TL;DR
Get art and craft supplies delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A report by digital-rights advocate Cosmo Wenman recounts an access-to-information case over 3D scans held by the Rodin Museum. It says a Paris court ordered disclosure in December 2023, but the museum and Culture Ministry did not comply; the supplied account does not include the Conseil d’État’s final ruling.
Digital-rights advocate Cosmo Wenman’s account of the Rodin Museum 3D-scan case says a Paris administrative court ordered the museum and France’s Culture Ministry in December 2023 to provide him with sculpture scan files, but the two institutions did not comply. The account supplied here does not report the Conseil d’État’s final decision on appeal, so it cannot establish the verdict suggested by the title.
Wenman says he began seeking access to the museum’s scans in 2017 and filed suit in 2019, joined by Communia, Wikimédia France and La Quadrature du Net. The dispute concerned whether the scans were administrative documents subject to France’s freedom-of-information rules. Wenman’s account says the Commission on Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) had advised that the scans qualified as administrative documents and should be released.
According to the report, the Paris Administrative Tribunal ruled in December 2023 that 3D scans in various formats were administrative documents and ordered disclosure, along with €1,500 in compensation for Wenman. The account says the museum and ministry neither provided the files nor appealed that order. It also describes a ruling that allowed some point-cloud files to be withheld, which Wenman challenged.
Wenman alleges that the museum gave inconsistent or false explanations about the files, including their usability and which sculptures had been scanned. He says funding applications obtained through a separate information request and images of scan work contradicted some of the museum’s statements. Those are allegations in the author’s account; the supplied material does not include the court records, the institutions’ responses or an independent assessment of the disputed evidence.
Public Access to Museum Scans
The dispute concerns whether digital records created or held by a public cultural institution can be accessed under freedom-of-information law. A ruling on that question could affect researchers, artists and members of the public seeking digital copies of cultural heritage works, as well as museums deciding how to manage and disclose digitization files.
The immediate practical issue in Wenman’s account is compliance: he says a court ordered disclosure, yet the scans were not delivered. The account also raises a distinct legal question about point-cloud files, but its accusations about institutional conduct should not be treated as judicial findings unless confirmed by the relevant decisions or records.
Popular right now
TCL 85 Designer Series QD-Mini LED TV (Model 85A400U) with Google Smart TV
Vitamix Propel Series 750 Professional-Grade Blender, 4 Programs, Black
De'Longhi Dinamica Plus Fully Automatic Espresso Machine
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From 2017 Request to Appeal
Wenman says his requests began in 2017, followed by a lawsuit in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in 2019. Communia, Wikimédia France and La Quadrature du Net joined as co-plaintiffs, and lawyer Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh represented them, according to the report.
The account says CADA supported disclosure before the case reached court. The Paris tribunal’s December 2023 ruling then treated scans in various formats as administrative documents, while also allowing an exception for some point-cloud files. Wenman says the plaintiffs appealed that exception to the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court. The supplied text ends while describing the appeal and does not provide its outcome.
“The scans were unquestionably administrative documents.”
— Cosmo Wenman, in his report
The Appeal’s Outcome Is Missing
The material provided does not state whether the Conseil d’État issued a decision, what it decided, or whether the scan files have since been released. It also does not include the court judgments, the museum’s or ministry’s account of events, or documentation independently confirming Wenman’s claims about the case record and compliance.
The title refers to a “3D Scan Verdict,” but the text available here describes the Paris tribunal’s 2023 ruling and a later appeal, not a final verdict from France’s highest administrative court. The appeal’s current status and any subsequent developments remain unknown on this basis.
Check for the Conseil d’État Ruling
The next reporting step is to establish whether the Conseil d’État has ruled on the appeal and obtain the decision and its reasoning. The status of the Paris tribunal’s disclosure order should also be checked with the museum, the Culture Ministry and the parties, including whether any scans or compensation were provided.
Until those records and responses are available, the confirmed account is limited: Wenman describes a December 2023 Paris ruling and says the institutions did not comply, while the final appellate outcome is not supplied.
Key Questions
What is the Rodin Museum 3D-scan case about?
It concerns access to 3D scans of sculptures held by the Rodin Museum and whether those files must be disclosed under French freedom-of-information rules.
What did the Paris court decide?
Wenman’s report says the Administrative Tribunal of Paris ruled in December 2023 that scans in various formats were administrative documents and ordered the museum and Culture Ministry to provide them. It also says the court awarded him €1,500.
Did the Conseil d’État issue a final verdict?
The supplied account does not say. It reports that Wenman appealed part of the Paris ruling in late 2023, but gives no Conseil d’État decision or current case status.
Were the scans released?
Wenman says the museum and ministry did not comply with the Paris court order. The supplied material does not independently verify that claim or describe any later release of the files.
Source: hn
