it would undermine its revenue streams through the gift shop, but as the case progressed, that turned out to be very misleading - the museum had made less than 5000 EUR over ten years from 3D scans. https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-this-stunning-3d-scan-of-an-iconic-egyptian-artifact-today-you-can-see-it-for-the-first-time/ https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-...
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  Why would they lie about it then? These museums are subsidized by tax payers, not only just local money but often with additional EU funding as well. The scans were paid for by the public. This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    > This seems comically evil for no apparent reason. Gervais Principle
    - romwell 2y ago
      >Gervais Principle Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - wiz21c 2y ago
    Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open. The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal. As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...
cormorant 2y ago
> In an ironic development, the judges specifically reasoned against musée Rodin’s trade secrecy claim by citing its 3D digitization funding applications to the Ministry of Culture, in which the museum stipulated its commitment to publishing its scans. The museum had attempted to hide these funding applications from us and the court, telling the court they did not exist.
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  The Rodin museum is my favorite. They sell a very limited selection of his sculptures at the gift shop and some of the sculptures. You literally just can’t get near them. They’re in the middle of a fountain. I would certainly 3-D print the scans and have them at my house. I don’t know how that would take any income away from the museum.
  - semi-extrinsic 2y ago
    I've not been to the Rodin museum, but this summer I visited the Hirshhorn sculpture garden in DC. One of their exhibits is one of the 12 original casts of Rodin's "burghers of Calais". Except this summer they were doing some maintenance work, so this wonderful huge bronze sculpture was moved off to a corner, fenced off and surrounded by picnic tables where people sat to eat ice cream. The contrasting juxtaposition was just incredible to observe.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
akira2501 2y ago
Digital formats rot. Particularly 3d formats. A responsible curator would understand this and prioritize public release.
swiftcoder 2y ago
> It would have helped the museum and government ministry if this had been clear before the government-funded scanning program was started. (Maybe it was, I don't know.) Public access appears to have been an explicit condition of the government grant they applied to for the money to make the scans.

BlueTemplar 2y ago

In the previous story over the Nefertiti bust, the German museum tried to use this gift shop defense, but then when pressed, you could see that they made almost no money from it.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

This the law of unintended consequences in action. I suspect that neither the government nor museums thought there was any legal obligations to make 3D scans public and I'd wager that the legislator did not have that in mind when they drafted the freedom of information laws. But then, suddenly (as per linked article): "The Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) ... had never before considered any dispute about 3D scans. It affirmed my request that musée Rodin communicate copies of its scans to me, determining for the first time that public agencies’ 3D scans are in fact administrative documents and by law must be made available to the public." A decision which has been going up the chain of courts since and is apparently close to the possibly dramatic climax. Indeed, the commercial argument is therefore irrelevant to this and the museum was clutching at straws there, really...

BlueTemplar 2y ago
Good laws try to be future-proof. Transparency of government is a big deal in liberal democracies. It's incongruous for a museum to resist something like this, when exhibiting artifacts to the public is one of the main reasons for their very existence.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Legislators are human beings. "Future-proof" is one thing, guessing all possible cases is quite another and perhaps their aim simply wasn't things like 3D scans at all, as mentioned, because freedom of information laws came about to tackle a completely different issue (which was indeed transparency, not scans of sculptures...) That's how it is and key to this case, and not really discussed in any comments. I am not commenting on the museum's actions to defend against this, which they must think is in their interest. So I don't understand the hate... it's getting difficult to discuss on more and more topics.
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    Ok, I guess "transparency" doesn't begin to cover all potential cases, CADA's role is to ensure the freedom of access to administrative documents, but also to public archives and to the re-use of public information. And any document created during a public service mission is concerned, regardless of whether it's in a text, visual, audio, etc. format, the law specifically abstaining from giving an exhaustive list or even type of documents, considering their variety. And why would point clouds of statues be exempt when point clouds of buildings or landscapes are not ? Legislators are human beings indeed, not computers, they are able to try to convey "the spirit of the law", and hope that their successors will be able to understand them. The "hate" is from, yet again, taking taxpayer money, while basically doing the opposite of their job. P.S.: Something to cheer you up : https://youtu.be/sQ9I4t0kJxg https://youtu.be/sQ9I4t0kJxg
myrmidon 2y ago
How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! I also dont see at all how this is even a problem for the museum: Their gift shop is basically a rounding error in their revenue stream in the first place, availability of cheap replicas online would only marginally affect gift shop sales anyway, and what person would ever go like "oh no lets cancel the trip to the museum because there is a good 3d model of their main exhibit on thingiverse"?!
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  As per quote in my previous comment the crux of the matter is that 3D scans were deemed "administrative documents" in the sense of the freedom of information laws. This might be why they are fighting tooth and nail because if that is ultimately upheld this will apply to all scans in all public institutions, which all become accessible.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >This might be why they are fighting tooth and nail because if that is ultimately upheld this will apply to all scans in all public institutions, which all become accessible. Which is a pretty sweet comeuppance for not handing over these specific scans when asked.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >How is the publication of the scans an unintended consequence, if it was stated as intention in the grant application?! Perhaps it's unintended in that they never thought they'd be called on it. Requests for public funding almost always claim it's for the betterment of the public despite almost never being so and no one ever gets called out on it.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Requests for public funding almost always claim it's for the betterment of the public despite almost never being so and no one ever gets called out on it. That's just corruption and we should absolutely be calling out every instance of it. If that's not the exception right now, I hope that changes in the near future.
necovek 2y ago
The fact that this was the first time release of 3D scans was being requested does not imply those were not intended consequences: for any type of document, there has been a first.

rkangel 2y ago

I very quickly had no sympathy at all with the museum. It obtained funding to do the scans with the express purpose of providing to the public, and then decided not to.

thfuran 2y ago
That's ISP-tier behavior that I wouldn't except from a museum.

ACS_Solver 2y ago

This same person fought for years to get the Berlin Egyptian museum to release 3D scans of the famous Nefertiti bust. The museum also claimed it would undermine its revenue streams through the gift shop, but as the case progressed, that turned out to be very misleading - the museum had made less than 5000 EUR over ten years from 3D scans. https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-this-stunning-3d-scan-of-an-iconic-egyptian-artifact-today-you-can-see-it-for-the-first-time/ https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-...

trompetenaccoun 2y ago
Why would they lie about it then? These museums are subsidized by tax payers, not only just local money but often with additional EU funding as well. The scans were paid for by the public. This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  > This seems comically evil for no apparent reason. Gervais Principle
  - romwell 2y ago
    >Gervais Principle Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- wiz21c 2y ago
  Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open. The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal. As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...

cormorant 2y ago

> In an ironic development, the judges specifically reasoned against musée Rodin’s trade secrecy claim by citing its 3D digitization funding applications to the Ministry of Culture, in which the museum stipulated its commitment to publishing its scans. The museum had attempted to hide these funding applications from us and the court, telling the court they did not exist.

idunnoman1222 2y ago
The Rodin museum is my favorite. They sell a very limited selection of his sculptures at the gift shop and some of the sculptures. You literally just can’t get near them. They’re in the middle of a fountain. I would certainly 3-D print the scans and have them at my house. I don’t know how that would take any income away from the museum.
- semi-extrinsic 2y ago
  I've not been to the Rodin museum, but this summer I visited the Hirshhorn sculpture garden in DC. One of their exhibits is one of the 12 original casts of Rodin's "burghers of Calais". Except this summer they were doing some maintenance work, so this wonderful huge bronze sculpture was moved off to a corner, fenced off and surrounded by picnic tables where people sat to eat ice cream. The contrasting juxtaposition was just incredible to observe.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

akira2501 2y ago

Digital formats rot. Particularly 3d formats. A responsible curator would understand this and prioritize public release.

swiftcoder 2y ago

> It would have helped the museum and government ministry if this had been clear before the government-funded scanning program was started. (Maybe it was, I don't know.) Public access appears to have been an explicit condition of the government grant they applied to for the money to make the scans.