←back to thread

771 points abetusk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
Symbiote ◴[] No.41878622[source]
> 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.

replies(8): >>41878710 #>>41878780 #>>41878801 #>>41878841 #>>41880177 #>>41884218 #>>41886229 #>>41886284 #
mytailorisrich ◴[] No.41878780[source]
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...

replies(3): >>41880517 #>>41881065 #>>41889589 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.41881065[source]
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"?!

replies(2): >>41881231 #>>41881540 #
mytailorisrich ◴[] No.41881231[source]
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.
replies(1): >>41881555 #
1. Suppafly ◴[] No.41881555[source]
>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.