CosmoWenman

Re: what "FOI is for": see my previous comment above excerpting from FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN FRANCE, LAW AND PRACTICE

Re: a hypothetical LLM: French FOI law covers all document formats. The CADA and courts have routinely recognized that documents produced by the government in formats such as audio recordings, x-rays, photographs (of submerged shipwrecks, no less), application source code, and computer algorithms may be considered administrative documents, communicable to the public.

So, if the French government produced an LLM and front end then, yes, that LLM model and its front end would be an administrative document, in principle communicable to the public. To me that does not seem improper or difficult or strange to imagine.

Musée Rodin, 2010-2013: "The curiosity aroused by the content and quality of the digital image and the 3D model will encourage Internet users to come and discover the sculptor’s work in its museum setting."

"In the short term, the project to put all of the Rodin Museum’s digital collections online in 2D and 3D will enhance the dissemination of the work of this world-renowned artist."

There are a few lesser works that the museum has not yet exhausted the legal maximum production of 12 posthumous, so-called "originals".

It may be possible, but unlikely.

In one of our briefs in the Conseil d'Etat we asserted (and, I think, well supported) that the museum's refusal to communicate its scans to me constituted an infringement of my freedom of expression as defined in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In some circumstances, this opens up the possibility of appealing the CE's decision in the European Court of Human Rights.

We have not done a deep analysis of that possibility in light of the specific way the CE handled the case. It's an open question. However, given our limited time and resources, it is unlikely we would have the means to pursue it further.

We omitted this Article 10 argument until the very end, since from the outset I wanted to take an "everyman" position without any special circumstances or pleas about end-uses. When we did finally present the Article 10 free expression argument, we detailed my own work and intentions for disseminating the scans to the public.

I can tell you that the Article 10 argument seemed to really alarm the Rodin Museum. They responded to it at length. I would say they did a poor job of responding to it, but they certainly seemed concerned by it.

You can read our Article 10 argument here, in English or French, in sections IV and V: https://cosmowenman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/040_20250...

Re: what "FOI is for" please see my comment above, excerpting FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN FRANCE, LAW AND PRACTICE.

Re: "Weird" documents: The CADA and courts have routinely recognized that documents in formats such as audio recordings, x-rays, photographs (of submerged shipwrecks, no less), video, application source code, and computer algorithms may be considered administrative documents, communicable to the public. FWIW, a 3D scan being an administrative document doesn't seem weird at all to me, nor did it seem weird to the many government attorneys at the CADA analyzing the issue, nor to the cultural heritage and open source and digital rights experts and advocates who joined my case, nor to the Paris court.

The Conseil d'Etat did not even say that scans could not be administrative documents, or that that would be weird; they just ruled that these documents in particular were akin to physical works and therefore part of the museum's inalienable collection, and so were outside FOI law.

The first several paragraphs of my previoius story, about the lead up to the appeal, explain my motivation for establishing and promoting public acess to 3D scans of public domain cultural heritage works: https://cosmowenman.substack.com/p/secret-3d-scans-in-the-fr...

As does my presentation, "The Archetypes Burst In": https://cosmowenman.substack.com/p/the-archetypes-burst-in

The funding applications are linked directly in the body of my story.

Re: "FOI is for":

From FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN FRANCE, LAW AND PRACTICE, Dr. Yseult Marique (Essex/Speyer), Dr. Emmanuel Slautsky (Université libre de Bruxelles) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3033917

Page 19: "Before 2005 the reuse for commercial purposes of documents disclosed under the FOIA was restricted. Since 2005 and the implementation of Directive 2003/98/EC a right to reuse public information contained in administrative documents for purposes other than those for which the documents were initially prepared or received by the authority has been established under the conditions currently set out in book III of the CRPA. This right to reuse is made more effective by the fact that, whenever public information is electronically disclosed, it must be disclosed in an open standard that can easily be reused and automatically processed. This is important as inadequate standards significantly limit the possibilities for reusing administrative documents … The reuse of public information is normally free of charge. This principle is one of the main measures adopted in recent years in France to encourage the reuse of public information as part of the French policy of open data within the public sector. Public bodies are therefore compelled to allow economic operators to reuse valuable data generated in the public sector freely."

Page 39: "The FOIA has failed to trigger a revolution in how citizens request access to administrative documents. There is a fair number of requests. Sometimes these requests touch highly sensistive political matters (e.g. access to financial information related to President Sarkozy’s electoral campaing, Areva’s security failure etc.). However, all in all, the FOIA seems to be only used in marginal cases. The FDRA sought to bring a deep shake-up here. It sought to develop a stronger market logic with a clear demand-side and a clear offer-side to administrative data and documents. The pioneering idea that France seeks to put forward is that administrative information is economically valuable and that putting this information on the web will spur actors to use it, analyse it, dig into databases and eventually make valuable use of this newly acquired knowledge (i.e. because of economic uses or thanks to calling public bodies into account)."

I am very much in favor of private, and crowdsourced, and DIY scanning efforts. However, there is a real value to careful, high quality, accurate scanning of important works, and as the Rodin Museum itself might agree, the provenance of that scan data is important. When the originals are closely held and access is restricted, it's up to the institution to produce that high quality data and publish it.

IMO, their collected filings, both in the Paris tribunal and in the Conseil d'État, are a true trainwreck. I don't discount the possibility that they were lazy (it seems likely) but I also think they may be truly incompetent and genuinely indifferent to the law, and without a doubt they behaved and argued in bad faith throughout.

The exceptional Taco Dibbits, Director of Collections at the Rijksmuseum: "We’re a public institution, and so the art and objects we have, are, in a way, everyone’s property… With the internet, it’s so difficult to control your copyright or use of images that we decided we’d rather people use a very good high-resolution image from the Rijksmueum rather than using a very bad reproduction… If they want to have a Vermeer on their toilet paper, I’d rather have a very high-quality image of Vermeer on toilet paper than a very bad reproduction."

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/arts/design/museums-mull-...

Excerpts from the museum's applications to the Ministry of Culture, seeking public funds for scanning its collection, statements that it reiterated over several years of renewed funding requests:

"The curiosity aroused by the content and quality of the digital image and the 3D model will encourage Internet users to come and discover the sculptor’s work in its museum setting."

"In the short term, the project to put all of the Rodin Museum’s digital collections online in 2D and 3D will enhance the dissemination of the work of this world-renowned artist."

Moreover, the Ministry of Culture's call for projects expressly emphasized that one of the main objectives of this program was to promote "free and open consultation of digital cultural resources for all Internet users"

(These statements are from the museum's applications and the Ministry's call for digitization projects, which are linked in the body of my story.)

Musée Rodin, 2010-2013: "The curiosity aroused by the content and quality of the digital image and the 3D model will encourage Internet users to come and discover the sculptor’s work in its museum setting."

Whenever I explain this case I really do my best to make it perfectly clear that the Rodin Museum solicited and received public funds from the Ministry of Culture for the express purpose of 3D scanning its collection. This public financing is not (any longer) a state secret. And yet one thing in this world is certain: if you ask the Rodin Museum to comment on its operations or any public policy issue, they will make sure to mention that they are "self-funded"...

And, IMO, Auguste Rodin's wishes (real or imaginary) are utterly irrelevant. I don't mean to dismiss the sentiment motivating people's desire to respect an artist's perceived wishes, but in practical terms they are usually, and in this case definitely and in every respect, completely irrelevant.

It is so strange to see people volunteer imaginary explanations for the Rodin Museum's behavior and motives. It is understandable, though, since the museum refuses to make any public comment on the case or its policies. In court, however, the Rodin Museum itself says it does not use its scans for conservation: in its many court filings it was adamant that it did not use its scans for any purpose whatsoever and that the scan documents were of such low quality as to be useless. They told the court they had to search for them in response to my request. Their scans do not guide any conservation work: they sit idle on DVDs in a locked filing cabinet.

Musée Rodin, 2010-2013: "The curiosity aroused by the content and quality of the digital image and the 3D model will encourage Internet users to come and discover the sculptor’s work in its museum setting."

"In the short term, the project to put all of the Rodin Museum’s digital collections online in 2D and 3D will enhance the dissemination of the work of this world-renowned artist."

Several of the sculptures the museum scanned were plaster casts, including La Porte de l'Enfer and Les Trois Ombres. Given the destruction and reproduction inherent in the way Rodin's studio and foundry partners were producing bronzes at the time, the plasters are the most accurate, highest quality versions of the works, and are the closest to the hand of the artist. The molds used for the production of bronzes would have been made (and remade after they wore out) from the plasters. Accurate scans of the plasters are, arguably, therefore of much higher archival and commercial value than any scan of a subsequent bronze cast would be.

Mon article en français : https://cosmowenman.substack.com/p/scans-3d-secrets-devant-l...

Merci de le partager avec toute personne susceptible d'être intéressée par les Open Data.

I have also made inquiries into the illiberal terms of access and use for the Stanford David/Michelangelo scans. The situation there—partly due to the influence of Italian cultural authorities, partly due to the indifference of every other institution involved, including Stanford and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation—is just as dumb and frustrating as in France. Those incredibly valuable, important scans are effectively orphaned and likely will remain so until someone who has the complete collection puts it on Pirate Bay.