Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

This is utterly puzzling to me.

I just don't understand how you sit on the museums side of the trial on this, without seriously questioning your own position and conceding immediately.

They were basically arguing that they are entitled to hide those scan artifacts to better protect their gift shop?! How can they even reconcile those arguments with preserving the artists legacy/serving the common good?

I'm also surprised at how nonchalantly the french supreme (!!) court seems to cope with the museum just ignoring their two month deadline for three months in the new trial... Is there no equivalent to "contempt of court" in french law? Is this typical?

My conclusion is that there is either pure stubbornness or some weird, jealous hoarding mentality happening on the museums side, because I have no other explanation why they would fight so hard for their position seemingly against all reason.

> weird, jealous hoarding mentality happening on the museums side

That's exactly it. I work on a website that makes ancient artefacts accessible. A lot of them are in museums. You wouldn't believe how many museums:

- don't want to show you their archive

- don't want to let you take pictures

- want you to share only low res pictures

- want you to get permission before you can "publish" their artefacts, etc.

It's extremely common for museums to have courtyards or basements with special "unpublished" pieces that they don't let anyone see. You have to be a special friend of the director or something to get to see them.

It's ridiculous. Fortunately, the people working on the website are relentless, and manage to eventually get collection after collection photographed and added mostly by being patient. For some collections it took 20 years before they got access -- but since everyone uses their website, and everyone apart from the local museum director wants the stuff to be in there, eventually they get access to most things.

(Museums in Italy are the worst, allegedly. They really think they own antiquity.)

That is because the stated goal of "preservation" isn't really their goal. Thats only lip-service.

Their actual goal is getting visitors, and any kind of usable information in the form of photos, videos, 3d-scans, transcriptions or whatever leaving their premises is a problem. Add to that the associated huge business of tourism and you have the explanation why the state and the courts (who are usually good buddies with the state and the upper class, including the cultural elite) also don't want to change that status quo.

Ah, the standard Music Industry response to Napster, alive and well decades later.

"Make the information hard to get! We own it!"

Never realizing that sampling of the information makes it just that much more prestigious and desirable to us, the unwashed masses, willing to pay to visit a museum that has AMAZING ORIGINAL THINGS.

If you start with the assumption that every view is a lost sale, you're going to have a really bad time.

Outside of the Louvre and maybe the Smithsonian, there are no current world-famous museums, simply regionally or subculture-appreciated museums, some with bygone fame that a small portion of the older population would recognize. The Rodin Museum may be popular among a tiny niche slice of people, but if they were to make an internally consistent strategy that they want growth then they'd release more information.

Actually, imho, the AMAZING ORIGINAL THINGS are actually useless. You can not touch them, get close, rotate them, look at them properly, take your time. You are just number 29387 that day visiting the Mona Lisa, you get 5s to view it, then the line moves on.

A high-res photo or 3d-scan allows you to do all those things (maybe except really touching them).

So aside from the emotional benefit of having been near the real original piece for a few seconds, all digital derivatives are logically far better.

Five seconds is brutally short.

What painting has the largest area of appreciation, when notoriety or quality is multiplied by time allowed to view it?

"largest area" immediately brought "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" to mind - not for actual impact, just because the physical painting is nearly 10 feet across, which noone seems to expect. Also it's on one wall of an enormous room with plenty of room for people to circulate, in a gallery that has various options for free access (mostly aimed at locals and students, but the art institute doesn't seem too picky about it.)