RODIN 3D SCAN ACCESS CAMPAIGNCOSMO WENMAN

January 2017 — March 2021
Last updated March 24, 2021
Check this page for the latest version of this document:
cosmowenman.com/BMAMuseeRodinThinker3DScan

BACK TO TOPOVERVIEW
Cosmo Wenman .................................................................................................... 3
Summary ............................................................................................................... 4
Chronology ............................................................................................................ 5

CORRESPONDENCE
With the Baltimore Museum of Art, Musée Rodin, Ministry of Culture ................... 7

PRE-LITIGATION
Maître Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh represents Wenman .................................. 40
FOIA demand for Museé Rodin documents and 3D scans .................................. 41
Museé Rodin refusal ............................................................................................ 47
Museé Rodin private request to CADA for legal guidance ................................... 53
CADA private legal guidance to Musée Rodin ..................................................... 59
FOIA demand reiterated ...................................................................................... 63
Musée Rodin private letter to Ministry of Culture ................................................. 73
Request for public CADA inquiry.......................................................................... 77
CADA request to Musée Rodin for context and information ................................. 78
Musée Rodin response to CADA ......................................................................... 82
CADA public legal opinion affirming Wenman’s FOIA demand ............................ 94
FOIA request to CADA for its correspondence with Musée Rodin ..................... 100
Final FOIA demand to Musée Rodin .................................................................. 101

LITIGATION
Lawsuit filed in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris ........................................... 103
The Court directs Musée Rodin to present a defense ........................................ 104
Musée Rodin files its Mémoire en défense with the Court ................................. 105

RESOURCES
Project Home & Contacts................................................................................... 106
French laws, CADA opinions, and court filings .................................................. 107
Background on Musée Rodin, BMA, and their 3D scans ................................... 108
Related research papers, books, and presentations .......................................... 109
Rodin FOIA-related media coverage to date ...................................................... 110
Wenman’s Bust of Nefertiti 3D scan FOIA project ............................................. 111
Images ............................................................................................................... 112

2

BACK TO TOPOVERVIEWCOSMO WENMAN
Cosmo Wenman is an artist specializing in 3D design, 3D scanning, and 3D printing applications. He is a
design and fabrication consultant to artists and foundries seeking to incorporate digital techniques into
their traditional workflows.
Wenman is also an open access activist. In 2019 he completed a successful 3-year freedom of accesscampaign to access and publish for the first time the Egyptian Museum of Berlin’s 3D scan of the 3,000
year-old Bust of Nefertiti.
Wenman argues that museums and private collectors should make 3D scans of important public domain
works freely available to the public. He maintains that with 3D scanning and related technologies, private
collectors and museums have an unprecedented opportunity to become engines of new cultural creation.
They should digitize their three dimensional collections and project them outward into the public realm tobe adapted, multiplied, and remixed in new, unpredictable ways that will shape the arts for millennia. They
should do this because the best place to celebrate great art is in a vibrant, lively, and anarchic popular
culture.

In The Archetypes Burst In, Wenman’s 2016 presentation at the REAL2016 conference on 3D scanning,th
he contrasts museums’ 19 -century practice of sharing their collections via plaster casts with modern
museums’ secrecy with their 3D data.
Wenman’s open access-related projects are at cosmowenman.com
His professional servces are at conceptrealizations.com
Wenman lives in Southern California.
Email: cosmo.wenman@gmail.com

3

BACK TO TOPSUMMARY
Auguste Rodin died in 1917. All his works passed into the public domain 70 years later; anyone can makecopies of his sculptures without anyone’s prior permission.
Shortly before his death, Rodin willed his estate to the French government, which created the MuséeRodin and assigned to it droit moral (“moral rights”) in Rodin’s oeuvre. By these rights the museum ispermitted under French law to manufacture and sell a limited quantity of modern, posthumous bronze
casts and represent them as “original” Rodin works. Musée Rodin earns considerable income from salesof such posthumous casts, as well as unlimited, simple reproductions.
Musée Rodin’s moral rights apply only within French jurisdictions, and only in very limited circumstances.
They do not impinge on the public domain status of Rodin’s works, nor on the public’s right to freely copy
them, even within France. However, because Musée Rodin has a strong commercial interest in limiting the
production of copies of Rodin’s works, Wenman contends that the museum is motivated to commit
copyfraud against the public—to overstep its rights and abuse its influence by creating extralegal
difficulties for any artist or museum anywhere in the world that facilitated the manufacture of high-quality
copies of Rodin’s works.
An opportunity to test Wenman’s theory appeared in 2014, when the Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA)
announced it had produced a high-quality 3D scan of its over-life-size bronze cast of Rodin’s The Thinker,
and that it planned to make its scan freely available to the public as a public domain dedication. Despite its
announcement, BMA never published its scan. Wenman wanted to find out why.
In 2017 when Wenman asked BMA for access to their Thinker scan, BMA told him he must first obtain
permission from Musée Rodin. Musée Rodin denied his request. Both institutions offered inadequate,
nonsensical, and evasive explanations of their policies limiting access to public domain works.
In November 2018, with the help of attorney at the Paris bar Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh, Wenman madea formal demand to Musée Rodin under French freedom of information laws, seeking copies of all MuséeRodin’s 3D scans and all their correspondence with BMA.
When Musée Rodin refused to comply, Wenman and Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh brought the matter before thegovernment’s Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA). In June 2019, CADA publishedits first-of-its-kind legal opinion, confirming that French freedom of information law requires Musée Rodin toprovide its 3D scans to anyone who requests them.
Wenman and Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh subsequently discovered communication from Musée Rodin to the
Ministry of Culture in which the museum described its fear of this matter becoming public, warned of“disastrous consequences” should the CADA opinion be confirmed, and confided its intention to ignore
CADA’s guidance.
When Musée Rodin indeed ignored CADA’s guidance, in December 2019, Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh brought
Wenman’s case to court, filing a lawsuit in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris. The suit asks the court toenforce the CADA legal finding and compel the museum to produce its scans. In the year following, MuséeRodin remained silent, failing to respond to Wenman’s lawsuit and refusing to speak about it with thepress.
In February, 2021 the Administrative Tribunal of Paris directed the museum to present a defense.
Wenman and Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh currently await the court to set a trial date.
The outcome of Wenman’s case will affect every national museum in France, inform policies at institutions
across the EU and around the world, and have interesting effects on the art market.

4

BACK TO TOPCHRONOLOGY
The documents on the following pages are shown in chronological order. However, the correspondence
directly between Musée Rodin, the government’s Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs(CADA), and the Ministry of Culture, marked*, were only revealed to Wenman and his attorney months
after they were exchanged privately between those organizations.

January 19, 2017 – October 17, 2018
Wenman corresponds with the Baltimore Museum of Art, Musée Rodin, and a member of the Conseil
d’Etat overseeing a Ministry of Culture commision on 3D digitization policy.
September 2018Maître Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh, attorney at the Paris bar and expert in French freedom of information
law and procedure and specialist in open culture and civil liberties issues, agrees to represent Wenman inthis matter pro bono.
November 8, 2018
Wenman’s attorney, Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh, sends Musée Rodin a formal records request for a list of all its
3D scans, all the scans themselves, and, among other documents, all its correspondence with theBaltimore Museum of Art.
December 8, 2018
Musée Rodin responds, refusing to provide any of the documents requested, listing a number of irrelevant
excuses.
December 24, 2018*
Musée Rodin privately asks the CADA for its legal guidance, asking about the validity of its objections toWenman’s documents request, thereby demonstrating that the museum did not have confidence in thepositions and reasoning it had just offered Wenman’s attorney.
February 7, 2019*
The CADA agency privately responds to Musée Rodin, informing it that none of the museum’s objections
were valid, that the requested documents were public records, and that French law required the museum
to provide them to Wenman.
February 8, 2019
Wenman’s attorney, Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh, responds to Musée Rodin’s refusal, reiterating the documents
demand, and refuting the museum’s objections. This response also informs the museum that Wenman will
formally engage the CADA and ask for its official legal opinion on the dispute.
February 8, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh formally asks the CADA to review Musée Rodin’s refusal, and to issue a public
legal opinion. (This request was submitted through the CADA website, which is why there is no letter
recorded here. It included Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh’s correspondence with the museum, the museum’s
refusal, and a simple request that CADA review the dispute and issue its opinion on the matter.)
April 26, 2019*
The director of Musée Rodin privately, personally writes to the Ministry of Culture’s Director General of
Patrimony, warning him about Wenman’s records request and “unexpected consequences of the French
State's policy on openness and sharing of public data,” and warning of “disastrous consquences” if the5

BACK TO TOPCADA opinion in my favor should be confirmed. The director of the Musée Rodin also tells the Director
General that she fears that the matter will be brought to court and become known to the public.
Furthermore, before Wenman even formally engages CADA, the museum’s director informs the Ministry of
Culture that the museum intends to ignore CADA’s legal guidance.
May 2, 2019*
CADA asks the museum for information about the dispute, having been formally engaged by Wenman’s
attorney.
May 21, 2019*
Musée Rodin responds to CADA, and warns of “disastrous consequences” of making its 3D scans
available to the public, and explains it will not follow CADA’s guidance. The museum also sends CADA acopy of its April 26, 2019 letter to the Ministry of Culture.
June 6, 2019
CADA publishes its official legal opinion, again rejecting all of Musée Rodin’s objections, and reiteratingthat the museum is required by law to provide the documents in question.
July 8, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh requests and receives from CADA copies of CADA’s own correspondence with
Musée Rodin, which are themselves public records. This novel FOIA-within-a-FOIA maneuver is how wecame to obtain the documents above marked *; Musée Rodin’s earlier, private request to CADA for
guidance; CADA’s private response telling the museum its reasoning was in error; the museum’s
announcement of its intent to ignore the CADA; and the museum’s letter to the Ministry of Culture’s
Director General of Patrimony.
November 15, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh writes to Musée Rodin, referring to the CADA’s official opinion in support ofWenman’s position, and noting the lack of response from the museum. Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh offers themuseum one week to finally produce the requested documents before filing suit. (The museum does not
respond.)December 9, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh files suit on Wenman’s behalf in the Aministrative Tribunal of Paris.
December 12, 2019
Wenman writes to the Baltimore Museum of Art alerting it to the CADA opinion and his lawsuit whichseeks, in part, copies of any correspondence between BMA and Musée Rodin. Wenman encourages BMA
to reconsider its unwarranted deference to Musée Rodin.
February 8, 2021
More than a year having passed with the museum failing to respond to Wenman’s lawsuit, theAdministrative Tribunal of Paris directs Musée Rodin to present a defense.
March 5, 2021
Musée Rodin files its Mémoire en défense with the Court and makes several significant concessions.
Wenman and Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh are currently awaiting the court to set a hearing date.

6

BACK TO TOPCORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE BALTIMORE MUSEUM OF ART, MUSÉE RODIN, MINISTRY OF CULTURE
Correspondence between Wenman, the Baltimore Museum of Art, Musée Rodin,
and a representative of the Conseil d’Etat overseeing Ministry of Culture
misisons on related policy.
Jump to correspondence with Musée Rodin
Jump to correspondence with BMA, Musée Rodin, and Ministry of Culture

Correspondence with Baltimore Museum of Art:

On January 19, 2017 I called the Baltimore Museum of Art’s Rights & Reproductions department
and talked briefly with Colleen Hollister about accessing their Thinker scan. I followed up with thisemail:
January 19, 2017, from Cosmo Wenman to BMA’s Rights & Reproductions Department

Subject: Digital asset request: 3D scan of Rodin's "Thinker" sculpture

Hi Colleen,
Here is BMA's 2014 announcement about the 3D scan that I am seeking:
http://blog.artbma.org/2014/07/3d-scanning-auguste-rodins-the-thinker/

It explains that the scan file was intended to be made available to the public as a public domain work. And
the BMA's gift shop explains that its own reproductions were made with the scan, so we know that thescan was actually produced, and is already in a ready-to-use state.
But as far as I can tell, the scan is not yet up on BMA's collection.artbma.org site.
My understanding is that the BMA personnel who were involved in this project, Nancy Proctor and Suse
Cairns, are no longer at BMA, but perhaps they can advise you on who at BMA has this digital asset if it's
not already under your department's control.
If it's not to be found in BMA's possession, I'm sure that the scanning contractor, Direct Dimensions, still
has the original files and would be able to provide them to you.
Please let me know what you find.
Thanks,- Cosmo7

BACK TO TOP

January 24, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Dear Cosmo,
I am currently checking into your request, but will need some more information to take to the appropriate
departments. Can you tell me more about your intended use? You mentioned on the phone a commercial
use, but your email here implies you're simply curious and looking for more information. If you do have a
specific use in mind, can you send me as many details as you have about your use and final product?
Thank you,Colleen Hollister

January 24, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi,
I am currently producing seven small bronze casts of a creative adaptation of Rodin’s The Thinker. I’d liketo use the BMA’s scan of that work as my design’s foundation. The bronzes will be approximately ten
inches tall. They would not [be] replicas; they will have altered features and new elements, and would not
be mistaken for replicas.
However, I am also asking about the scan’s status because I would like to see it become available to thegeneral public as a public domain work—at no cost and without any usage restrictions—which was BMA’s
original intention for the scan according to its 2014 announcement.
Rodin’s works are public domain under US law, which is how the BMA is able to make and sell its
own Thinker replicas. I want the general public to be able to make their own replicas and adaptations too.
So it was great news when BMA announced its plans to make its scan freely available to the public.
If those plans have been abandoned or reconsidered, I would very much like to know the thinking behindthe change of heart.
Thanks,- Cosmo8

BACK TO TOP

January 26, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi Colleen,
Aside from the broader question of BMA making the Thinker scan available to the public, if I can use thescan myself for my current project, is it possible that I might have it this week?
The 3D data file type is likely to be ".obj" or ".stl". (There may also be associated color data in the form of.jpg or .png image files, though that is not likely.)Thanks,- CosmoJanuary 26, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Dear Cosmo,
I'm afraid this week won't be possible -- we release this material on a case-by-case basis. I'll have to set
up a meeting with the curatorial staff to discuss this particular use, and that might take a few days. I'm alsoof course checking into the history of this project and any potential broader use -- but like I said, right now
we're releasing it on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you very much for the details you've sent on your use and final product -- I'll definitely be
in touch as soon as I can, certainly by next week.
Best,
ColleenJanuary 31, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Dear Cosmo,
I've spoken with our curatorial staff on this matter and they've told me any future uses of this scan willneed to be cleared by the requester first. The appropriate channel should be through the Musée Rodin.
More information can be found here http://www.musee-rodin.fr/en/musee-rodin/respecting-moral-rightOnce you've secured permissions for this use, contact us again to receive access to the 3d scan.
Thank you,Colleen Hollister

January 31, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi,
Which curator should I contact for more information on how they reached this decision about my specificrequest, and about BMA's previous plans to make the scan available to the public?
Thanks,- Cosmo9

BACK TO TOP

January 31, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Cosmo,
You can contact the European Painting and Sculpture department: European@artbma.org
Best,
Colleen Hollister

February 1, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi Colleen,
BMA's website does not list staff. Can you please let me know who is the head of the European Painting
and Sculpture department?
I'd like to know who I'm writing to and that they're the right person.
Thanks,- CosmoFebruary 1, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Cosmo,
The address I gave you will take you to the right department. Our departments are small and easy to reach
via the email addresses on the website. The head curator of European Painting and Sculpture is Katy
Rothkopf.
Again, please contact the Musee Rodin to clear your use; if cleared, we would be glad to supply the scan.
Colleen10

BACK TO TOP

February 1, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Dear Ms. Rothkopf,
I recently made a request to the BMA's Rights & Reproductions department to use BMA's 3D scan of The
Thinker. Your colleagues there have informed me of your department's decision that I would need to firstclear my intended use of the scan with Musée Rodin.
It's not clear to me what BMA would have me ask of Musée Rodin, or why BMA would defer to them on
this matter. Can you please clarify if there is some arrangement between Musée Rodin and BMA regarding
the scan that I should refer to in my query to Musée Rodin? Does Musée Rodin own the scan? Is it awarethat the scan exists?
While Musée Rodin has a narrow legal right to produce posthumous casts that are marketed as "original"
Rodins, it is not in a position to "clear" anyone's other uses of Rodin's works, as all copyrights in Rodin'sworks expired decades ago. Musée Rodin doesn't perform any usage-clearing function and it doesn't
pretend to, as everyone knows there is no need for it because all of Rodin's works are in the public domain
throughout the world. For example, BMA did not need anyone's permission to make and sell its
own Thinker replicas.
Can you please clarify Musée Rodin's role in this matter, and what you are asking me to request of it?
Permission to access BMA's scan? Permission to make use of a public domain work?
If for some reason BMA did ask Musée Rodin for permission to make its own replicas, may I have a copy
of BMA's request so that I may use it as a template for my own?
Thank you,- CosmoFebruary 3, 2017 European Painting & sculpture wrote:
Dear Mr. Wenman,
Thank you for contacting The Baltimore Museum of Art. Katy Rothkopf is out of the country, and will not
return to the Museum until the end of next week. At that time, I will forward your correspondence to her.
With many thanks,
Laura
Curatorial Assistant
Departments of Conservation and European Painting and Sculpture

February 20, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi,
Please let me know if you will be able to respond to my request for clarification soon. I would like to move
forward with my request and access the Thinker scan as soon as possible.
Thank you,- CosmoMarch 6, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:

11

BACK TO TOP

Dear Ms. Rothkopf,
I would appreciate any clarification you can offer about the clearances your department would have me
seek from Musée Rodin. Please see my questions below. Also, please let me know if there is someone inparticular I should contact there.
Thank you,- CosmoMarch 15, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Dear Ms. Rothkopf,
I would appreciate any clarification you can offer about the clearances your department would have me
seek from Musée Rodin. Please see my questions below. Also, please let me know if there is someone inparticular I should contact there.
Thank you,- Cosmo12

BACK TO TOP

March 16, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Dear Cosmo,
Rodin donated all his works and rights to the French government. The Musée Rodin, therefore, stands instead of an estate; we and other museums require requesters to clear their use of images throughcopyright holders or estates, and this is a similar process. The Musée Rodin takes their "moral right" very
seriously, and as a cultural institution ourselves, we would like to respect that.
We've instituted this policy for all users of the scan; it is not specific to your use. At our original
conversation I had incomplete information, so I apologize for any confusion that may have ensued.
As for what you should include in your permissions request, I can tell you that when the BMA requests
permission to use an image, we include all specific details of the final product: print run, pricing, publisher,
authors, title, how the image will be used (in terms of size, color, interior or cover). These are of course
details for a publication, but you can do similarly with your product: how many pieces you will be
producing, when and where you will be producing them, what your purpose is in producing them, how you
will be producing them and of what materials. If the pieces are commercial, to be sold where and to whom,
when and for how much, how long they will be made available. If they are not for profit, to whom they will
be distributed and on what occasion. You see what I'm getting at. You will need to know the specific use
and end product, as most institutions, including ours and the Musée Rodin, do not issue blanket
permissions.
At the Musée Rodin, please contact:
Clémence Goldberger
goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
The following web page might be also helpful: http://www.musee-rodin.fr/en/musee-rodin/respecting-moralright
When you receive permission, please contact me with the same details about your production that you
gave the Musée Rodin, and I can draw up the paperwork and determine appropriate fees.
Thank you,Colleen Hollister
Image Services and Rights Coordinator
Baltimore Museum of Art

13

BACK TO TOP

March 17, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi Colleen,
Thank you for your response.
This policy seems to be a complete reversal of BMA's forward-thinking 2014 plans to make its 3D scanof The Thinker freely available to the public as a public domain dedication.
Can you please tell me who was responsible for forming those plans, and who was responsible forchanging them? And if Musée Rodin weighed in? I would like to ask them some questions about how thisall came about.
Thank you,- CosmoMarch 17, 2017 Rights & Reproductions wrote:
Dear Cosmo,
Our policy is not debatable. Until you provide a permission agreement from the Musée Rodin, we don't
have anything else to discuss.
Sincerely,
Colleen Hollister

March 17, 2017 Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi Colleen,
I didn't mean to be confrontational. I certainly don't question BMA's right to set whatever policies itchooses. I've made other arrangements to obtain a scan, and I have abandoned my own plans to use
BMA's scans. I'm not looking for an exception or policy change at this time.
But I am looking for insight into how the policy was made. I am an advocate for museums making their 3Dscans of public domain works available to the public, and I frequently speak with artists and GLAM people
who make policy on these matters, and we are all very interested in how different institutions arrive atthese important decisions. BMA obviously thought it was worthwhile to announce its plans in 2014. The
decision to reverse course is of public interest too.
Is there someone who was involved in making these decisions you can put me in touch with who would be
able to shed some light on what happened to BMA's 2014 plans for the scan?
Thank you,- Cosmo14

BACK TO TOP

April 6, 2017, Cosmo Wenman wrote to Anne Mannix Brown, Director, Communications andMarketing at BMA
Dear Ms. Brown,
I am an advocate for museums making their 3D scans of public domain works available to the public. I
speak frequently with artists who make use of such scans, and with GLAM people who set policies onmaking them available to the public. We are all very interested in how different institutions craft theirpolicies on sharing these important resources.
In 2014 the Baltimore Museum of Art announced that it was going to make its 3D scan of Rodin's The
Thinker available to the public as a public domain dedication, for free and without restrictions on its use.
BMA announced that it was "looking forward to seeing how it might be used by scholars and the public allover the world." (see: http://blog.artbma.org/2014/07/3d-scanning-auguste-rodins-the-thinker/)
In early 2017 I sent a request to BMA's Rights & Reproductions department, asking for access to that
scan. I also asked why BMA had not yet made the scan freely available to the public, and why it had
apparently abandoned its plan to do so.
Colleen Hollister in the Rights & Reproductions department informed me that Katy Rothkopf--curator of theEuropean Painting & Sculpture department--had determined that I would need to obtain permission from
Musée Rodin in Paris before BMA would allow me to access the scan. Also, that I would need to give BMA
a detailed account of my intended use of the scan and pay a licensing fee.
I have been unable to get clarification from Ms. Hollister or Ms. Rothkopf on how or why BMA came tochange its original plan to freely share the scan. (I've attached my correspondence with Ms. Hollister, andmy repeated attempts to contact Ms. Rothkopf, for your reference.)
BMA's original plan to freely share its 3D scan of one of the most famous sculptures in the world was of
public interest, and so is BMA's change of heart. I hope you can shed light on how this came about. Wouldyou please let me know:- Who was responsible for BMA's original plan to share the scan?
- Why and when was that plan abandoned?
- Who at BMA made that decision?
- Did Musée Rodin intervene in this matter?
- Is Musée Rodin aware of the existence of BMA's scan?
- Does BMA dispute that Rodin's works are in the public domain?
- Did BMA obtain permission from Musée Rodin before producing its own Thinker replicas, which it sells on
its website?
- Have any third parties made use of BMA's scan? (I don't need to know who--I simply want to know ifanyone outside BMA has made use of the scan or if it is in a state of disuse.)
Thank you very much.
- Cosmo

April 6, 2017, Anne Mannix-Brown wrote:
Thank you for contacting me. I am out of the office during the week of April 2. If you need immediate
assistance, please call 443-573-1870 and ask for Jessica Novak or Sarah Pedroni. Otherwise, I'll follow-up
with you upon my return.
Best regards,
Anne
April 18, 2017, Cosmo Wenman wrote:

15

BACK TO TOPHi,Will you be able to respond to my inquiry?
Thanks,- Cosmo

April 18, 2017, Anne Mannix-Brown wrote:
Dear Mr. Wenman,
My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I am looking into this issue for you and will respond assoon as I can.
Best regards,
Anne

May 16, 2017, Cosmo Wenman wrote:
Hi,
Will you be able to respond to my inquiry soon?
Thanks,- Cosmo

May 16, 2017, Anne Mannix-Brown wrote:
Cosmo,
I’m sorry this has taken longer than I expected. I have been out of the office since late March caring for mymother who died two weeks ago and then I had to go on a business trip last week. I promise I’ll get to thisas soon as I can, but it will probably not be sooner than next week.
Anne

16

BACK TO TOP

May 25, 2017, Cosmo Wenman wrote:Hi,
I have been seeking information about how BMA crafted (and reversed) its policy regarding its Thinker
scan for 5 months.
Will you be able to provide the information I have requested by the end of this week?
If that's not going to be possible, will you please apprise BMA's director and board chair of my inquiries
and let them know I will be contacting them about this matter?
Thank you,- Cosmo

May 26, 2017, Anne Mannix-Brown wrote:
Dear Mr. Wenman,
I’m sorry this has been such a source of frustration for you, for such a long time.
The issue regarding the release of the 3D scan of The Thinker came from the curatorial department, whoknew of concerns raised by some French artists’ estates that other staff were not aware of when theannouncement was made in 2014. That is why we are deferring the decision to the Musée Rodin. If theuse is approved by them, we will release the data to you and others who request it and obtain the same
approval.
Sincerely,
Anne Brown

May 26, 2017, Cosmo Wenman wrote:Hi,
I was looking for more specific responses to the questions I sent you.
Please let BMA's director and board chair know I will be contacting them about this important policy
matter, and seeking their comments on my questions.
Thank you.
- Cosmo17

BACK TO TOP

Correspondence with Musée Rodin:

July 5, 2017, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: European Painting & Sculpture <European@artbma.org>, Rights & Reproductions <Rights@artbma.org>
Subject: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Madame Goldberger,
I would like to use the Baltimore Museum of Art's 3D scan of Rodin's The Thinker. BMA tells me that they
will allow me to use their Thinker 3D scan if Musée Rodin grants me permission. They gave me your nameand email, and told me I should contact you about this matter.
May I please have Musée Rodin's permission to use BMA's Thinker 3D scan?
For your reference, this is the 3D scan mentioned in this 2014 BMA announcement,
http://goo.gl/9wmCT5 and the same scan BMA uses to make the reproductions it sells in its gift
shop: http://goo.gl/GUwmnc If you need to confer with BMA about this matter, I am informed that Katy
Rothkopf, curator of BMA's European Painting and Sculpture department (cc'd in this message), is
responsible for this new access policy which now requires Musée Rodin's cooperation.
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman________
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated / cosmo.wenman@gmail.com / cosmowenman.com

July 5, 2017, from Musée Rodin to Cosmo Wenman
To: Cosmo Wenman
From: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
Cc: BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Dear Cosmo Wenman,
what use will you do with this scan of the Thinker ?
Please give us any details, is it a personnal or professional use ? Are you a company or an individual ?
Theank you
Clémence Goldberger
Chef du service communication, publics et mécénat
du musée Rodin
T : +33 1 44 18 61 86

18

BACK TO TOP

July 5, 2017, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Mme Goldberger,
My corporation would use the BMA's scan for professional, commercial use; to make bronze reproductions
in a variety of sizes, in unlimited quantities.
To avoid any infringement of Musée Rodin's moral rights under French law, they would be manufactured,advertised, and sold outside France, and they would not be advertised as "original" Rodin works. My use
would therefore be consistent with the public domain status of Rodin's works.
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman________
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

July 20, 2017, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Madame Goldberger,
Will you be able to give me Musée Rodin's response to my request soon?
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman________
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

19

BACK TO TOP

July 21, 2017, from Musée Rodin to Cosmo Wenman
To: Cosmo Wenman
From: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
Cc: BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Mr Wenman,
The answer is negativ to your request.
If you want explanations feel free to contact Mr Cyril Duchene, duchene@musee-rodin.fr business
manager of the museum. He is on vacation until august but should be able to discuss the project with you.
Best regards
Clémence Goldberger
Chef du service communication, publics et mécénat
du musée Rodin
T : +33 1 44 18 61 86

July 21, 2017, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: goldberger@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Madame Goldberger,
That is disappointing. I will contact Mr. Duchene soon for more information.
Thank you,
Cosmo________
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

20

BACK TO TOP

February 6, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: duchene@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: Clémence Goldberger, BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

M. Duchene,
In July 2017 I requested permission from Musée Rodin to use the Baltimore Museum of Art's 3D scan of
Le Penseur. My intention was to use the 3D scan to make bronze reproductions for sale outside France.
Musée Rodin's Mme Goldberger denied my request, and referred me to you for an explanation. (Ourcorrespondence is included below.)
Can you please let me know why Musée Rodin would deny me access to the Baltimore Museum of Art's
digital copy of a public domain work?
Was there a legal basis for this response, or was it a commercial decision?
Will Musée Rodin please reconsider the matter, and grant me the permission I seek?
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

March 15, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Musée Rodin
To: duchene@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Cc: Clémence Goldberger, BMA European Painting & Sculpture, BMA Rights & Reproductions
Subject: Re: Baltimore Museum of Art's Thinker 3D scan

Dear Mr. Duchene, Ms. Goldberger,
Will anyone at Musée Rodin be able to provide an explanation for Musée Rodin's refusal to allow me toaccess BMA's Thinker 3D scan?
I am particularly interested in knowing if Musée Rodin claims a legal right, based in droit moral, to prevent
my access to another institution's digital copy of a public domain work.
Any insights into Musée Rodin's decision would be very helpful.
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

21

BACK TO TOP

March 30, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Hugues Herpin, Musée Rodin’s Chef du service desaffairs stratégiques et événementielles editions originals de bronzes

To: herpin@musee-rodin.fr
From: Cosmo Wenman
Subject: Musée Rodin + le domaine public
Dear Mr. Herpin,
My friend Charles Cronin gave me your contact information, and tells me you are responsible for MuséeRodin’s intellectual property-related policies. I hope you can help me with a matter relating to the publicdomain.
Musée Rodin is preventing me from accessing the Baltimore Museum of Art’s 3D scan of The Thinker,
which, as you know, is a public domain work. I have been seeking an explanation of BMA's and MuséeRodin’s policies for over one year, yet no one has been willing to explain this strange situation.
BMA referred me to your colleague Clémence Goldberger, who denied my request to access BMA's scan.
Ms. Goldberger referred me to Cyril Duchene for an explanation. But they both now ignore my inquiries.
From my perspective, it appears that Musée Rodin is unjustly--and knowingly--preventing public access toa copy of a public domain work. But perhaps this is the result of a simple misunderstanding.
May I please send you a few questions about this important matter? (In English?) I would also be happy tosend you my previous correspondence with BMA and Musée Rodin.
Thank you,
Cosmo Wenman________
Cosmo Wenman Incorporated

22

BACK TO TOP

April 10, 2018, from Hugues Herpin to Cosmo Wenman
To: Cosmo Wenman
From: herpin@musee-rodin.fr
Monsieur,
Pour faire suite à votre email du 30/03, je vous informe qu'une mission du Ministére de la Culture est
actuellement en cours sur le sujet que vous évoquez. Le musée Rodin en tant que musée national est
sous tutelle de ce même ministère, à ce titre, il doit attendre les conclusions de la mission en cours avantde se prononcer sur des questions liées à l'utilisation des scans 3D.
Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes salutations distinguées.
Hugues Herpin[Translation via Google translate]
Sir,
In response to your email of 30/03, I inform you that a mission of the Ministry of Culture is currently
underway on the subject you mention. The Rodin museum as a national museum is under the supervisionof this same ministry, as such, it must wait for the conclusions of the current mission before deciding on
issues related to the use of 3D scans.
Please accept, Sir, the expression of my best regards.
Hugues Herpin

April 10, 2018
Dear Mr. Herpin,
Thank you for your response.
Is there any information about this mission you can share with me? Is the Ministry making any
accommodations for public comments?
Would you have any contact information for the Ministry participants (names, emails, etc.) you can sendme?
I would very much like to add my comments to this process and follow its deliberations.
Thank you,
Cosmo

23

BACK TO TOP

Correspondence with Musée Rodin, BMA, Ministry of Culture

April 25, 2018
Catherine Chevillot
Directrice, Musée Rodinchevillot@musee-rodin.fr

C O S M O . W E N M A N @ G M AI L . C O M
COSMOWEN MAN .COM

Christopher Bedford
Director, Baltimore Museum of Art
cbedford@artbma.org

Madame Chevillot, Mr. Bedford,
I am an artist with an interest in digitization, the public domain, and open access. I frequently work with other artists
and journalists with similar interests, and with GLAM professionals who shape their organizations’ access policies.
Will you both please help me and the interested public understand important decisions the Baltimore Museum of Art
and Musée Rodin have made regarding BMA’s 3D scan of The Thinker?
In 2014 BMA announced that it had produced a high-quality 3D scan of its 1904-1917 cast of The Thinker, which, as
you know, is in the public domain. BMA explained that it was going to make its 3D scan freely available to the
public as a public domain dedication. BMA’s announcement is here: https://goo.gl/qLdasq
Freely sharing a 3D scan of such an important and beloved public domain work would have put BMA at the forefrontof museum digitization efforts around the world. Unfortunately, sometime after its announcement, BMA reversed its
decision. BMA never published its 3D scan or explained its reversal.
In January 2017 I asked BMA for access to its 3D scan of The Thinker. BMA’s reproductions department told methat I must first obtain permission from Musée Rodin. This was a surprise to me.
Aside from making vague references to Musée Rodin’s droit moral, BMA has been unwilling to explain why it
would be necessary to seek anyone's permission to access a copy of a public domain work. BMA informed me that its
decision was made by BMA’s Senior Curator for European Painting & Sculpture, Katy Rothkopf. Ms. Rothkopf did
not respond to my requests for clarification. BMA’s reproductions department insisted that I seek permission from
Musée Rodin, and referred me to Musée Rodin’s communications chief, Clémence Goldberger.
When I asked Ms. Goldberger for permission to access BMA's 3D scan, she asked me why I wanted it. I told her I
wanted to use it to make bronze copies for sale outside France. She denied my request and referred me to MuséeRodin’s business manager, Cyril Duchene, for an explanation. Mr. Duchene did not respond to my requests for
explanation; neither he nor Ms. Goldberger have responded to my subsequent inquiries.
No one, including Musée Rodin, has any legal right in copyright or droit moral to prevent BMA from publishingcopies of The Thinker. Musée Rodin’s limited moral rights notwithstanding, French courts recognize that Rodin’soeuvre, including The Thinker, is in the public domain. Yet BMA and Musée Rodin both are acting, in error, as
though Musée Rodin has total, exclusive, world-wide control over copies of this public domain work.
From my point of view, it appears that BMA may be deferring to Musée Rodin as a courtesy to Musée Rodin, andconfuses the matter with irrelevant references to droit moral. In turn, Musée Rodin appears to be unjustly advancing
its commercial interests by taking advantage of BMA's deference and misguided policy. BMA is enabling MuséeRodin to prospectively deny the public access to digital and physical copies of a public domain work in a way that
greatly exceeds Musée Rodin’s legal rights, compromises both institutions’ missions, and harms the public domain.

24

BACK TO TOPIn April of this year, Musée Rodin’s Hugues Herpin kindly responded to my most recent plea for assistance. Mr.
Herpin informed me that the Ministère de la Culture is conducting a commission that will issue guidance to Frenchnational museums regarding the management of 3D records, and that Musée Rodin must wait for the commission’s
conclusions before deciding on issues relating to 3D scans. However, the events I have recounted here pre-date therecent formation of this commission; Musée Rodin already decided to refuse my request without hesitation. MuséeRodin already has its own policy, and it is not transparent.
As my own experience demonstrates, French museums’ policies have a direct impact on public access to digitalcopies of innumerable three-dimensional public domain works around the world. The extent to which even the mostnarrowly defined intellectual property-related rights can be improperly wielded against the public domain is a serious
and timely issue. Before it issues new directives to French national museums, the Ministère de la Culture should havea complete view of the actual extralegal dynamics, incentives, and tacit, informal agreements that obstruct publicaccess to digital copies of three-dimensional public domain works.
I include on this letter Mr. Olivier Japiot at the Conseil d’Etat, who presides over the Ministère de la Culture’s
Mission du CSPLA sur l'élobration d'une charte de bonnes pratiques en matière d'impression 3D:
https://goo.gl/Hfe556 This commission, policy makers around the world, and the public, would all benefit from a fullaccount of BMA’s and Musée Rodin’s decisions in this matter to-date.
To this end, will BMA and Musée Rodin please clarify:

Do BMA and Musée Rodin dispute that The Thinker is in the public domain?



Do BMA and Musée Rodin believe that Musée Rodin has a legal right to prospectively prevent
public access to, and copying of any public domain work? Within France and abroad?

Is there a legal basis for Musée Rodin to deny anyone permission to access and copy BMA’s 3Dscan of The Thinker? Is there a contract between the two institutions to this effect? If so, may I seeit?



Was Musée Rodin involved in BMA’s decision to abandon its 2014 plans to make its 3D scan
available to the public?



Did BMA seek Musée Rodin’s permission before producing and selling its own 3D scan and 3D
print-derived copies of The Thinker in its gift shop?



Why did BMA stop advertising the sale of its own 3D scan-derived copies of The Thinker sometime
after my inquiries began?



Was Musée Rodin’s negative response to my request for access the result of commercial
considerations, to prevent competition?



Does Musée Rodin use BMA’s 3D scan to produce any of its own reproductions? (Including thisone, for example, which has obvious defects typical of low-quality 3D printing:https://goo.gl/Rrp3BB )

If anyone else produced or sold Rodin copies of comparable low-quality, would Musée Rodinconsider that low quality to violate the integrity of the work, and to be an infringement of its moral
rights?



Does Musée Rodin currently have 3D scans of any other works? If so, which ones?

25

BACK TO TOPAre Musée Rodin’s 3D scans public records, subject to disclosure under freedom of information
laws?



Is Musée Rodin aware of any Rodin-related 3D scans held by other organizations? If so, whichworks and organizations?

Has Musée Rodin been involved in any other museums’ or collections’ decisions regarding the
publication of scans of any other Rodin-related works? If so, which museums and collections, andwhich works?



Would Musée Rodin seek to prevent BMA from freely publishing its 3D scan to the public? Or seek
damages from, or otherwise punish or prosecute BMA or any other organization or individual fordoing so?

I have been asking BMA and Musée Rodin to clarify this situation for more than 14 months. Both institutions’
reluctance to account for their policies is troubling.
Something here is broken, and I ask you both to help me repair it. Will you both please look into this importantmatter and respond to my questions? Finally, will you please make BMA’s 3D scan of The Thinker freely available tothe public?
Thank you,

Cosmo Wenman
Cc:

Olivier Japiot
Conseiller d’Etat, Conseil d’Etat
olivier.japiot@conseil-etat.fr

P.S.

All my correspondence with BMA and Musée Rodin is available for review at
http://cosmowenman.com/BMAMuseeRodinThinker3DScan

P.P.S.

For my view of the larger historical context and opportunities at stake at this technological moment, pleasesee my presentation, The Archetypes Burst In, https://youtu.be/IZCoDV_TzVI26

BACK TO TOP

April 25, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot, Conseil d’Etat
Dear Mr. Japiot,
I have sent you a letter concerning the Baltimore Museum of Art's 3D scan of The Thinker and MuséeRodin.
Your current commission on 3D printing appears to be focused on protecting rights-holders against abusesby the public. Before you make recommendations that may expand intellectual property-related rights, orconstrain the public's access or use of new technologies, I sincerely hope your commission will also
consider current and potential abuses by right-holders against the public.
Serious harm can already be done to the public domain through informal, extralegal suasion, as the BMA
case demonstrates. Many institutions already overstep their bounds, to the detriment of the public domain.
The damage can be much worse if rights-holders are granted yet more power.
I imagine that you will hear many compelling testimonials from organizations that have a stake in yourcommission's report. But I also imagine that it may be difficult to find real-world accounts of the way theirpolicies are actually implemented--the experiences of the public that many of those same organizations
are meant to serve; independent artists and the public who simply love art and want to access it.
I hope you will include my experience in your commission's deliberations, and that you will contact me if I
can be of any assistance. (I have had other, similar--and worse--experiences in other countries; mostnotably with the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation and their 3D scan of Nefertiti, which I would be
happy to share with you.)
Sincerely,
Cosmo Wenman

April 26, 2018, from Olivier Japiot to Cosmo Wenman
Dear Mr. Wenman,
Thanks for your message and letter.
I'll come back to you within a few weeks after discussing with the Musée Rodin and the ministry of culture.
Best regards,
Olivier Japiot

27

BACK TO TOP

May 24, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot
Dear Mr. Japiot,
Can you please tell me if you have had an opportunity yet to discuss my letter with Musée Rodin? Is there
anything you can share with me about their view of the Thinker 3D scan situation and my inquiries?
Is there anything you tell me about how the Ministry of Culture views this matter, even if only preliminarily?
Is there a possibility that the Ministry will issue guidance to the Musée specifically on how to respond tome?
I am also curious if you are considering contacting the Baltimore Museum of Art to see how Musée Rodinmay have influenced their decisions.
At some point I would like to follow up with both organizations, and eventually direct journalists' attention tothis matter. But I would like to see if anything results from your inquiries first.
Thank you very much,
Cosmo

June 4, 2018, from Olivier Japiot to Cosmo Wenman
Dear Mr. Wenman,
The question you've raised is not so easy to solve.
I'll come back to you before the end of this month.
Best regards,
O. Japiot

28

BACK TO TOP

June 5, 2018, from Musée Rodin’s Hughes Herpin Cosmo Wenman[Translated from French via Google]
Sir,
Further to your email from 30/03 and 25/04 I confirm that a mission of the Ministry of Culture is currently
underway on the subject that you mention. The Rodin Museum is a national museum under thesupervision of the Ministry. As such, it should await the conclusions of the mission in progress before
deciding on issues relating to the use of 3D scans.
Please accept, sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Hugues Herpin

June 6, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Hughes Herpin/ Musée Rodin and BMA
Dear Mr. Herpin,
Thank you for your reply.
My request is that Musée Rodin and BMA answer my questions before the Ministry's commission issues
its report. The commission and the public need to be informed beforehand, in order to evaluate appropriate
policy options.
Musée Rodin and BMA surely already know with certainty the answers to many of my questions. For
example, does Musée Rodin dispute that The Thinker in the public domain? Did Musée Rodin intervene in
BMA's plans to publish its 3D scan? Did BMA seek Musée Rodin's permission to produce and sell its own
Thinker copies? Does Musée Rodin use BMA's Thinker scan to make its own gift shop copies? Did MuséeRodin refuse my request in order to prevent commercial competition? Does Musée Rodin have 3D scansof other Rodin works?
These questions and others in my letter are direct and retrospective, regarding facts already known toMusée Rodin. These facts have important implications for future policies that will affect the public andinstitutions around the world. Musée Rodin should make these facts available for evaluation by policymakers and the public now, not later.
Please provide whatever answers you can at this time, so we can all be fully informed as we move forward
to a resolution.
Thank you,
Cosmo

29

BACK TO TOP

July 19, 2018, from BMA to Cosmo Wenman[BMA sent this email after I left a voicemail for Christopher Bedford and spoke with his assistant,Alexa Milroy, asking to speak with him]

Mr. Wenman:
I wanted to reach out and close the loop on your correspondences with the BMA. First, I apologize that I
cannot answer all of the questions that you directed to Mr. Bedford in April. Additionally, I want you toknow that the information my colleague Anne Brown conveyed to you in May 2017 has not changed: weare deferring the use of the 3D scan to the Musée Rodin. Please know that if you obtain their approval, we
will be happy to release the scan.
What I can tell you is that the blog post from 2014 was posted in absence of any BMA policy in regards to
3D scans and that later discussions clarified that scan requests should be treated as any art object
reproduction request is treated. BMA staff did not make this decision under the instruction of Musée Rodin,
but rather in keeping with standard reproduction requests made between cultural institutions, artist estates,
artist studios, etc. all of the time.
When the BMA requests to reproduce an artwork in promotional, salable, and educational materials, we
include all of the details of the final product, including print runs or placements, any alterations (cropping,
overprinting, etc) that we would be making, our context or purpose, and where and how the reproductions
will be created. And, sometimes our requests are not approved.
I appreciate the rigor with which you’ve approached the issue of the use of this scan. And I hope I’ve beenable to provide a bit of clarity.
All my best,
Melanie-Melanie Martin
Chief Innovation Officer
The Baltimore Museum of Art
https://artbma.org

30

BACK TO TOP

August 13, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Christopher Bedford/BMA
Dear Mr. Bedford,
BMA appears unwilling to acknowledge the point I’ve raised; The Thinker is in the public domain. No one’s
permission is needed to make or distribute copies of it.
Musée Rodin’s moral rights don’t change this fact, not even in France. Musée Rodin knows full well there
is no legal basis for it to prevent anyone—including BMA and the community it serves—from reproducing
Rodin’s works.
By referring Thinker scan access requests to Musée Rodin, BMA is helping Musée Rodin commit
copyfraud against the public—over one of the world’s most famous sculptures, no less.
BMA’s policy of withholding its scan and deferring to Musée Rodin may help BMA’s relations with MuséeRodin, but it harms the public. If BMA had made its Thinker scan freely available to the public in 2014, it
would have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of time by now and used, studied, and enjoyed bycountless artists, students, and art-lovers around the world. This unseen loss is real and ongoing.
Is anyone at BMA bothered by this situation?
The public would benefit if BMA recognized the public domain status of many of the works in its
collection—including its digital copy of The Thinker—and better facilitated public access to them. I hope
you are interested in making that happen.
Will you please speak with me about this?
Thank you,
Cosmo

31

BACK TO TOP

July 3, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Hughes Herpin/ Musée Rodin and BMA
Dear Mr. Herpin,
Please respond to my questions about Musée Rodin's past involvement with BMA's Thinker 3D scan, andplease do so now, before the Ministry issues its report and policy recommendations.
Keeping the facts of Musée Rodin's past actions secret can only serve to promote bad public policy andharm the public.
Please respond.
Cosmo

July 3, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot
Dear Mr. Japiot,
As you can see from my correspondence with Musée Rodin, they appear to intend to completely ignore myquestions about their past actions; actions that directly affected me and the public, and appear to haveobstructed worldwide access to a public domain work.
I hope they are giving you a full account of their involvement with BMA's Thinker scan, and that you intend
to make your findings available to the public.
What can you share with me?
Regards,
Cosmo

July 4, 2018, from Olivier Japiot to Cosmo Wenman
Dear Mr. Wenman,
I've discussed with Musée Rodin officials who told me that they are dealing with the questions you've
raised.
I've no authority on them, and this very particular point isn't in the scope of my mission for the ministry ofculture.
I copy this message to Mr. de Nervaux who is the head of the service in charge of intellectual property
questions at the ministry of culture. Maybe he can be of some help to you.
Best regards
O. Japiot

32

BACK TO TOP

July 4, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot
Dear Mr. Japiot,
Musée Rodin believes this matter is within the scope of your commission.
Musée Rodin has abused its influence and exceeded its intellectual property rights in a very crude way.
Instead of answering my questions about their actions, Musée Rodin tells me they are waiting for guidancefrom your commission's report. This is why I contacted you.
I realize you are not my personal advocate in this matter. However, I hope you are aware that MuséeRodin clearly hopes to find in your report some retrospective justification for their abusive behavior.
If your report advocates new intellectual property rights over 3D digitizations of public domain works--and if
your recommendations are adopted into law--institutions like Musée Rodin will surely use their new powers
to the limit, and beyond, to the detriment of the public domain. I hope your report considers this outcome.
I would appreciate anything you can share with me about what Musée Rodin told you about the Thinker 3Dscan matter. I still hope to find someone who can help me get a full account of Musée Rodin's recent
actions, and correct their behavior.
Thank you for referring me to Mr. de Nervaux. I will contact him soon.
Regards,
Cosmo

August 14, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot
Dear Mr. Japiot,
Can you please tell me when your report will be available?
Would it be possible for you to send me a copy?
Thanks,
Cosmo

August 15, 2018, from Olivier Japiot to Cosmo Wenman
Dear Mr. Wenman,
My current mission for the French ministry of culture does'nt imply the wrting of a report. I'm just requested
to help French stake holders to reach an agreement on a code of conduct in 3D-Printing. The negociation
is not finished yet. I hope to come to a result by the end of the year. The code of conduct will then be
published on the Ministry's website.
Best regards
O. Japiot

33

BACK TO TOP

August 15, 2018, from Cosmo Wenman to Olivier Japiot
I misunderstood from the letter forming your commission that it was to be complete on July 31, and I had
assumed the result would be a report similar to your previous commission.
Can you tell me if Musée Rodin is among the stakeholders you are consulting?
As you know, Musee Rodin is refusing to answer any of my questions about its denying me access to theBaltimore Museum of Arts' 3D scan of Le Penseur until after your "report" is published.
You have told me that this matter is outside the scope of your commission. Would I be correct if I told
Musée Rodin that you assure me that your commission has nothing to say about this matter?
Thank you,
Cosmo

August 15, 2018, from Olivier Japiot to Cosmo Wenman
Musée Rodin is participating to the preparation of the code of conduct indeed.
I've already told them that your dispute isn't in the scope of my mission.
Best regards

September 7, 2018
To: Catherine Chevillot/ Musée Rodin
Cc: Chris Bedford/BMA, Katy Rothkopf/BMA, Olivier Japiot
From: Cosmo Wenman
Mme Chevillot,
Please see my letter, attached, concerning Musée Rodin's ongoing refusal to explain its interference withmy access to BMA's 3D scan of The Thinker.
Thank you,
Cosmo

34

BACK TO TOP

September 7, 2018
Catherine Chevillot
Directrice, Musée Rodinchevillot@musee-rodin.fr

C O S M O . W E N M A N @ G M AI L . C O M
COSMOWEN MAN .COM

Mme Chevillot,
As you know, more than one year ago Musée Rodin interfered with my access to the Baltimore Museum of Art’s 3Dscan of their cast of The Thinker, which is in the public domain. Despite my repeated requests—including to MuséeRodin’s communications director, business director, head of strategic affairs, and to you, its director—Musée Rodinhas refused to explain its interference.
Your administration’s evasiveness reflects poorly on Musée Rodin. It creates the appearance that under yourleadership Musée Rodin is knowingly abusing the public’s trust and BMA’s deference in order to commit copyfraud
against the public; unethical behavior too embarrassing for your colleagues to acknowledge.
Your colleague Hugues Herpin tells me Musée Rodin is waiting until a Ministry of Culture commission relating to
3D data and 3D printing is complete before Musée Rodin will explain to me its interference. This is absurd; theMinistry’s commission cannot possibly guide decisions Musée Rodin has already made.
Furthermore, I have been assured by Olivier Japiot, who is conducting the Ministry of Culture's commission, that the
Musée Rodin/BMA Thinker 3D scan matter is outside the scope of his commission. He tells me he has alreadyinformed Musée Rodin of this fact.
I also understand from Mr. Japiot that Musée Rodin is a consultant to the Ministry’s commission. As a national
museum accountable to the public, it is wildly inappropriate and irresponsible for Musée Rodin to contribute to
official deliberations on new public policy for 3D data while keeping its own policies and recent actions secret.
There is no reason—other than delay and obfuscation—for your office to wait for anything from the commission
before explaining Musée Rodin’s actions of over one year ago.
I insist that Musée Rodin now cease its evasions and respond to the questions I asked in my letter of April 25, 2018.
Your office needs to explain why—and by what authority—Musée Rodin denied me permission to access BMA's 3D
scan of The Thinker, a work that is in the public domain.
If Musée Rodin made an error, it must correct it by acknowledging the simple facts that The Thinker is in the publicdomain, and that no one needs Musée Rodin’s permission to access or use any third-party’s physical or digital copies
of it.
I hope you take this matter seriously, and I look forward to Musée Rodin’s prompt explanation of its interferencewith my access to a public domain work.

Cosmo Wenman
Cc:

Christopher Bedford
Director, Baltimore Museum of Art
cbedford@artbma.org
Olivier Japiot
Conseiller d’Etat, Conseil d’Etat
olivier.japiot@conseil-etat.fr

35

BACK TO TOP

36

BACK TO TOP

September 14, 2018
Sir,
For almost a year, contrary to your assertions, the agents of the Rodin museum have
responded to your innumerable requests. We have nothing to add.
In addition, the Rodin Museum remains the only judge of the advice and documents that it
wishes to surround itself with or bring itself. Finally it can only respond within the scope of its
powers defined by its decree, and within the limits of Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March 1981 on
the repression of fraud to which I refer you.
Please accept, Sir, the expression of my best regards.

37

BACK TO TOP

October 17, 2018
C O S M O . W E N M A N @ G M AI L . C O M
COSMOWEN MAN .COM

Catherine Chevillot
Directrice, Musée Rodinchevillot@musee-rodin.fr

Mme Chevillot,
Thank you for your letter of September 14, 2018. In fact, in the fourteen months prior to that response, Musée Rodin
had refused to provide any explanation whatsoever for its interference. Hence my repeated requests to you and yourstaff. Now that we have established a substantive dialogue, I hope we can resolve this matter quickly.
Thank you for confirming that Musée Rodin’s powers in this matter are limited by Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March
1981.
Neither Decree No. 81-255 nor droit moral empower Musée Rodin to interfere with the public's lawful access to or
reproduction of public domain works. In fact, by establishing requirements for the identification of reproductions,
Decree No. 81-255 confirms the public’s right to copy public domain works.
Furthermore, Decree No. 81-255 and droit moral certainly do not empower Musée Rodin to preemptively judge or
prevent lawful copies from being produced. Alleged violations of this decree and droit moral are, of course,
adjudicated by courts of law after an infraction is alleged, not beforehand by Musée Rodin.
Finally, Decree No. 81-255 and droit moral give Musée Rodin no power at all to prevent copies lawfully produced
and marketed outside France.
Musée Rodin knows these facts very well.
There is no legal basis for Musée Rodin’s interference with the public’s lawful access to or copying of Rodin’s
works. Musée Rodin is harming the public by grossly exceeding its legal authority and public mandate with suchinterference.
Regarding my own plans to produce copies of The Thinker, I repeat my original statement of July 5, 2017 to MuséeRodin:
My corporation would use the BMA’s [Baltimore Museum of Art’s] scan for professional,
commercial use; to make bronze reproductions in a variety of sizes, in unlimited quantities.
To avoid any infringement of Musée Rodin's moral rights under French law, they would bemanufactured, advertised, and sold outside France, and they would not be advertised as"original" Rodin works.
My planned Thinker copies would not violate Musée Rodin’s moral rights nor any provision of Decree No. 81-255.
To be perfectly clear; I am not seeking to commit fraud, and I will comply with laws governing the relevant
jurisdictions. Furthermore, to respect the integrity of Rodin’s work, my copies’ quality would be far superior to thatof Musée Rodin’s own copies, shown at http://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/380-the-thinkerminiature.html, which have obvious defects from low-quality 3D printing.
Musée Rodin's unjustified, extralegal interference with my lawful commercial activity and rightful use of a publicdomain work has caused me and my company financial damage. This situation is ongoing and must be remedied
immediately.

38

BACK TO TOP

In consideration of the foregoing, I demand that by November 2, 2018 your office confirm in writing to me andthe Baltimore Museum of Art the following:(i)That Musée Rodin has no legal authority to interfere with or prevent the public's lawfulaccess to any third-party’s editions or copies of public domain works.

(ii)

That Musée Rodin has no legal authority to interfere with or prevent the public’s lawful
reproduction of public domain works.

(iii)

That Musée Rodin has ceased, withdrawn, and disclaimed its extralegal interference with myaccess to the Baltimore Museum of Art’s digital copy of The Thinker.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Cosmo Wenman
Cc:

Christopher Bedford
Director, Baltimore Museum of Art
cbedford@artbma.org
Olivier Japiot
Conseiller d’Etat, Conseil d’Etat
olivier.japiot@conseil-etat.fr

39

BACK TO TOP

PRE-LITIGATION
Maître Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh represents Wenman

In September 2018, Maître Alexis Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh, attorney at the Parisbar and expert in French freedom of information law and procedure andspecialist in open culture and civil liberties issues, agrees to represent Wenmanin this matter pro bono.
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh sends Musée Rodin a formal request for documents,
including; a list of all Musée Rodin’s 3D scans; any other institutions’ scans in its
possession; copies of the scans themselves; the museum’s correspondencewith BMA; its internal correspondence regarding Wenman’s inquiries to date;documentation about revenue the museum derives from the use of its 3D scans.
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh cites French law and numerous supporting precedents,
including cases in which software source code, medical X-ray images, andimages from surveys of a shipwreck were determined to be public,
administrative documents.
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh advises the museum that if it refuses the request, he will
engage the Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA), thegovernment agency which advises administrative agencies on compliance withfreedom of information laws. In case of the museum’s refusal, Fitzjean Ó
Cobhthaigh will request the CADA issue a formal analysis of the museum’s legal
position.
CADA opinions are non-binding, but plaintiffs in freedom of information disputes
are required to first obtain the agency’s legal opinion before they may file alawsuit. This is because the courts are typically very reliant on CADA’s
analysis—and the courts typically uphold CADA opinions. As a result, it is very
unusual for an administrative agency to ignore a CADA opinion; in the vast
majority of disputes in which a CADA opinion affirms a request for administrative
documents, the agency in question immediately complies. (See page 9 ofFreedom of Information in France - Law and Practice)40

BACK TO TOPFOIA demand for Museé Rodin documents and 3D scans

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***
Musée Rodin77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris
A Paris, le 8 novembre 2018
Par LRAR n° 1A 148 042 7744 5

Objet : demande de communication de documents administratifs
A l’attention de Mme Catherine Chevillot, Directrice du musée Rodin, conservateur général du patrimoine

Madame la Directrice,
Je vous contacte au nom et pour le compte de mon client, M. Cosmo Wenman afin de vous demander lacommunication des documents administratifs suivants :-les fichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M. AugusteRodin, y compris la version utilisée pour imprimer les copies du Penseur dont la promotion est assurée surl’adressesuivante:
https://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculpture-reproductions/380-the-thinkerminiature.html, de même que tout autre version de meilleure qualité ;-la liste de l’ensemble des fichiers, actuellement en votre possession, contenant des versions numériséestridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres collections (lesjeux de scan 3D en votre possession), ainsi que lesdits fichiers ;-l’ensemble des courriels, échangés, envoyés ou reçus par le musée Rodin, un de ses employés ou un desmembres de son équipe dirigeante, ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant les précédentes demandes de
M. Wenman ;-l’ensemble des notes internes, analyses, rapports, études, lignes directrices, directives, échanges de courriels
ou tout autre document relatif à la politique du musée Rodin à l’égard des fichiers contenant des versions
numérisées tridimensionnelles d’une sculpture composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres
collections, en particulier la politique du musée concernant l’accessibilité à ces données ;-l’ensemble des accords, contrats, conventions, traités liant le musée Rodin et le Baltimore Museum of Art,en particulier, ceux ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant les fichiers contenant la version numérisée
tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin, ou de tout autre sculpture ;-tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus de l’utilisation des fichiers contenantla version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin à des fins defabrication de répliques ;41

BACK TO TOP-

tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus de licences octroyées à des tiers à
propos de l’utilisation de n’importe lequel des fichiers contenant des versions numériséestridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres collections ;-en particulier, pour la période s’étendant du 1er janvier 2014 à la réception de la présente demande :l’ensemble des correspondances entre le musée Rodin et le Baltimore Museum of Art, l’ensemble descourriels internes, des notes internes, analyses, rapports, lignes directrices ou tout autre document relatif àl’impression en trois dimension et des correspondances, échangés, envoyés ou reçus entre le musée Rodin,
un de ses employés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante, d’une part, et le ministère de la culture,d’autre part, ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant l’impression tridimensionnelle, la numérisation
tridimensionnelle ou le Baltimore Museum of Art ;-en particulier, pour la période s’étendant du 1er janvier 2018 à la réception de la présente demande,l’ensemble des correspondances échangées, envoyées ou reçues entre le musée Rodin et M. Olivier Japiot,
conseiller d’Etat membre du Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique.

Comme vous le savez, le musée Rodin est un établissement public national à caractère administratif placé sous latutelle du ministre chargé de la culture (cf. article 1er du décret n° 93-163 du 2 février 1993 relatif au musée Rodin)
qui a notamment pour mission de faire connaître l’œuvre d’Auguste Rodin (cf. article 2 du décret n° 93-163) et qu’à
cette fin il édite et commercialise des reproductions d’œuvre d’Auguste Rodin, des publications et des produits
audiovisuels (cf. 6° de l’article 2 du décret n° 93-163). Il entre donc dans le champ d’application des dispositions del’article L. 300-2 du code des relations entre le public et l’administration.
Aux termes de ces dispositions :« Sont considérés comme documents administratifs, au sens des titres Ier, III et IV du présent livre,
quels que soient leur date, leur lieu de conservation, leur forme et leur support, les documents
produits ou reçus, dans le cadre de leur mission de service public, par l’Etat, les collectivités
territoriales ainsi que par les autres personnes de droit public ou les personnes de droit privéchargées d’une telle mission. Constituent de tels documents notamment les dossiers, rapports, études,
comptes rendus, procès-verbaux, statistiques, instructions, circulaires, notes et réponses
ministérielles, correspondances, avis, prévisions, codes sources et décisions. »En application des dispositions de l’article L. 311-1 du même code, vous êtes donc tenu de publier en ligne ou decommuniquer les documents administratifs que vous détenez aux personnes qui en font la demande.
Or, les documents faisant l’objet de la présente demande et dont la liste est précisément dressée ci-dessus sont desdocuments administratifs au sens du Livre III du code des relations entre le public et l’administration et doivent, enconséquent, être communiqués lorsqu’une demande ayant un tel objet, comme la présente, est reçue.
En effet, dès lors qu’ils sont échangés au sein d’un service administratif pour les besoins de ce service, les courriersélectroniques constituent des documents de nature administrative et sont donc soumis au droit d’accès (cf. CADA, 14
mars 2002, Directeur général de l’AFSSA, n° 20020741).
De même, un courrier adressé par un parlementaire à un préfet peut constituer un document administratif (cf. CE, 30
décembre 1998, Association de sauvegarde des vallées et de prévention des pollutions, n° 172761, Rec. T. p. 912).
Constituent également des documents administratifs des images de travail tournées par une chaîne publique, qui se
rattachent à la mission de service public dont est chargée la société (cf. TA Paris, 8 février 2007, Société Media
Ratings, n° 067137, concl. Célérier, AJDA 2007, p. 752), ou encore l’enregistrement sonore d’une séance du conseil
municipal (cf. CADA, 25 août 2005, Maire de Saint-Jean-de-Védas, n° 20053313), ou encore des images recueillies
lors d’une mission de surveillance de l’Erika (cf. CADA, 21 décembre 2006, Préfet maritime de l’Atlantique, n°
20065534), ou encore des clichés radiographiques figurant dans un dossier médical (cf. CADA, 23 janvier 2003,
Directeur de l’hôpital « Le Bocage », n° 20030330).

42

BACK TO TOP

De même, il résulte de l’article L. 300-2 du code des relations entre le public et l’administration que les codes sources
produits ou reçus par l’administration dans le cadre de ses missions de service public, constituent des documents
administratifs (cf. CADA, 28 juin 2018, NextINpact, avis n° 20181049).
La Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA) a déjà précisé
« que le droit d’accès ouvre, en complément de la communication éventuelle du code source, dont la compréhension
nécessite des compétentes techniques en codage informatique, des explications complémentaires, explicitant lesrègles de traitement mises en œuvre et les principales caractéristiques de celle-ci » (cf. CADA, 28 juin 2018,
NextINpact, avis n° 20181049 ; CADA, 19 novembre 2015, conseil n° 20155079).
Enfin, je vous rappelle que le Conseil d’Etat a récemment jugé qu’il résulte des dispositions de l’article 1er, du c) del’article 10 et de l’article 11 de la loi n° 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 que les articles 15 et 16 de cette loi – dispositions
désormais codifiées dans le code des relations entre le public et l’administration –, qui prévoient les conditions danslesquelles la réutilisation d’informations publiques peut donner lieu au versement d’une redevance pouvant, le caséchéant, inclure une part au titre des droits de propriété intellectuelle, régissent de manière complète les conditions
dans lesquelles les personnes mentionnées à l’article 1er de la loi du 17 juillet 1978 ainsi que les établissements,organismes ou services culturels qui en relèvent, exercent les droits de propriété intellectuelle ou les droits voisinsque, le cas échéant, ils détiennent sur les informations publiques, comme sur les procédés de collecte, de production,
de mise à disposition ou de diffusion de ces informations. Il s’ensuit que ces dispositions font obstacle à ce que lespersonnes et services qui viennent d’être mentionnés, qui ne sont pas des tiers au sens et pour l’application du c) del’article 10 de la loi du 17 juillet 1978, puissent se fonder sur les droits que tient le producteur de bases de données del’article L. 342-1 du code de la propriété intellectuelle, pour s’opposer à l’extraction ou à la réutilisation du contenu
de telles bases, lorsque ce contenu revêt la nature d’informations publiques au sens des dispositions du même article(cf. CE, 8 février 2017, Société NotreFamille.com, n° 389806, Rec. T.).
Je vous remercie de bien vouloir me communiquer les documents administratifs susévoqués par courrier électroniqueà mon adresse courriel : afoc@afocavocat.eu, en application du 3° de l’article L. 311-9 du code des relations entre lepublic et l’administration.
Je me permets, enfin, d’attirer votre attention sur l’article L. 300-4 du code pour les relations entre le public etl’administration qui impose que la mise à disposition soit effectuée dans un standard ouvert, aisément réutilisable etexploitable par un système de traitement automatisé. Je vous remercie vivement par avance de bien vouloir avoir lagentillesse d’y veiller.
En cas de réponse négative de votre part ou à défaut de réponse dans un délai d’un mois suivant la réception de laprésente demande (cf. articles R. 311-12 et R. 311-13 du code des relations entre le public et l’administration), je meverrais malheureusement contraint de saisir la Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA).
Restant naturellement à votre entière disposition pour échanger à propos de la présente demande, je vous prie derecevoir, Madame la Directrice, l’expression de ma parfaite considération.

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas

43

BACK TO TOP

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***

Rodin Museum
77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris
In Paris, November 8, 2018
By letter n° 1A 148 042 7744 5
Subject : Request for communication of administrative documents
For the attention of Ms. Catherine Chevillot, Director of the Rodin Museum,
General Curator of Heritage

Madam Director,
I am contacting you on behalf of my client, Mr. Cosmo Wenman to request the submission of the following
administrative documents:- the files containing the three-dimensional digitized version (3D scan) of Mr. Auguste Rodin's"Thinker", including the version used to print the Thinker copies, which are promoted at the following
address: https://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculpture-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html, as
well as any other higher quality version;- the list of all the files currently in your possession, containing digitized three-dimensional versions of
the sculptures composing the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections (the 3D scans in yourpossession), as well as the said files;- all e-mails, exchanged, sent or received by the Rodin Museum, one of its employees or a member of
its management team, whose purpose is, treating or mentioning the previous requests of Mr. Wenman;- all internal notes, analyses, reports, studies, guidelines, directives, email exchanges or any otherdocument related to the Rodin Museum's policy regarding files containing digitized three-dimensionalversions of a sculpture comprising the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections, inparticular the museum's policy concerning the accessibility of these data;- all the agreements, contracts, conventions, treaties linking the Rodin Museum and the Baltimore
Museum of Art, in particular, those whose purpose is to process or mention files containing the threedimensional digital version (3D scan) of the "Thinker" of Auguste Rodin, or any other sculpture;- any document demonstrating that the Rodin Museum has obtained income from the use of files
containing the three-dimensional digitized version (3D scan) of Mr. Auguste Rodin's "Thinker" for the
purposes of making replicas;- any document demonstrating that the Rodin Museum has obtained license fees from third parties forthe use of any of the files containing digitized three-dimensional versions of the sculptures composing
the Musée Rodin's collections or other collections;44

BACK TO TOP- in particular, for the period beginning January 1, 2014 to the receipt of this application: allcorrespondence between the Rodin Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, all internal emails,
internal notes, analyzes, reports, guidelines or other document relating to three-dimensional printing
and correspondence, exchanged, sent or received between the Rodin Museum, one of its employees ora member of its management team, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Culture, on the other hand,dealing with or referring to three-dimensional printing, three-dimensional digitization or the Baltimore
Museum of Art;
- in particular, for the period from 1 January 2018 to the receipt of this application, all correspondence
exchanged, sent or received between the Rodin Museum and Mr. Olivier Japiot, State Councilor,
Member of the Superior Council of Property literary and artistic.
As you know, the Musée Rodin is a national public institution administrative character placed under the supervisionof the Ministry of Culture (See Article 1 of Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993 concerning the Rodin Museum)
which mission to make known the work of Auguste Rodin (see article 2 of Decree No. 93-163) and for this purpose it
edits and markets reproductions of Auguste Rodin’s oeuvre, publications and audiovisual products (see 6 ° of Article
2 of Decree No. 93-163). It therefore falls within the scope of the provisions of Article L. 300-2 of the Code ofRelations between the Public and administration.
According to these provisions:"Such are considered as administrative documents, within the meaning of the titles I, III and IV ofthis book, irrespective of their date, place of conservation, their form and their support, thedocuments produced or received, as part of their public service mission, by the State, the local
authorities and other legal persons public or private law persons in charge of such a mission.
Such documents include records, reports, studies, minutes, minutes, statistics, instructions,circulars, ministerial notes and replies, correspondence, opinions, forecasts, source codes anddecisions."
In application of the provisions of article L. 311-1 of the same code, you are therefore to publish online or tocommunicate the administrative documents that you hold to people who request it.
The documents which are the subject of this application and whose list is specifically set out above are administrative
documents within the meaning of the III of the Code of relations between the public and the administration and must,
therefore, be communicated when an application with such an object, such as present, is received.
In effect, as soon as they are exchanged within an administrative service for the needs of this service, e-mails areadministrative nature and are therefore subject to the right of access (see CADA, 14 March 2002, Director General of
AFSSA, No. 20020741).
Similarly, a letter sent by a parliamentarian to a prefect may constitute a administrative document (see EC, 30
December 1998, Safeguard Association valleys and prevention of pollution, No. 172761, Rec. T. p. 912).
Also constituting administrative documents are working images made by a public channel, which relate to the public
service mission which is responsible for the company (see TA Paris, February 8, 2007, Media Ratings Company, No.
067137, concluded Celebrate, AJDA 2007, p. 752), or the sound recording of a meeting of the municipal council (seeCADA, August 25, 2005, Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Védas, n ° 20053313), or images collected during the Erika
monitoring mission (see CADA, 21 December 2006, Préfet Maritime Atlantic, No. 20065534), or X-rays in a medical
file (see CADA, 23 January 2003, Director of the hospital "Le Bocage", No. 20030330).
Similarly, it follows from Article L. 300-2 of the Code of relations between the public and administration that thesource codes produced or received by the administration in the framework of its public service missions, constitutedocuments administrative staff (see CADA, 28 June 2018, NextINpact, opinion no 20181049).
The Commission for Access to Administrative Documents (CADA) has already specified "That the right of access
opens, in addition to the possible communication of the source code, the understanding of which requires technicalexpertise in coding, additional explanations explaining the rules of implemented and the main characteristics ofit"( cf. CADA, June 28, 2018, NextINpact, Notice No. 20181049; CADA, November 19, 2015, Council No.
20155079).

45

BACK TO TOP

Finally, I remind you that the Council of State has recently held that it results from Article 1 c) of Article 10 and
Article 11 of Law No. 78-753 of 17 July 1978 that Articles 15 and 16 of that law – now codified in the code ofrelations between the public and the administration – which provide the conditions under which the reuse of public
information may give rise to the payment of a fee which may, where appropriate, include a share of intellectual
property rights, govern completely the conditions under which the persons mentioned in Article 1 of the Act of 17
July 1978 and the establishments, organizations or services related cultural rights, exercise intellectual property rights
or neighbors that, if any, they hold on public information, such as on methods of collection, production, provision ordissemination of this information. It follows that these provisions preclude persons and services just mentioned, who
are not third meaning and for the purposes of Article 10 (c) of the Law of 17 July 1978, to rely on the rights of thedatabase producer of Article L. 342-1 of the Intellectual Property Code, to oppose the extraction or reuse of thecontent of such databases, where that content takes on the nature public information within the meaning of the same
Article (see EC, 8 February 2017, Company OurFamily.com, No. 389806, Rec. T.).
Thank you kindly for providing me with administrative documents abbreviated by email to my e-mail address:
afoc@afocavocat.eu, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article L. 311-9 of the Code of relations between the public and theadministration.
Allow me, finally, to draw your attention to Article L. 300-4 of the Code for the relationship between the public andthe administration which requires that the provision be made in an open standard, easily reusable and exploitable by aautomated processing system. I thank you very much in advance for want to be kind enough to take care of it.
In the event of a negative answer from you or if there is no answer within one month following receipt of thisapplication (see Articles R. 311-12 and R. 311-13 of the code of relations between the public and the administration),
I would see myself unfortunately forced to go to the Commission for Access to Documents Administrative staff(CADA).
Remaining naturally at your disposal to discuss about the present request, please accept, Madam Director, theexpression of my perfect consideration.

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas

46

BACK TO TOP

Museé Rodin refusal

Paris, le 11 décembre 2018Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris5, rue Daunou
75002 ParisLRAR
REF COURRIER 1615
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Maître,Par une LRAR n° 1A 148 042 7744 5 du 8 novembre 2018, réceptionnée par le musée Rodin le
15 novembre 2018, vous nous avez saisis d'une demande de communication de plusieurs
documents pour le compte de votre client, Monsieur Cosmo Wenman :1)« Les fichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du «Penseur »de M. Auguste Rodin (...), de méme que tout autre version de meilleure qualité ;2)

La liste de l'ensemble des fichiers (...) contenant des versions numériséestridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d'autres
collections (...), ainsi que lesdits fichiers ;3)

L'ensemble des courriels, échangés, envoyés ou reçus por le musée Rodin, un de ses
ernployés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante, ayant pour objet, traitant ou
mentionnant les précédentes demandes de M. Wenman ;4)

L'ensemble des notes internes, analyses, rapports, études, lignes directrices directives,échanges de courriels ou tout autre document relatif à la politique du musée Rodin àl'égard des fichiers contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles d'une sculpturecomposant les collections du musée Rodin ou d'autres collections, en particulier lapolitique du musée concernant l'accessibilité à ces données ;5)

L'ensemble des accords, contrats, conventions, traités liant le musée Rodin elle Baltimore
Museum of Art, en particulier, ceux ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant les fichiers
contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M.
Auguste Rodin, ou de tout autre sculpture ;6)

Tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu, des revenus del'utilisation desfichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan3D) du « Penseur » de M.
Auguste Rodin à des fins de fabrication de répliques ;47

BACK TO TOP

7)

Tout document démontrant que le rnusée Rodin a obtenu des revenus de licences
octroyées à des tiers à propos de l'utilisation de n'importe lequel des fichiers contenantdes versions numérisées tridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections dumusée Rodin ou d'autres collections ;8)

En particulier, pour la période s'étendant du 1er janvier à la réception de la présente
demande: l'ensemble des correspondances entre le musée Rodin et le Baltimore
Museum of Art, l'ensemble des courriels internes, des notes internes, analyses, rapports,
lignes directrices ou tout autre documenf relatif à l'impression en trois dimensions et descorrespondances, échangés, envoyés ou reçus entre le musée Rodin, un de ses
employés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante, d'une part, et le ministère de laculture, d'autre part, ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant l'impression
tridimensionnelle, la numérisation tridimensionnelle ou le Baltimore Museum of Art ;9)

En particulier, pour la période s'étendant du 1er janvier 2.018 à la réceptionde la présente
demande, l'ensemble des correspondances échangées,envoyées ou reçues entre lemusée Rodin et M. Olivier Japiot, conseiller d'Etat membre du Conseil supérieur de Ia
propriété littéraire et artistique. »Le droit à communication ou publication des documents administratifs tel que définis à l'article
L. 300-2 du code des relations entre le public et l'administration est rappelé à l'article L. 311-1
du même code. Ainsi :« Sous réserve des dispositions des articles L. 311-5 et L. 31 1-6, les administrations
mentionnées à l'article L. 300-2 sont tenues de publier en ligne ou de communiquer les
documents administratifs qu'elles détiennent aux personnes quien font la demande, dans lesconditions prévues par le présent livre. »Outre les réserves mentionnées par l'article précédemment cité, l'administration ne saurait fairedroit à des demandes dépourvues de la précision nécessaire (Conseil d'Etat du 27 septembre
1985, Ordre des avocats au barreau de Lyon c/Bertin n° 56543, pour exemple : Avis CADA
20156102 - Séance du 28/04/2016, Conseil CADA 20060413 - Séance du 19/01 /2006, Avis
CADA20161343 Séance du 12/05/2016). Cette position concerne vos demandes n° 2 à 9listées ci-avant.
Dans ces conditions, le musée Rodin vous invite parfaire vos demandes et préciser de quelles
notes, rapports, directives, accords, contrats, conventions ou traités vous souhciteriez obtenir lacommunication et sur quelle période. Le musée Rodin vous invite également à préciser dequelles sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d'autres collections vousdésireriez obtenir la communication.
De la même façon, si des courriers électroniques peuvent être considérés comme desdocuments administratifs communicables, il vous revient de préciser vos demandes en
indiquant de quelles correspondances vous sollicitez la communication, en précisant lesidentités de l'émetteur et du destinataire, la date de la correspondance ainsi que l'objet de celleci.

48

BACK TO TOP

En tout état de cause, « l'exercice du droit d'accès est bien sûr subordonné à la condition
qu'une copie de ces courriers ait été conservée soit sous forme papier, soit sous forme
numérique » (Conseil CADA 20020741 Séance du 14/03/2002).
De plus, pour que l'administration puisse faire droit à une demande de communication de
documents il est nécessaire que celle-ci porte sur un document existant ce qui suppose de nepas être tenu de faire des recherches en vue de collecter l'ensemble des documentséventuellement détenus, ni d'établir un document en vue de procurer les renseignements ou
l'information souhaités (Avis CADA 20164946 - Séance du 15/12/2016).
De manière complémentaire et surabondante avec le premier motif, une telle objection pourraitêtre opposée à vos demandes n° 4 à 8 listées ci-avant. Plus particulièrement, aucune liste decontenus numérisés tridimensionnels des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodinou d'autres collections n'aété établie.
Enfin, s'agissant de la demande relative à la communication de la « version numérisée
tridimensionnelle du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin de même quede toute autre version demeilleure qualité », le musée Rodin ne peut pas non plus donner une suite favorable à cettedemande de communication.
En effet, le musée Rodin conteste que les numérisations tridimensionnelles d'oeuvresconstituent des documents administratifs communicables au sens CRPA, en particulier au
regard de l'article L. 311-4 de ce code selon lequel « les documents administratifs sontcommuniqués ou publiés sous réserve des droits depropriété littéraire et artistique », étant
rappelé que le musée Rodin est investi de la qualité d'ayant droit de Rodin au sens desdispositions légales sur la propriété littéraire et artistique.
En outre, les marques R, RODIN, AUGUSTE RODIN et musée RODIN sont Ia propriété
exclusive du musée Rodin. Ainsi, toute reproduction, usage, apposition, imitation ou altération,de quelque manière que ce soit, de l'une ou plusieurs de ces marques, est constitutif decontrefaçon engageant la responsabilité de son auteur et strictement prohibé au sens del'article L 716-1 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle.
En application des articles L. 311-14 et R. 311-15 du CRPA, la présente décision peut fairel'objet d'une saisine de la Commission d'accès aux documents administratifs dans un délai dedeux mois à compter du refus opposé par la présente.
Je vous prie d'agréer, Maître, l' expression de mes meilleures salutations.

Catherine Chevillot
Directrice du musée Rodin

49

BACK TO TOP

Paris, December 11, 2018Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris5, rue Daunou
75002 ParisLRAR
REF COURRIER 1615
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Maître,By letter LRAR No 1 A 148 042 7744 5 of November 8, 2018, received by the Rodin museum
November 15, 2018, you have made a request for access to several documents on behalf ofyour client, Mr. Cosmo Wenman :1)"The files containing the three-dimensional digital version (3D) scan of "Thinker" by Mr.
Auguste Rodin (...) and any other version of higher quality;

2)

The list of all files (...) containing three-dimensional digitizations of sculptures composing
the Rodin museum's collections or other collections (...), as well as said files;

3)

All e-mails exchanged, sent or received by the Rodin Museum, one of its employees or amember of its management team, whose purpose is to treat or mention Mr. Wenman's
previous requests;

4)

All internal notes, analyses, reports, studies, guidelines, e-mail exchanges or any otherpolicy document relating to the Rodin Museum’s files containing three-dimensional
digitizations of sculptures comprising the collections of the Musée Rodin or othercollections, especially the museum's policy regarding accessibility of these data;

5)

The set of agreements, contracts, agreements, treaties binding the Rodin Museum theBaltimore Museum of Art, in particular those concerning dealing or mentioning the files
containing the 3D digitization (3D scan) of Mr. Auguste Rodin's " Thinker", or any othersculpture;6)

Any document demonstrating that the Rodin Museum has obtained income from the useof files containing the three-dimensional digitized version (scan3D) of Mr. Auguste Rodin's"Thinker" for the purposes of making replicas;

50

BACK TO TOP

7)

Any document proving that the Rodin Museum has obtained license fees from third
parties for the use of any of the files containing digitized three-dimensional versions of the
sculptures composing the Musée Rodin collections or other collections;8)

In particular, for the period from January 1 to the receipt of this application: allcorrespondence between the Rodin Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, allinternal emails, internal notes, analyses, reports, guidelines or other documents relating
to the printing in three dimensions, and correspondence, exchanged, sent or received
between the Rodin Museum, one of its employees or a member of its management team,on one hand, and the Ministry of Culture, on the other hand, dealing with or mentioning
three-dimensional printing, three-dimensional digitization, or the Baltimore Museum of Art;9)

In particular, for the period from January 1, 2015 to the receipt of this application, allcorrespondence exchanged, sent or received between the Rodin Museum and Mr. Olivier
Japiot, State Councilor of the High Council for Literary and Artistic Property. "The right to communicate or publish administrative documents as defined in Article L. 300-2 of
the Code of relations between the public and the administration is recalled in Article L. 311-1 ofthe same code. So :" Subject to the provisions of Articles L. 311-5 and L. 311-6, the Administrations mentioned in
Article L. 300-2 are required to publish online or to communicate the administrative documentsthat they hold to the persons who make the request, under the conditions envisaged by thisbook. "
Beyond the reservations mentioned in the article cited above, the administration cannot accede
to requests lacking the necessary precision (Conseil d'Etat of 27 September 1985, Bar
Association of Lyon c/ Bertin n° 56543, for example: Opinion CADA 20156102 - Meeting of
28/04/2016, CADA Council 20060413 - Meeting of 19/01/2006, Opinion CADA20161343
Meeting of 12/05/2016). This position concerns your requests Nos. 2 to 9 listed above.
In these conditions, the Rodin museum invites you to perfect your requests and specify whichnotes, reports, directives, agreements, contracts, conventions, or features you would like to becommunicated, and over what period. The Rodin Museum also invites you to specify which
sculptures make up the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections you would like toobtain communication.
Similarly, if e-mails are considered to be communicable administrative documents, it is yourresponsibility to specify your requests by indicating which correspondences you request
communicated, specifying the identity of the sender and recipient, date of the correspondence
and the purpose of the correspondence.
In any event, "the exercise of the right of access is of course subject to condition that a copy ofthese letters has been preserved either in paper or digital form” (CADA Board 20020741
Meeting of 14/03/2002).
Moreover, for the administration to be able to grant a request of communication of documents it
is necessary that it concerns an existing document, which supposes not to be required to carryout research in order to collect all the documents that may possibly be held, and neither toprepare a document to provide the information sought (Opinion CADA 20164946 - Session of
15/12/2016).
In a complementary and superabundant way with the first reason, such an objection could be
opposed to your requests Nos . 4 to 8 listed above. More specifically, no list of three
dimensional digitizations of the sculptures composing the collections of the Musée Rodin orother collections has been established.
51

BACK TO TOP

Finally, with regard to the request relating to the communication of the 'version digitized threedimensional "The Thinker" of Mr. Auguste Rodin as well as any other version of better quality " ,the Rodin Museum can not give a favorable response to this request for communication.
Indeed, the Rodin Museum contests that three-dimensional digitizations of works constituteadministrative documents that can be communicated in the CRPA sense, in particular withregard to Article L. 311-4 of this Code, according to which " administrative documents arecommunicated or published subject to the rights of literary and artistic property ", being
reminded that the Rodin museum is invested with the quality of entitled of Rodin in the meaningof the legal provisions on the property literary and artistic.
In addition, the marks R, RODIN, AUGUSTE RODIN, and musée RODIN are the exclusive
property of the Rodin Museum. Thus, any reproduction, use, apposition, imitation, or alteration,in any way whatsoever, of one or more of these marks, constitutes an infringement that incurs
the responsibility of its author and is strictly prohibited within the meaning of Article L. 716-1 ofthe Intellectual Property Code.
Pursuant to articles L. 311-14 and R. 311-15 of the CRPA, this decision may be subject to areferral to the Commission for access to administrative documents [CADA] within two months of
the refusal hereby.
Please accept, Maître, my best wishes.

Catherine Chevillot
Directrice du musée Rodin

52

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

Museé Rodin private request to CADA for legal guidanceParis, le

24 DEC 2018

Commission d’acces aux document
administratifs
TSA 50730
75334 Paris cedex 07
LRAR 1671
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Objet : Demande de conseil de l'établissement public du musée Rodin concernant lesnumérisations tridimensionnelles d'œuvres du musée Rodin
Annexes :- Demande de communication de documents administratifs adressée au musée Rodin parMaître Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaihgh pour son client, Monsieur Cosmo Wenman (annexe n°l)
- Réponse du musée Rodin à la demande précitée (annexe n°2)

Madame, Monsieur,
Sur le foncement de l’article R. 342-4 du Code des Relations entre le Public et l'Administration,l'établissement public du musée Rodin saisit par la présente le Commission d'accès aux
documents administratifs d’une demande de conseil concernant les numérisations
tridimensionnelles d'œuvres du musée Rodin.
Avant de vous exposer les différents aspects de notre demande, nous souhaités; porter à votre
connaissance les éléments de contexte suivants :Auguste Rodin a fait donation à l'Etat français de l'ensemble de son œuvre ainsi quedes droits de propriété artistique y afférents. Partant, le musée Rodin est investi de laqualité d’ayant droit de Rodin au sens des dispositions légales sur la propriété littéraire
et artistique. A cet égard l'article 2 du décret n° 93-163 du 2 février 1993 modifié relatif
au musée Rodin prévoit notamment que le musée a pour mission de « faire connaître
l'œuvre de Rodin et de faire respecter le droit moral qui y est attaché ».

Au titre de l'article 12 du décret n° 93-163 précité, les recettes du musée Rodincomprennent notamment «le produit de la vente des éditions originales de bronze desreproductions plastiques ou graphiques, des publications et photographies ».

Le musée Rodin est le seul établissement public administratif sous tutelle du ministèrede la Culture à s'autofinancer pour l'intégralité de son budget de fonctionnement.

53

BACK TO TOPPlusieurs exemplaires du Penseur d'Auguste Rodin existent à travers le monde. Un
exemplaire en bronze fondu en 1928 a notamment fait l’objet d'un don au Baltimore
Muséum of Art.



Dans un contexte de nombre croissant de « reproductions » ou « surmoulages » enbronze dont la présentation entretient la confusion avec des éditions originales debronze autorisées par l'artiste ou le musée Rodin, le musée Rodin refuse toute mise àdisposition des moules et des modèles originaux issus de l’atelier de Rodin conservés
dans ses collections. En outre, les marques R, RODIN, AUGUSTE RODIN et RODIN
sont la propriété exclusive du musée Rodin, rendant toute reproduction, utilisation,
apposition, imitation ou altération, de quelque manière que ce soit, de ces dernières
marques, constitutifs de contrefaçon engageant la responsabilité de son auteur etstrictement prohibé au sens de l'article L. 716-1 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle.

Des numérisations tridimensionnelles des oeuvres d’Auguste Rodin ont été réalisées
par le musée Rodin à des fins d'étude, mais servent également à des finsd’exploitation commerciale pour le musée dans le cadre de la réalisation dereproductions miniatures en résine de sculptures du musée Rodin destinées à lavente.

Un prestataire de numérisation et de reproductions tridimensionnelles, américain acontacté le musée Rodin pour obtenir la communication d'un certain nombre dedocuments (et. annexe n°l), au titre desquels les numérisations tridimensionnelles
réalisées à ce jour par le musée demande à laquelle le musée Rodin a décidé de nepas répondre favorablement (et. annexe n°2).



Si la logique de donnée ouverte est promue par le législateur, notamment dans la loi
n° 2016-1321 du 7 octobre 2016 pour une République numérique, la question de lacommunication de numérisations tridimensionnelles d’oeuvres d'art n a pas fait l'objet
d’un traitement spécifique au regard :o de leur caractère ou non de document administratif communicable ;o du respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle s'y attachant ;o de l'impact de telles communications, le cas échéant, sur les risques liés à lacontrefaçon d'œuvres d'art ;o des conséquences de telles communications, le cas échéant, sur les
ressources propres des établissements publics culturels.

54

BACK TO TOP

Au vu de ces éléments de contexte, nous vous consultons sur les questions listées ci-après:1) Des numérisations tridimensionnelles d’asuvre d’art peuvent-elles ètre considérées
comme des documents administratifs au sens de l'article L. 300-2 du Code desRelations entre le Public el l'Administration ?

2) Si les numérisations tridimensionnelles d'oeuvres d'art peuvent être reconsidérées
comme des documents administratifs en principe communicables, la réserve del'article L. 311-4 du Code des Relations entre le Public et l'Administration selon laquelle« les ocuments administratifs sont communiqués ou publiés sous réserve des droits
des propriété littéraire et artistique », dont peut se prévaloir le musée Rodin au titre dudroit moral dont il est titulaire en sa qualité d'ayant droit de l'artiste, est-elle de nature à
fonder un refus de communication (étant rappelé que la mise à disposition des moules
originaux est refusée par Ie musée) ?

3) La réutilisation à des fins commerciales des numérisations tridimensionnelles dont il
est demandé la communication peut-elle foncer un refus de communication au regard
des enjeux que cela pourrait représenter pour les recettes de l'établissement ?

4) Le droit moral, dont dispose le musée Rodin en sa quai té d'ayant droit, et le droit de la
propriété intellectuelle, en particulier le droit des marques, peuvent-ils fonder le refus
de toute réutilisation des numérisations tridimensionnelles si ces dernières devaientêtre considérées comme des documents administratifs communicables ? Dans le cas
contraire, pouvez-vous préciser le périmètre de l’utilisation des numérisations
tridimensionnelles qui pourrait être faite par un tiers (notamment dans un contexte
croissant de reproductions d'œuvres dont la présentation entretient la confusion avec
les œuvres originales de l’artiste) ?

5) Si les numérisations tridimensionnelles devaient être considérées comme desdocuments administratifs communccibles, le mode de financement du musée, telqu'encadré par l'article 12 du décret n° 93-163 précisé peut-il fonder un refus deréutilisation de ces documents ? Dans le cas contraire, pouvez-vous préciser lepérimètre de l'utilisation des numérisations tridimensionnelles par un tiers etl'encadrement qui pourrait en être fait aux fins de compenser les pertes de recettes del’établissement liées à une éventuelle communication ?

6) Seuls les documents existants dans leur version définitive peuvent être considéréscomme des documents administratifs communicables et non les documents provisoires?
Dans l'attente des conseils de votre Commission sur l'ensemble de ces questions, je vous pried'agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l'expression de mes meilleures salutations.
Xavier Teboul
Secrétaire général du musée Rodin

55

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

Paris, le

24 DEC 2018

Commission d’acces aux document
administratifs
TSA 50730
75334 Paris cedex 07
LRAR 1671
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Subject : Request for advice from the Rodin Museum's public institution concerning the threedimensional digitization of works by the Musée Rodin
Annexes :- Request for communication of administrative documents addressed to the Rodin Museum by
Mr. Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaihgh for his client, Mr. Cosmo Wenman (Annex No. 1)- Response of the Musée Rodin to the aforementioned request (appendix n ° 2)

Madame, Monsieur,
On the strength of Article R. 342-4 of the Code of Relations between the Public and theAdministration, the public institution of the Rodin Museum presently engages the Commissionof access to administrative documents of a request for concerning the three-dimensional
digitizations of works of the Rodin museum.
Before you expose the different aspects of our application, we desired; bring to your attention
the following contextual elements:
Auguste Rodin has donated to the French State all of his work as well as related
artistic property rights. As a result, the Rodin Museum is invested with the status ofRodin's rightful claimant within the meaning of the legal provisions on literary andartistic property. In this regard, Article 2 of Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993, as
amended, pertaining to the Rodin Museum provides, notably, that the museum's
mission is "to make known Rodin's work and to uphold the moral right that is therein
attached".



Under Article 12 of Decree No. 93-163 cited above, the revenues of the Rodin
Museum include "the proceeds from the sale of original editions of bronze, plastic orgraphic reproductions, publications and photographs."

56

BACK TO TOPThe Rodin Museum is the only public administrative body under the supervision of the
Ministry of Culture to be self-financing for the entire operating budget.



Several copies of Auguste Rodin's Thinker exist throughout the world. An example
bronze, cast in 1928, was donated to the Baltimore Museum of Art.



In a context of increasing number of "reproductions" or "overmoldings" in bronze
whose presentation is confusing with original bronze editions authorized by the artist or
the Rodin museum, the Rodin museum refuses any provision of molds and originalmodels from Rodin's studio preserved in his collections. In addition, the brands R,
RODIN, AUGUSTE RODIN and RODIN museum are the exclusive property of theRodin museum, making any reproduction, use, apposition, imitation or alteration, in
any way whatsoever, of one or several of these marks, constituting infringement
involving the responsibility of its author and strictly prohibited within the meaning of
Article L. 716-1 of the Code of Intellectual Property.

Three-dimensional digitizations of the works of Auguste Rodin have been made by theRodin museum for study purposes, but are also used for the purposes of commercial
exploitation for the museum as part of the production and sale of miniature
reproductions in resin of the sculptures of the Rodin museum

An American provider of digitization and three-dimensional reproduction services
contacted the Rodin Museum to obtain the communication of a number of documents(and Annex No. 1), for which the three-dimensional digitizations carried out to date by
the museum, which the Rodin museum has decided not to answer favorably (and,appendix n ° 2).

If the logic of open data is promoted by the legislator, in particular in the law n° 20161321 of October 7, 2016 for a digital Republic, the question of the communication of
three-dimensional digitizations of works of art has not been the subject a specifictreatment to look at:o whether or not they are a communicable administrative document;o respect for the intellectual property rights attached to it;
o the impact of such communications, if any, on the risks of counterfeiting
works of art;o the consequences of such communications, if any, on the resources of public
cultural institutions.

57

BACK TO TOP

In view of these contextual elements, we consult you on the questions listed below:

1) Can three-dimensional scans of art works be considered as administrative documents
within the meaning of the article 300-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public
and the Administration?

2) If three-dimensional digitizations of works of art can be considered as administrative
documents which are in principle communicable, the reservation of Article L. 311-4 of
the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration according to which"the administrative documents are communicated or published subject to the rights ofliterary and artistic property", which the Rodin museum is entitled to under the moral
rights which it holds in its capacity as trustee of the artist, is it is as such a basis for arefusal of communication (being reminded that the provision of the original molds isrefused by the museum)?

3) Can the commercial re-use of the three-dimensional scans being requested lead to arefusal of communication regarding the issues that this could pose for the institution's
revenue?

4) Can the moral right, which the Rodin Museum disposes of as its rightful claimant, andthe law of intellectual property, in particular the right of marks, justify the refusal of any
reuse of three-dimensional digitization should it be considered as communicableadministrative documents? If not, can you specify the scope of the use of threedimensional scans that could be done by a third party (particularly in the context ofincreasing reproductions of works whose presentation is confusing with the original
works of the artist)?

5) If three-dimensional scans were to be considered as common administrative
documents, can the museum's method of financing, as set out in Article 12 of Decree
No. 93-163, be a basis for refusal to reuse these documents? If not, can you specify
the scope of the use of third-party scans by a third party and the framework that could
be used to compensate the losses of revenue of the establishment related to apossible communication??

6) Only existing documents in their final version can be considered as communicableadministrative documents and not provisional documents?
Awaiting your Commission's advice on all of these issues, please accept, Madame, Monsieur,
the expression of my best greetings.
Xavier Teboul
Secrétaire général du musée Rodin

58

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

CADA private legal guidance to Musée Rodin

COMMISSION D’ACCÈS
AUX DOCUMENTS ADMINISTRATIFSLe Président
Conseil n° 20190026 du 07 février 2019
La commission d'accès aux documents administratifs a examiné dans sa séance du 24 janvier
2019 votre demande de conseil relative :1) au caractère communicable des numérisations tridimensionnelles d’œuvres d'art, au
regard de la qualité d'ayant droit de l’artiste du musée ;2) à la possibilité de réutiliser, à des fins commerciales, des numérisations tridimensionnelles
dont il est demandé la communication, au regard du droit de la propriété intellectuelle et durisque de contrefaçon ;3) à la possibilité de réutiliser des numérisations tridimensionnelles au regard du mode definancement du musée prévu à l'article 12 du décret n° 93-163 du 2 février 1993.
La commission vous rappelle d'abord qu’aux termes de l’article L300-2 du code des relations
entre le public et l’administration : « Sont considérés comme documents administratifs, au sens
des titres 1er, III et IV du présent livre, quels que soient leur date, leur lieu de conservation, leurforme et leur support, les documents produits ou reçus, dans le cadre de leur mission deservice public, par l'Etat, les collectivités territoriales ainsi que par les autres personnes de droit
public ou les personnes de droit privé chargées d'une telle mission. »La commission relève qu'aux termes du décret n° 93-163 du 2 février 1993 relatif au muséeRodin, le musée est un établissement public national à caractère administratif placé sous latutelle du ministre chargé de la culture qui a pour mission de faire connaître l’œuvre de Rodin etde faire respecter le droit moral qui y est attaché. A cette fin : 1. Il présente au public lescollections comprenant les objets donnés ou légués par Auguste Rodin et les œuvres acquises
ultérieurement, en assure la garde, la conservation et la mise en valeur ; 2. Il organise desexpositions, des colloques et toute activité éducative et culturelle susceptible de concourir au
rayonnement de l’œuvre de Rodin et de la sculpture ; 3. Il est habilité à acquérir toute œuvre ou
tout document présentant un intérêt pour la connaissance de l’œuvre de Rodin et de lasculpture ; 4. Il exécute ou fait exécuter tous travaux d'aménagement ou d'extension des locaux
du siège du musée ou de son annexe ; 5. Il procède ou fait procéder, sous son contrôle, à deséditions originales de bronzes tirées à partir des moules et des modèles en plâtre figurant dansles collections. Ces éditions sont limitées à douze, numérotées de 1/8 à 8/8 et de l/IV à IV/IV, ycompris les éditions originales existantes ; 6. Il édite et commercialise des reproductionsd’œuvres de Rodin, des publications et des produits audiovisuels.
La commission en déduit que les numérisations d'œuvres dont vous assurez la conservation, àdes fins à la fois d'étude et d'exploitation commerciale, constituent des documents administratifs
au sens des dispositions précitées, dès lors que vous les avez élabôreëset les détenez dans lecadre de la mission de service public qui vous est confiée. Elles sont donc, en principe,
communicables à toute personne qui en fait la demande, sur le fondement de l’article L311-1 du
59

BACK TO TOPmême code, sous réserve qu’ils ne présentent plus un caractère préparatoire à une décisionque vous n'auriez pas encore prise.
La commission vous précise, ensuite, que dans sa décision du 8 novembre 2017 n° 375704, leConseil d’État a jugé que l’article L311-4 du code des relations entre le public etl'administration, qui dispose que : « Les documents administratifs sont communiqués ou publiés
sous réserve des droits de propriété littéraire et artistique. », implique, avant de procéder à lacommunication de documents administratifs grevés de droits d’auteur n'ayant pas déjà fait
l'objet d'une divulgation au sens de l'article L121-2 du code de la propriété intellectuelle, derecueillir l'accord de leur auteur. Or, la commission constate que les documents sollicités nesont pas eux-mêmes grevés de droits d’auteur, et il n'apparaît pas douteux que les œuvres dusculpteur Auguste Rodin dont les reproductions tridimensionnelles sont sollicitées ont déjà fait
l'objet d'une divulgation au sens du code de la propriété intellectuelle. Les dispositions del'article L311-4 du code des relations entre le public et l'administration ne sauraient dès lors
légalement fonder un refus de communication, non plus que les considérations tirées du modede financement de l'établissement public qui sont inopérantes en matière de communication
des documents administratifs.
La commission souligne, enfin, que la qualité d'ayant droit de Rodin, chargé de faire respecter
le droit moral du sculpteur est également insusceptible de fonder un refus de communication, àcharge pour le musée, comme il le fait aujourd'hui, de veiller au respect de l'œuvre lors de laréutilisation des documents sollicités.
En ce qui concerne les conditions de réutilisation, la commission vous précise que l'article
L323-1 du code des relations entre le public et l'administration prévoit que la réutilisationd’informations publiques peut donner lieu à l'établissement d'une licence et qu'une telle licence
est obligatoire lorsque la réutilisation est soumise au paiement d'une redevance. Si laréutilisation d'informations publiques est, en principe, gratuite, aux termes de l'article L324-1 dumême code, son article L324-2 prévoit la possibilité d'une redevance lorsque la réutilisation
porte « sur des informations issues des opérations de numérisation des fonds et des collections
des bibliothèques, y compris des bibliothèques universitaires, des musées et des archives, et,le cas échéant, sur des informations qui y sont associées lorsque ces dernières sontcommercialisées conjointement. Le produit total du montant de cette redevance, évalué sur une
période comptable appropriée, ne dépasse pas le montant total des coûts de collecte, deproduction, de mise à disposition ou de diffusion, de conservation de leurs informations etd'acquisition des droits de propriété intellectuelle. » Les modalités de calcul de cette redevancesont précisées à l'article R324-4-3 du même code. Ainsi, lorsque le musée aura établi une
tarification pour la réutilisation de ses numérisations tridimensionnelles, laquelle devra êtrepubliée sur son site internet, le musée pourra-t-il soumettre leur réutilisation à une licence etl'assortir d'un tarif conforme à ces dispositions.
Pour le Président
et par delegation

Bastien BRILLET
Rapporteur général
Premier conseiller de tribunal administratif

60

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

COMMISSION D’ACCÈS
AUX DOCUMENTS ADMINISTRATIFSLe Président
Conseil n° 20190026 du 07 février 2019

The board of access to administrative documents examined in your meeting of January 24,
2019 your request for advice on:1) the communicable nature of three-dimensional digitizations of works of art, with regard to
the quality of the artistic rights of the museum ;2) the ability to reuse, for commercial purposes, three-dimensional scans that are requested
for disclosure, in terms of intellectual property law and the risk of counterfeiting;3) the possibility of reusing three-dimensional scans with regard to the method of financing
the museum provided for in Article 12 of Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993.
The commission reminds you first of all that according to the article L300-2 of the code of therelations between the public and the administration: "Are regarded as administrative
documents, within the meaning of titles 1, III and IV of this book, whatever their date, their placeof conservation, their form and their support, the documents produced or received, as part oftheir public service mission, by the State, the local authorities as well as by other persons ofpublic law or private law persons in charge of such a mission."
The Committee notes that, pursuant to Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993 on the MuséeRodin, the museum is a national public administrative institution under the supervision of the
Minister of Culture whose mission is to promote the work of Rodin and to uphold the moral
rights attached to it. To this end: 1. It presents to the public the collections including the objects
donated or bequeathed by Auguste Rodin and the works acquired later, in the care,preservation and enhancement; 2. It organizes exhibitions, symposia and any educational andcultural activity likely to contribute to the influence of Rodin's work and sculpture; 3. It is entitledto acquire any work or document of interest for the knowledge of Rodin's work and sculpture; 4.
It executes or causes to be carried out any work of development or extension of the premises ofthe seat of the museum or its annex; 5. It makes or has made under his control, original editionsof bronzes drawn from the molds and plaster models contained in the collections. These
editions are limited to twelve, numbered from 1/8 to 8/8 and from l / IV to IV / IV, including
existing original editions; 6. It edits and markets reproductions of Rodin's works, publications
and audiovisual products.
The commission deduces from this that the digitization of works which you keep for purposes ofboth study and commercial exploitation constitute administrative documents within the meaningof the aforementioned provisions, provided that you have elabored them and hold them within

61

BACK TO TOP

the framework of the public service mission entrusted to you. They are therefore, in principle,
communicable to any person who makes the request, on the basis of Article L311-1 of the same
Code, provided they are no longer preparatory to a decision that you would not not yet taken.
The commission then tells you that in its decision of 8 November 2017 no. 375704, the Conseild'État ruled that Article L311-4 of the Code of relations between the public and theadministration, which provides that: The administrative documents are communicated or
published subject to the rights of literary and artistic property ", implies, before proceeding to thecommunication of copyrighted administrative documents not already the subject of a disclosurein the sense Article L121-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, to obtain the agreement of theirauthor. However, the Committee notes that the documents requested are not themselves
copyrighted, and it does not appear doubtful that the works of the sculptor Auguste Rodinwhose three-dimensional reproductions are requested have already been the subject of adisclosure within the meaning of the intellectual property code. The provisions of Article L311-4
of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration can not therefore legallyconstitute a refusal of communication, and consideration of the method of financing the publicestablishment is immaterial to the communication of administrative documents.
Lastly, the Committee emphasizes that having Rodin's rights to enforce the moral right of the
sculptor is also insusceptible as the basis of a refusal to communicate, as the museum is doing
today, to ensure the respect of the work when reusing the requested documents.
Regarding the conditions of reuse, the commission informs you that Article L323-1 of the Codeof relations between the public and the administration provides that the reuse of public
information may lead to the establishment of a license and such a license is mandatory when
the reuse is subject to the payment of a fee. If the reuse of public information is, in principle,
free under Article L324-1 of the same code, Article L324-2 provides for the possibility of a fee
when the re-use relates to "information from operations digitization of fonds and collections oflibraries, including university libraries, museums and archives, and, where appropriate, related
information when they are marketed jointly. The total revenue from the amount of this royalty,measured over an appropriate accounting period, does not exceed the total amount of the costsof collecting, producing, making available or disseminating, keeping their information andacquiring the rights of intellectual property. The methods for calculating this fee are specified inarticle R324-4-3 of the same code. Thus, when the museum has established a fee for the reuseof its three-dimensional scans, which will have to be published on its website, the museum will
be able to submit their reuse to a license and match it with a rate in accordance with theseprovisions.
Pour le Président
et par delegation

Bastien BRILLET
Rapporteur général
Premier conseiller de tribunal administratif

62

BACK TO TOPFOIA demand reiterated

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***
Rodin Museum
77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris

A Paris, le 8 février 2019
Par LRAR n° 2C 135 548 1005 6

Objet : demande de communication de documents administratifs
A l’attention de Mme Catherine Chevillot, Directrice du musée Rodin, conservateur
général du patrimoine

Madame la Directrice,
Par LRAR n° 1 A 148 042 7744 5 du 8 novembre 2018, je vous ai saisi d’une demande decommunication d’une série de documents administratifs pour le compte de mon client, M.
Cosmo Wenman.
Par courrier du 11 décembre 2018, réceptionné le 17 décembre suivant, vous avez refusé defaire droit à ma demande de communication.
D’emblée, je vous indique que je conteste la totalité de vos refus, sur tous les plans, et que jesaisis d’ores et déjà la Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA). La présente
a pour objet de vous détailler uniquement certains points précis fondant ma contestation, dansl’espoir de vous amener à reconsidérer votre position. Le reste des motifs fondant ma propose
position sera détaillé, en temps utile, une fois que la CADA aura rendu son avis. Le présent
courrier sera joint à ma saisine de la CADA, pour sa parfaite information.
D’abord, vous commencez par m’opposer les dispositions des articles L. 311-5 et L. 311-6 ducode des relations entre le public et l’administration. Je vous avoue qu’en l’absence de plus
amples précisions de votre part, je ne comprends pas très bien en quoi ces dispositions seraient
susceptibles de fonder votre refus. Je vous serai infiniment reconnaissant de bien vouloirm’éclairer à cet égard.
Ensuite, vous m’invitez à « parfaire » mes demandes et à préciser les documents dont jesouhaite la communication et vous m’indiquer, en outre, qu’aucune liste des contenus numérisés

63

BACK TO TOP

tridimensionnels des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres
collections n’aurait été établie.
Je vous rappelle qu’est communicable un document qui n’existe pas en l’état mais peut êtreobtenu par un traitement automatisé d’usage courant (cf. CADA, 25 mai 2000, Ministre del’emploi et de la solidarité, n° 2000-2162, 10ème rapport, p. 111 : concernant la liste desentreprises soumises à la loi relative à l’emploi de travailleurs handicapés ; CADA, 29 mai
2000, France Télécom, n° 2000-1674, 10ème rapport, p. 15 : s’agissant d’une liste d’agentsd’une entreprise publique).
L’administration peut ainsi être conduite à extraire des données contenues dans des fichiers
qu’elle détient afin d’établir le document objet de la demande de communication (cf. CADA, 25
mai 2000, Directeur général de France Télécom, n° 2000-2163, 10ème rapport, p. 112).
D’une part, s’agissant des correspondances mentionnant mon client, il vous suffirait ainsi defaire une simple recherche dans votre système de traitement automatisé de données avec les
discriminants suivants : « Cosmo », « Wenman » et « Cosmo Wenman », ainsi que « BMA », «artbma.org » et « Baltimore » et de me communiquer ensuite les résultats de cette recherche.
D’autre part, à supposer même que la liste des contenus numérisés tridimensionnels dessculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres collections, dont je demandela communication, n’aurait pas été établie, une telle liste pourrait aisément être constituée.
Par suite, les arguments que vous m’opposer à cet égard sont insusceptibles de venir justifier
utilement votre position. Etant précisé, au demeurant, que je vois difficilement comment mademande pourrait être plus précise que la liste extrêmement précise et détaillée que je vous aiadressée et que je rappelle, à toutes fins utiles, ci-dessous pour mémoire :- les fichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D)
du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin, y compris la version utilisée pourimprimer les copies du Penseur dont la promotion est assurée surl’adresse suivante : https://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculpturereproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html, de même que tout autre
version de meilleure qualité ;- la liste de l’ensemble des fichiers, actuellement en votre possession,
contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles des sculptures
composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres collections (lesjeux de scan 3D en votre possession), ainsi que lesdits fichiers ;- l’ensemble des courriels, échangés, envoyés ou reçus par le muséeRodin, un de ses employés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante,
ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant les précédentes demandes de
M. Wenman ;- l’ensemble des notes internes, analyses, rapports, études, lignes
directrices, directives, échanges de courriels ou tout autre document
relatif à la politique du musée Rodin à l’égard des fichiers contenant desversions numérisées tridimensionnelles d’une sculpture composant les

64

BACK TO TOP

collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres collections, en particulier lapolitique du musée concernant l’accessibilité à ces données ;- l’ensemble des accords, contrats, conventions, traités liant le muséeRodin et le Baltimore Museum of Art, en particulier, ceux ayant pourobjet, traitant ou mentionnant les fichiers contenant la version numérisée
tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin, ou detout autre sculpture ;- tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus del’utilisation des fichiers contenant la version numérisée
tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin à desfins de fabrication de répliques ;- tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus delicences octroyées à des tiers à propos de l’utilisation de n’importelequel des fichiers contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles
des sculptures composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d’autres
collections ;- en particulier, pour la période s’étendant du 1er janvier 2014 à laréception de la présente demande : l’ensemble des correspondances
entre le musée Rodin et le Baltimore Museum of Art, l’ensemble descourriels internes, des notes internes, analyses, rapports, lignes
directrices ou tout autre document relatif à l’impression en trois
dimension et des correspondances, échangés, envoyés ou reçus entre lemusée Rodin, un de ses employés ou un des membres de son équipe
dirigeante, d’une part, et le ministère de la culture, d’autre part, ayant
pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant l’impression tridimensionnelle, lanumérisation tridimensionnelle ou le Baltimore Museum of Art ;- en particulier, pour la période s’étendant du 1er janvier 2018 à laréception de la présente demande, l’ensemble des correspondanceséchangées, envoyées ou reçues entre le musée Rodin et M. Olivier
Japiot, conseiller d’Etat membre du Conseil supérieur de la propriété
littéraire et artistique.
Du reste, vous semblez soutenir que les correspondances dont je demande la communication,qui constituent essentiellement des correspondances dématérialisées, n’auraient pas été
conservées. Je vous avoue que je peine à croire que la totalité des correspondances dont jedemande la communication et qui ont été échangées de manière particulièrement récenten’aurait opportunément pas été conservée. Je vous serai donc éminemment reconnaissant debien vouloir procéder aux vérifications nécessaires sur ce point.
Enfin, s’agissant de ma demande concernant la communication des documents administratifs
que constitue la version numérisée tridimensionnelle du « Penseur » de M. Auguste Rodin demême que de toute autre version de meilleure qualité (communément appelée « scan 3D ») etqui sert à façonner des reproductions à l’aide d’une « imprimante 3D », vous m’opposez, là

65

BACK TO TOP

encore, un refus, au motif que vous disposeriez de droits de propriété littéraire et artistique qui
feraient obstacle à cette communication.
Je ne partage pas votre analyse.
Le droit d’auteur recouvre, d’une part, le droit moral de l’auteur et, d’autre part, son droit
patrimonial. Le droit moral (cf. articles L. 121-1 à L. 121-9 du code de la propriété
intellectuelle), « perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible » (cf. article L. 121-1, alinéa 3, ducode de la propriété intellectuelle), qui reste attaché à la personne de l’auteur (cf. article L. 1211, alinéa 2 du code de la propriété intellectuelle), n’autorise en aucun cas les entraves àl’utilisation d’une oeuvre, mais seulement les limitations aux usages susceptibles de porter
atteinte à l’image de l’artiste. Il n’est donc en aucun cas susceptible de venir légalement fonder
le refus de communication que vous m’opposez.
Le droit patrimonial quant à lui confère un monopole d’exploitation économique sur l’oeuvre,
pour une durée variable au terme de laquelle l’oeuvre entre dans le « domaine public » (au sens
du code de la propriété intellectuelle, non au sens du droit de la domanialité publique). C’est ce
droit seul qui est éventuellement susceptible de venir légalement fonder une interdiction de la
reproduction et de la représentation publique d’une oeuvre (cf. articles L. 122-1 à L. 122-12 ducode de la propriété intellectuelle). Ces droits s’éteignent toutefois, en principe, 70 ans après ledécès de l’artiste (cf. article L. 123-1 du code de la propriété intellectuelle).
Une oeuvre de l’esprit entrée dans le domaine public est libre de droits patrimoniaux, de sorte
qu’un tiers peut parfaitement exploiter une telle oeuvre, par exemple par reproduction, d’une
oeuvre d’art dont les droits patrimoniaux sont désormais éteints, sous la seule réserve de ne pas
porter atteinte au droit moral qui demeure perpétuel.
Or, les oeuvres de M. Rodin sont entrées dans le domaine public depuis de nombreuses années.
Vous ne disposez donc d’aucun droit patrimonial exclusif sur ces oeuvres.
En outre, si le droit moral d’un tiers peut, éventuellement, venir s’opposer à la communicationd’un document administratif qui serait grevé de droits de propriété littéraire ou artistique, cetteopposition n’est valable que lorsque les documents administratifs faisant l’objet de la demanden’ont pas fait l’objet d’une divulgation, au sens de l’article L. 121-2 du code de la propriété
intellectuelle et en l’absence d’accord de leur auteur. Or, il n’est pas sérieusement contestable
que les oeuvres de M. Rodin, en particulier le « Penseur », ont fait l’objet d’une divulgation au
public depuis bien des années.
Au demeurant, la circonstance que le musée Rodin dispose de marques déposées est
insusceptible de s’opposer à la communication des documents dont je demande lacommunication pour mon client.
Dans ces conditions, je vous serai éminemment reconnaissant de bien vouloir reconsidérer votre
position. Comme je vous l’indiquais au début de ce courrier, je saisis d’ores et déjà la CADA et
joins la présente à ma saisine.
Je vous rappelle que vous pouvez vous faire conseiller par un de mes confrères. Je vous
remercie, le cas échéant, de bien vouloir me communiquer ses coordonnées afin que je prenne
directement attache avec lui, ou de lui transmettre les miennes.

66

BACK TO TOP

Je reste naturellement à votre entière disposition pour évoquer ce dossier.
Je vous prie de croire, Madame la Directrice, en l’expression de ma parfaite considération.

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas

67

BACK TO TOP

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***
Rodin Museum
77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris

Paris, February 8, 2019
By LRAR n° 2C 135 548 1005 6

Subject : Request for communication of administrative documents
For the attention of Mme Catherine Chevillot, Directrice du musée Rodin, conservateur
général du patrimoine

Madam Director,
By letter LRAR No. 1 A 148 042 7744 5 of November 8, 2018, I have made a request for thesubmission of a series of administrative documents on behalf of my client, Mr. Cosmo
Wenman.
By mail of December 11, 2018, received the following December 17, you have refused to grant
my request for communication.
From the outset, I am telling you that I am challenging all of your refusals, in all respects, andthat I am already engaging the Commission on Administrative Documents Access (CADA).
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with just a few specific points on which I base mydispute, in the hope that you reconsider your position. The rest of the reasons for my proposed
position will be detailed, in due course, once CADA has rendered its opinion. This letter will be
attached to my request to CADA, for its perfect information.
First, you begin by opposing the provisions of Articles L. 311-5and L. 311-6 of the Code ofrelations between the public and the administration. I confess that in the absence of further
clarification from you, I do not understand very well how these provisions would be a basis foryour refusal. I will be very grateful if you will enlighten me in this regard.

68

BACK TO TOP

Subsequently, you invite me to "perfect" my requests and to specify the documents which I
wish to be communicated and tell me, in addition, that no list of digitized three-dimensional
sculptures in the Musée Rodin’s collection or other collections has been established.
I remind you that a document that does not currently exist can be obtained by automatedprocesses in common use (see CADA, 25 May 2000, Ministre de l’emploi et de la solidarité, n°
2000-2162, 10ème rapport, p. 111: concerning the list of enterprises subject to the law on theemployment of disabled workers; CADA, May 29, 2000, France Télécom , No. 2000-1674,
10th report, p. 15: in the case of a list of agents of a public company).
The administration can thus be led to extract data contained in files it holds in order to establish
the document that is the subject of the application for communication (see CADA, May 25,
2000, Directeur général de France Télécom, No. 2000-2163, 10th report, p. 112).
On the one hand, in the case of correspondence mentioning my client, it would suffice to do a
simple automated search in your data with the following discriminants: "Cosmo", "Wenman”
and "Cosmo Wenman", as well as "BMA", "artbma.org" and "Baltimore" and then tell me theresults of this research.
On the other hand, even assuming that the list of digitized three-dimensional sculptures
composing the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections, which I request thecommunication, would not have been established, such a list could easily be formed.
Consequently, your arguments in this regard are not likely to justify your position. To be
specific, moreover, I hardly see how my request could be more precise than the extremely
precise and detailed list of information that I sent to you which I repeat, for all purposes, below
for the record:- the files containing the three-dimensional digital version (3D scan) of the Thinker
by Mr. Auguste Rodin, including the version used to print
the Thinker copies promoted on the following address: https://boutique.museerodin.fr/en/sculpture-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html, as well as anyother version of better quality;- the list of all files, currently in your possession, containing digitized threedimensional versions of the sculptures composing the collections of the MuséeRodin or other collections (the 3D scans in your possession), as well as said files;- all e-mails, exchanged, sent or received by the Musée Rodin, one of his
employees or a member of its management team, with the subject matter, dealing
with, or mentioning the previous requests of Mr. Wenman;

69

BACK TO TOP- all internal notes, analyses, reports, studies, guidelines, directives, e-mails or any
other documents relating to Musée Rodin’s policies regarding files containing
three-dimensional digitizations of sculptures in the collection of Musée Rodin orother collections, in particular museum policy regarding the accessibility of thesedata;- all agreements, contracts, conventions, treaties linking the Musée Rodin and
the Baltimore Museum of Art, in particular, those dealing with, or mentioning files
containing the three-dimensional digitization (3D scan) of the Thinker of Mr.
Auguste Rodin, or any other sculpture;- any document proving that Musée Rodin has obtained income from the use of
files containing the three-dimensional digitized version (3D scan) of the Thinker
of Mr. Auguste Rodin for the fabrication of replicas;- any document proving that the Musée Rodin has obtained income from licenses
granted to third parties concerning the use of any files containing digitized threedimensional versions of sculptures composing the collections of Musée Rodin orother collections;- in particular, for the period from January 1, 2014 to the receipt of thisapplication: all correspondence between Musée Rodin and the Baltimore Museumof Art, all internal emails, internal notes, analyses, reports, guidelines, all internal
documents relating to three-dimensional printing and correspondences, exchanged,
sent, or received between the Musée Rodin, one of its employees or one ofmembers of its management team, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Culture, on
the other hand, having as its object, treating, or mentioning the three-dimensional
printing, three-dimensional scanning, or the Baltimore Museum of Art ;- in particular, for the period from January 1, 2018 to the reception of thisapplication, all correspondence exchanged, sent or received between Musée Rodin
and Olivier Japiot, conseiller d’Etat member of the Conseil Supérieur on literary
and artistic property.
Moreover, you seem to maintain that the correspondence which I request be communicated,which essentially constitute dematerialized correspondence, would not have been preserved. I
confess to you that I find it hard to believe that all the correspondence of which I request thecommunication and which have been exchanged in a particularly recent manner would not havebeen conveniently preserved. I would therefore be most grateful if you would proceed with thenecessary checks on this point.
Finally, with regard to my request concerning the communication of administrative documents
constituting the three-dimensional digitized version of the Thinker of Mr. Auguste Rodin, as

70

BACK TO TOP

well as any other version of better quality (commonly referred to as "3D scans") and which areused in the manufacture of reproductions using a "3D printer", you oppose me again, a refusal
on the grounds that you have literary and artistic property rights which would hinder thiscommunication.
I do not share your analysis.
The right of authorship covers, on the one hand, the moral rights of the author and, on the other
hand, his patrimonial right. Moral rights (see Articles L. 121-1 to L. 121-9 of the Intellectual
Property Code), "perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible " (see article L. 121-1, paragraph 3,of the Intellectual Property Code), which remains attached to the person of the author (seeArticle L. 121-1, paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Code), do not authorize any
interference with the use of a work, except to limit uses likely to damage the image of theartist. It is therefore in no way likely to legally serve as a foundation for the refusal ofcommunication that you object to me.
The patrimonial right confers a monopoly of economic exploitation on the work, for a variable
length of time after which the work enters into the "public domain" (within the meaning of theIntellectual Property Code, not within the meaning of public domain law). It's this right alonethat is eventually likely to legally establish a ban on reproduction and public representation of awork (see Articles L. 122-1 to L. 122-12 of the Intellectual Property Code). However, theserights are extinguished, in principle, 70 years after the death of the artist (see article L. 123-1 ofthe Intellectual Property Code).
A work of the mind entering the public domain is free of patrimonial rights, so that a third party
can fully exploit such a work, for example by reproduction of a work of art whose economic
rights are extinguished, subject only to not impairing the moral right that remains perpetual.
However, the works of Mr. Rodin entered the public domain many years ago. You therefore
have no exclusive patrimonial rights over these works.
In addition, if the moral right of a third party may eventually come to oppose thecommunication of an administrative document which would be subject to literary or artistic
property, this opposition is only valid when the administrative documents which are the subjectof the application have not already been the subject of a disclosure, within the meaning of
Article L. 121-2 of the Intellectual Property Code and in the absence of agreement of theirauthor. However, it is not seriously questionable that the works of Mr. Rodin, in particular theThinker, have been the subject of a public disclosure for many years.
Moreover, the fact that Musée Rodin has registered trademarks cannot oppose the disclosure of
the documents I request communication of for my client.

71

BACK TO TOP

In these circumstances, I would be most grateful if you would reconsider your position. As I
indicated at the beginning of this letter, I have already engaged the CADA and join this letter tomy referral.
I remind you that you can get advice from an attorney. I thank you, if need be, kindly tocommunicate to me their contact information so that I can communicate directly with them, ortransmit mine to them.
I remain naturally at your disposal to discuss this matter.
I beg you to believe, Madam Director, in the expression of my perfect consideration.

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas

72

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

Musée Rodin private letter to Ministry of Culture

Paris, le26 APRIL 2019

Monsieur Philippe Barbat Directeur
Général des Patrimoines
182, rue Saint-Honoré
75001 Paris
LRAR 513
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Monsieur le Directeur general,
J'ai l'honneur de vous écrire afin d'attirer votre attention sur les conséquences inattendues de lapolitique de l'Etat français en matière d'ouverture et de partage des données publiques.
Désireuse d'inscrire le musée Rodin dans le mouvement de l'Open Data, j’ai toutefois été
récemment alertée sur les effets pervers de la communicabilité des numérisations
tridimensionnelles d’œuvres d’art (dites «3D») dans le cadre d'un pré-contentieux en cours,
opposant le musée à un prestataire américain de numérisation et de reproductions
tridimensionnelles, souhaitant obtenir la communication d’un certain nombre de nos documents
parmi desquels les numérisations tridimensionnelles réalisées à ce jour par le musée Rodin.
La mission statutaire première du musée que je dirige est de faire connaître l'œuvre de Rodin etde faire respecter le droit moral qui y est attaché. Le musée Rodin remplit les missions
habituelles de tout musée de France ; pour ce faire et en raison de son objectif d'autonomie
financière, il exerce en régie directe des missions commerciales et notamment la productiond’éditions originales de bronzes et de reproductions en résine, dont la vente permet lefinancement de ses missions dites « de service public ». La sectorisation fiscale du muséereflète d'ailleurs la nature de ses différentes activités (secteur non lucratif, secteur lucratif,
secteur mixte).
Les numérisations tridimensionnelles d’œuvres d’art pouvant servir à la réalisation dereproductions destinées à la vente, voire à la réalisation de bronzes entretenant de facto la
confusion dans l'esprit du public entre original et reproduction, leur diffusion en vue de leurexploitation par des tiers présente plusieurs types de risques pour l’établissement : des risquesliés à la contrefaçon, à la fraude artistique, au parasitisme et à la concurrence déloyale, d’unepart, et des risques de grande fragilisation de son modèle économique et ses ressources
propres, d'autre part.
Or, saisie par nos soins, la Commission d’accès aux documents administratifs (CADA) a
récemment considéré que lesdites numérisations, dont le musée assure la conservation à desfins d'études et d'exploitation commerciale, constituent des documents administratifs par
principe communicables à toute personne qui en fait la demande. Dans son conseil
n°20190026 en date du 07 février 2019, la CADA précise en effet que ni les droits de propriété

73

BACK TO TOP

littéraire et artistique, ni les considérations tirées du mode de financement de l'établissement, nimême la qualité d'ayant droit de Rodin, ne peuvent fonder un refus de communication de ces
données. Puis, elle conclut en évoquant la possibilité pour le musée de soumettre laréutilisation de ces numérisations à une licence et de l'assortir du paiement d'une redevance(solution inappropriée pour le musée Rodin, ces numérisations pouvant permettre la réalisationde reproductions d'oeuvres de Rodin).
L'application de cette recommandation, si elle devait se confirmer, aurait desconséquences désastreuses non seulement pour le modèle économique du muséeRodin, mais également pour d'autres opérateurs du ministère comme la RMN, en cequ’elle consisterait tout simplement à remettre gratuitement à de potentiels concurrents
et faussaires notre outil de production.
En l'absence de traitement spécifique par le législateur et compte tenu du caractère noncontraignant de l'avis rendu par la CADA, le musée Rodin refuse pour l’instant de faire droit aux
demandes de communication de numérisations tridimensionnelles d'oeuvres qu'il reçoit.
Toutefois, les sollicitations réitérées du prestataire de numérisations et reproductions
tridimensionnelles susmentionné me font craindre que cette affaire ne soit portée devant lestribunaux et rendue publique. C'est pourquoi je me permets de solliciter par la présente vosconseils sur la position à défendre, d’autres établissements culturels ayant également dûs'interroger sur ces questions de communication et de réutilisation des numérisations
tridimensionnelles de leurs collections.
Vous remerciant de l'attention que vous porterez à la présente, je vous prie de croire, Monsieur
le Directeur general, en l'expression de ma respectueuse considération.

Catherine Chevillot
Conservateur général du Patrimoine
Directrice du musée Rodin

74

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA][
Paris, le26 APRIL 2019

Monsieur Philippe Barbat Directeur
Général des Patrimoines
182, rue Saint-Honoré
75001 Paris
LRAR 513
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80[and dear Philippe]

Monsieur le Directeur general,I have the honor to write to you to draw your attention to the unexpected consequences of theFrench State's policy on openness and sharing of public data.
Wishing to register the Rodin Museum in the Open Data movement, I was recently warned
about the perverse effects of the three-dimensional digitization of works of art (called "3D") inthe context of a pre-litigation in progress, opposing the museum to an American requester ofdigitization and three-dimensional reproductions, wishing to obtain the communication of anumber of our documents among which are the three-dimensional scans carried out to date by
the Rodin Museum.
The primary statutory mission of the museum that I lead is to publicize Rodin's work and to
uphold the moral rights attached to it. The Rodin Museum fulfills the usual missions of any
museum in France; to do this and because of its objective of financial autonomy, it exercises in
direct management of commercial missions and in particular the production of original editionsof bronzes and reproductions in resin, the sale of which allows the financing of its missions
known as “public service .” The fiscal sectorization of the museum also reflects the nature of its
various activities (non-profit sector, lucrative sector, mixed sector).
Three-dimensional scans of works of art that can be used for the production of reproductions for
sale, or even for the production of bronzes, which in effect confuses the public's mind between
original and reproduction, and their dissemination for the purpose of their exploitation by third
parties presents several types of risks for the institution: risks related to counterfeiting, artistic
fraud, parasitism and unfair competition, on the one hand, and risks of great fragility of its
economic model and its own resources, on the other hand.
However, the Administrative Records Access Commission (CADA), recently engaged by us,
has considered that these scans, for which the museum preserves for the purpose of study andcommercial exploitation, constitute administrative documents that are in principle communicable
to anyone who asks for it. In its council no 20190026 dated February 7, 2019, the CADA
specifies that neither the literary and artistic property rights, nor the considerations derived from75

BACK TO TOP

the financing model of the establishment, nor even the quality of having the right to Rodin, can
not be a basis for a refusal to communicate this data. Then, it concludes by mentioning thepossibility for the museum to submit the reuse of these scans to a license and to match it withthe payment of a royalty (an inappropriate solution for the Rodin museum, as these scans could
allow the realization of reproductions of works by Rodin).
The application of this recommendation, if it were to be confirmed, would havedisastrous consequences not only for the Rodin Museum's economic model, but also forother operators of the ministry such as the RMN [Réunion des Musées Nationaux], in that
it would simply provide free of charge to potential competitors and counterfeiters our
production tools.
In the absence of specific treatment by the legislature and taking into account the non-binding
nature of the opinion given by the CADA, the Rodin museum refuses for the moment to grant
the requests it receives for communication of three-dimensional digitizations of works. However,
the requestor’s reiterated solicitations for the aforementioned digitizations and threedimensional reproductions make me fear that this case will be brought to court and made public.
That is why I am hereby seeking your advice on the position to be defended, as other cultural
institutions have also had to consider these questions of communication and the reuse of thethree-dimensional digitizations of their collections.
Thanking you for the attention you will pay to this letter, I beg you to believe, Monsieur leDirecteur general, in the expression of my respectful consideration.

Catherine Chevillot
Conservateur général du Patrimoine
Directrice du musée Rodin

76

BACK TO TOP

Request for public CADA inquiry

FEBRUARY 8, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh formally asks CADA to review Musée Rodin’s refusal, and to issue a public legal
opinion.
This request was submitted through a form on the CADA website, which is why there is no letter recorded
here. It included Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh’s correspondence with the museum, the museum’s refusal, and asimple request that CADA review the dispute and issue its opinion on the matter.
CADA responds by sending the first of the following documents to the museum; a pro forma letter asking
the museum to describe the situation, context, and provide copies of relevent correspondence.

77

BACK TO TOPCADA request to Musée Rodin for context and information

COMMISSION D’ACCÈSA U X D O C U M E N T S A D M I N I S T R AT I F S

C adaParis, leRéponse dans les quinze jours
suivant la réception de laprésente demande

Le Président
Objet : Application du livre III du code des relations entre le public et l'administration
Références à rappeler : Demande d’avis de
PJ : dossier de saisine de la CADA e
La commission d'accès aux documents administratifs a été saisie, sur le fondement desdispositions du livre III du code des relations entre le public et l'administration, par ledemandeur cité en référence, d'une demande d'avis à la suite du refus, exprès ou implicite, quiaurait été opposé par vos services à sa demande de :La commission doit rendre et notifier son avis dans le délai d’un mois à compter de sa
saisine conformément aux dispositions de l’article R. 343-3 du code des relations entre le public
et l'administration. Afin de lui permettre d’instruire la demande qui lui a été adressée et derespecter ce délai, les points suivants vous sont rappelés :1. Dans l’hypothèse où vous avez déjà transmis le ou les documents sollicitéssous la forme demandée, il convient que vous en informiez immédiatement la commission en
lui adressant une copie du ou des courriers établissant que cette communication a été opéréeet mentionnant précisément les documents communiqués, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de luitransmettre ces derniers. La commission constatera alors que la demande d’avis est devenuesans objet.
2. Si la non-communication des documents à l’expiration des délais légaux, quis’assimile à un refus de communication, résulte uniquement du retard pris par vos
services à traiter la demande ou des délais requis par le traitement de celle-ci en raison du volume
des documents concernés ou de leur ancienneté, mais que vous ne voyez pas d’obstacle à ce qu'ilssoient transmis au demandeur, vous êtes invité à procéder sans attendre à cette communication et à
informer parallèlement la commission de la liste précise des documents communiqués. Celle-ci pourra
alors constater que la demande est devenue sans objet.
3. Dans le cas où la demande ne vous semble pas pouvoir être satisfaite, au
regard des dispositions régissant l’accès aux documents demandés, pour des raisons tenant
notamment à leur nature ou leur contenu, vous voudrez bien faire parvenir à la commission vos
observations et tous documents – particulièrement ceux dont la commission doit apprécier lecaractère communicable – et informations utiles à son instruction.

78

BACK TO TOP

Dans tous les cas, il est rappelé qu’il n’appartient pas à la commission deprocéder elle-même à la communication des documents au demandeur, cette tâcheincombant à l’administration saisie.
En raison de la brièveté des délais, vous êtes invité à communiquer votre réponse parcourriel à l’adresse cada@cada.pm.gouv.fr, à laquelle vous pourrez joindre les pièces
nécessaires à l’instruction à un format numérique usuel, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de doubler
l’envoi par courrier postal. Vous indiquerez le numéro de référence du dossier et lescoordonnées de la personne chargée de suivre cette affaire.
Enfin, je signale à votre attention que le site Internet de la CADA (www.cada.fr)
comporte des fiches thématiques qui, dans une grande majorité de cas, sont propres à vouséclairer sur la conduite à tenir et, ainsi, à simplifier votre tâche dans un souci d'efficacité
administrative. N'hésitez pas à les consulter.
Pour le Président,
La Secrétaire générale

Christelle GUICHARD

79

BACK TO TOPCOMMISSION D’ACCÈSA U X D O C U M E N T S A D M I N I S T R AT I F S

C adaParis, leReply within fifteen daysof receipt of this application

Le Président
Objet : Application of Book III of the Code of Relations between the Public and theAdministration
Références à rappeler : Request for advice
PJ : CADA referral file
The Commission of Access to Administrative Documents was seized, on the basis of
the provisions of Book III of the Code of relations between the public and the administration, by
the referenced applicant, of a request for an opinion following the refusal, express or implied,that your services would have opposed to his request to:
The commission must render and notify its opinion within one month of its referral inaccordance with the provisions of Article R. 343-3 of the Code of relations between the public
and the administration. In order to allow it to investigate the request addressed to it and torespect this deadline, the following points are reminded to you:
1. In the event that you have already sent the requested document (s) in therequested form, you should immediately inform the Commission by sending a copy of the letteror letters stating that the communication was made and specifically mentioning the documents
communicated, without it being necessary to transmit them. The Commission will then find thatthe request for an opinion has become devoid of purpose
2. If the non-disclosure of documents after the expiry of the legal deadlines,
which amounts to a refusal of communication, results solely from the delay of yourservices to process the request demande or the time required for the processing of the
document because of the volume of the documents concerned or their age, but you do not see any
obstacle to their being transmitted to the applicant, you are invited to proceed without delay to thiscommunication and to inform the Commission at the same time of the precise list of the documents
communicated. It may then find that the application has become irrelevant.
3. In case the request does not seem to you to be satisfied, in view of the provisions
governing access to the requested documents, for reasons relating in particular to their nature
or content, you are kind enough to send to the Committee your observations and all documents- particularly those which the Commission must assess as communicable - and information
useful for its instruction.
In all cases, it is recalled that it is not the responsibility of the committee to make80

BACK TO TOP

the documents available to the applicant himself, this task being incumbent on theadministration seized.
Due to the short timeframe, you are invited to send your response by email to theaddress cada@cada.pm.gouv.fr, to which you can attach the necessary documents to the
instruction in a usual digital format, without that it is necessary to double the sending by postal
mail. You will indicate the reference number of the file and the contact details of the person
responsible for following this case.
Finally, I would like to point out that the CADA website (www.cada.fr) contains fact
sheets, which, in the vast majority of cases, are designed to enlighten you as to the course ofaction and, thus, to simplify your task for the sake of administrative efficiency. Do not hesitate toconsult them
Pour le Président,
La Secrétaire générale

Christelle GUICHARD

81

BACK TO TOP

Musée Rodin response to CADA

De:
Envoyé:À:
Cc:
Objet:
Pièces jointes:
Importance:

Hélène Brunel <brunel@musee-rodin.fr>
mardi 21 mai 2019 18:05
CADA Cada
Catherine Chevillot; Xavier Teboul; Elisabeth Saillant; Pauline Géroux
LE (06-06-2019) Musée Rodin : Réponse à la demande d'informations dela CADA (référence : 20192300)
Réponse MR 21052019.pdf; Annexe 1.pdf; Annexe 2.pdf; Annexe 3.pdf;
Annexe 4.pdf; Annexe 5.pdf
HauteBonjour,
Je vous prie de bien vouloir trouver ci‐joint la réponse de la Directrice du musée Rodin et ses
annexes (n°1 à 5) à la demande d'informations de la CADA reçue le 06 mai 2019 suite à lasaisine de Maître Alexis Fitzjean O'Cobhthaigh pour le compte de Monsieur Cosmo Wenman(référence : 20192300). Vous en souhaitant bonne réception, nous restons à votre disposition
pour tout enseignement complémentaire dans le cadre de l'instruction de ce dossier.
Cordialement,
Hélène BRUNEL
Chargée des affaires juridiques
Service des ressources humaines et des affaires juridiques
Musée Rodin
01.44.18.61.56

82

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

Paris, le

21 MAY 2019

Commission d’accès aux documents
administratifs
A l’attention de Madame Christelle GUICHARD
Secrétaire générale
cada@cada.pm.gouv.fr
LRAR 671
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Objet : Réponse du musée Rodin à la demande d'informations de la CADA reçue le 06 mai2019 suite à la saisine de Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH pour le compte deMonsieur Cosmo WENMAN (référence : 20192300)
Annexes :- Demande de communication de documents administratifs adressée au musée Rodin parMaître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBFITHAIGH pour le compte de son client Monsieur Cosmo
Wenman (annexe n° 1)- Réponse du musée Rodin à la demande précitée (annexe n°2)
- Demande de conseil adressée par le musée Rodin à la CADA concernant les numérisations
tridimensionnelles d'œuvres d'art (annexe n°3)
- Réponse de la CADA à la demande précitée (annexe n°4)
- Lettre envoyée par le musée Rodin à Monsieur Philippe BARBAT, Directeur général despatrimoines (annexe n°5)

Madame la Secrétaire générale,
Par lettre en date du 2 mai 2019, reçue le 6 mai dernier, vous m’indiquiez que laCommission d’accès aux documents administratifs a été saisie d'une demande d’avis de Maître
Alexis FITZJEAN O’COBHTHAIGH pour le compte de son client Monsieur Cosmo WENMAN, àla suite du refus opposé par le musée Rodin à sa demande de communication de documents
administratifs. Je vous confirme par la présente qu'aucun des documents sollicités n’a à ce jourété communiqué à Monsieur Cosmo WENMAN, la direction du musée Rodin considérant quecette demande ne peut être satisfaite. Afin que la CADA puisse rendre son avis, je vous prie debien vouloir trouver ci-après tous documents, observations et informations utiles à l’instructionde ce dossier.
A titre préliminaire, je tiens à vous préciser que l’établissement public du musée Rodin dont lamission statutaire première est de faire connaître l’œuvre de Rodin et de faire respecter le droit
moral qui y est attaché ne s'est pas encore doté de politique interne en matière d'ouverture etde partage des numérisations tridimensionnelles d’œuvres d’art ; œuvres dont il assure en tant

83

BACK TO TOP

que musée la présentation, la garde, la conservation et la mise en valeur, d'une part, et surlesquelles il détient, indépendamment de sa qualité d’établissement public agissant dans lecadre d'une mission de service public un droit, un droit moral en sa qualité d'ayant droit desoeuvres de Rodin, d'autre part. La demande de communication de Monsieur Cosmo WENMAN
est l'occasion pour les équipes du musée de s’emparer de ce sujet. Néanmoins, les effets pourl’établissement de la communication des numérisations tridimensionnelles de sculptures de ses
collections me préoccupent et je souhaiterais éviter que le musée Rodin crée un précédant en
cédant ses fichiers à des tiers sans avoir recueilli au préalable l’avis du ministère de la Culture.
Pour revenir sur les faits. Monsieur Cosmo WENMAN, prestataire américain de numérisation etde reproductions tridimensionnelles, a écrit au musée Rodin le 8 novembre 2018, parl'intermédiaire de son conseil Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O’COBHTHAIGH, dans le but d'obtenir lacommunication d'un certain nombre de documents de l’établissement (cf. annexe n°l ), au titre
desquels les numérisations tridimensionnelles des sculptures des collections du musée ;demande à laquelle mes équipes et moi-même avons répondu par la négative le 11 décembre
2018 (cf. annexe n°2). En réponse à ce refus. Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH
écrivait de nouveau au musée Rodin le 8 février dernier pour contester nos motivations et nous
informer de son intention de saisir la CADA.
En parallèle, je me permets de vous rappeler que le musée Rodin a lui-même saisi la CADA le24 décembre 2018 d'une demande de conseil concernant les numérisations tridimensionnelles
d’oeuvres d'art (cf. annexe n°3). Dans son conseil n°20190026 en réponse, daté du 07 février
2019 (cf. annexe n°4), la CADA a considéré que les numérisations tridimensionnelles, dont lemusée assure la conservation à des fins d'étude et d'exploitation commerciale, constituent desdocuments administratifs par principe communicables à toute personne qui en fait la demande.
Or, la teneur de cette recommandation m'inquiète, car sa mise en application - si elle devait seconfirmer - aurait des conséquences désastreuses non seulement pour le modèle économiquedu musée Rodin, mais également pour d’autres opérateurs du ministère de la Culture comme la
Réunion des Musées Nationaux - Grand Palais, en ce qu'elle consisterait tout simplement à
remettre gratuitement à de potentiels concurrents et faussaires notre outil de production. A titre
de comparaison, il ne serait en aucune façon admis ou même envisagé de solliciter une telle
dépossession de la part d’un opérateur privé, qui pourrait se prévaloir du secret des affaires ou
de juteuses licences pour ne pas porter atteinte à son modèle économique.
En effet, ces fichiers « 3D » constituent notamment un outil servant à la réalisation dereproductions de sculptures destinées à la vente. Leur diffusion en vue de leur exploitation pardes tiers présente plusieurs types de risques pour le musée : des risques liés à la contrefaçon,
à la fraude artistique, au parasitisme et à la concurrence déloyale, d’une part, et des risques degrande fragilisation de son modèle économique et ses ressources propres, d'autre part. Pour
rappel, le musée Rodin qui remplit les missions habituelles de tout musée de France est le seul
musée national à s'autofinancer intégralement pour son budget de fonctionnement. Pour ce
faire, il exerce en régie directe des missions commerciales et notamment la productiond'éditions originales de bronzes et de reproductions en résine, dont la vente permet lefinancement de ses missions dites « de service public ». La sectorisation fiscale del'établissement reflète d'ailleurs la nature de ses différentes activités (secteur non lucratif,
secteur lucratif, secteur mixte). J'ai donc écrit à Monsieur Philippe BARBAT, Directeur généraldes patrimoines, le 26 avril 2019, afin d’attirer son attention sur les effets de la communicationde ces documents et de solliciter ses conseils et son soutien (cf. annexe n°5).
Enfin, les numérisations tridimensionnelles d’œuvres d’art servent à documenter l'état actuel dupatrimoine culturel. A ce titre, elles constituent des ressources précieuses pour les spécialistes
qui assurent la conservation des œuvres d’art et les chercheurs qui les étudient, ainsi que pour84

BACK TO TOPl’élaboration de supports de diffusion auprès du grand public. Il est donc primordial pourl’établissement de pouvoir garantir l'intégrité de ces données, en sa qualité de musée, investi
de surcroît de la qualité d'ayant droit de Rodin.
La question spécifique des numérisations tridimensionnelles d’œuvres mise à part, le muséeRodin a pris le parti d'attendre que la CADA se prononce sur l’ensemble des demandes deMonsieur Cosmo WENMAN. D’après le conseil du musée dans ce dossier, Maître Raphaël
CRESPELLE, la communication d’un certain nombre de documents demandés par Monsieur
Cosmo WENMAN peut légitimement être refusée par le musée, en raison de l'imprécision desdemandes et/ou compte tenu du fait que les documents demandés n’existent pas. La liste desdocuments dont la communication nous est demandée est reprise ci-dessous avec nos
observations point par point :1) Les fichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (scan 3D) du « Penseur» de M. Auguste Rodin, y compris la version utilisée pour imprimer les copies duPenseur dont la promotion est assurée sur l'adresse suivante : https:boutiaue.museerodin.fr/en/sculDture-reDroductions/380-the-thinker- miniature.htlm. de même que
toute autre version de meilleure qualité ;Compte tenu du caractère non contraignant du conseil n°20190026 de la CADA
précité et des forts risques pour l’établissement de compromettre son modèleéconomique et en l’absence de position du ministère de la Culture sur le sujet,
le musée Rodin refuse à ce jour de faire droit à la demande de communication
des fichiers susvisés et n'exclut pas de s'en remettre au juge avant d’y procéder;2) La liste de l'ensemble des fichiers, actuellement en votre possession, contenant desversions numérisées tridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections dumusée Rodin ou d'autres collections (les jeux de scan 3D en votre possession), ainsi
que lesdits fichiers ;A ce jour, le musée Rodin ne possède pas de liste des fichiers en sa possession
contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles des sculptures de ses
collections et pour les motifs évoqués plus haut (point 1), le musée Rodin refusede faire droit à la demande de communication des fichiers susvisés ; parailleurs, le musée Rodin déclare ne pas avoir en sa possession de fichiers
contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles de sculptures d'autres
collections ;3) L'ensemble des courriels, échangés, envoyés ou reçus par le musée Rodin, un de ses
employés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante, ayant pour objet, traitant ou
mentionnant les précédentes demandes de M. Wenman ;A supposer que les courriels susmentionnés constituent des documents
administratifs communicables et que la présente demande soit pourvue de la
précision nécessaire, le musée Rodin est enclin à y répondre favorablement ;85

BACK TO TOP

4) L'ensemble des notes internes, analyses, rapports, études, lignes directrices, directives,échanges de courriels ou tout autre document relatif à la politique du musée Rodin àl'égard des fichiers contenant des versions numérisées tridimensionnelles d'une
sculpture composant les collections du musée Rodin ou d'autres collections, enparticulier la politique du musée concernant l'accessibilité à ces données ;Comme évoqué plus haut, le musée Rodin ne s'est encore doté d’aucune politiqueen matière d’ouverture et de partage des numérisations tridimensionnellesd'œuvres d'art; la présente demande ne peut donc être satisfaite ;5) L'ensemble des accords, contrats, conventions, traités liant le musée Rodin et le Baltimore
Muséum of Art, en particulier, ceux ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant les fichiers
contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle {scan 3D) du « Penseur» de M. AugusteRodin, ou de tout autre sculpture ;Aucun accord, contrat, convention ou traité ne lie le musée Rodin et le Baltimore
Muséum of Art ; la présente demande ne peut donc être satisfaite ;6) Tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus de l'utilisation desfichiers contenant la version numérisée tridimensionnelle (Scan 3D) du « Penseur » de
M. Auguste Rodin à des fins de fabrication de répliques ;A ce jour, un tel document n'existe pas ;7) Tout document démontrant que le musée Rodin a obtenu des revenus de licences
octroyées à des tiers à propos de l’utilisation de n'importe lequel des fichiers contenantdes versions numérisées tridimensionnelles des sculptures composant les collections dumusée Rodin ou d'autres collections ;Le musée Rodin ne permet pas la réutilisation par des tiers des numérisations
tridimensionnelles de ses collections et ne détient pas de version numérisée
tridimensionnelle de sculptures d'autres collections, il n'a défini aucune licence,ni tiré aucun revenu, en lien avec l’exploitation des fichiers susvisés ;8) En particulier, pour la période s'étendant du 1er janvier 2014 à la réception de laprésente demande : l'ensemble des correspondances entre le musée Rodin et leBaltimore Muséum of Art, l’ensemble des courriels internes, des notes internes,
analyses, rapports, lignes directrices ou tout autre document relatif à l’impression en
trois dimensions et des correspondances, échangés, envoyés ou reçus entre le muséeRodin, un de ses employés ou un des membres de son équipe dirigeante, d'une part, etle ministère de la Culture, d'autre part, ayant pour objet, traitant ou mentionnant
l’impression tridimensionnelle, la numérisation tridimensionnelle ou le Baltimore Muséumof Art;Le musée Rodin n'a pas de correspondances ni aucun occord avec le Baltimore

86

BACK TO TOP

Muséum of Art: le musée Rodin n'a pas non plus établi de documentations
internes sur l'impression en trois dimensions, sa politique sur le sujet n'étant pas
définie ; le musée Rodin n'a pas eu d'échanges avec le ministère de la Culture au
sujet du Baltimore Muséum of Art: les seuls échanges que le musée Rodin ait eu
au sujet de l’impression tridimensionnelle impliquent non pas le ministère de laCulture, mais le Président du Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire etartistique, tel qu'évoqué au point 9 ; concernant la numérisation tridimensionnelle,
le musée Rodin n’a pas eu d’échanges doctrinaux avec le ministère de la Culture,seuls ont été recensés à ce jour la lettre susmentionnée envoyée par le musée à
M. Philippe BARBAT et des échanges de 2010 et 2011 concernant les plans
nationaux de numérisation du ministère, à supposer que ces documents doiventêtre communiqués, le musée Rodin est enclin à y donner suite favorablement ;9) En particulier, pour la période s'étendant du 1er janvier 2018 à la réception de laprésente demande, l'ensemble des correspondances échangées, envoyées ou reçues
entre le musée Rodin et M. Olivier Japiot, conseiller d’Etat membre du Conseil
supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique ;A supposer que les courriels susmentionnés constituent des documents
administratifs communicables et que la présente demande soit pourvue de la
précision nécessaire, le musée Rodin est enclin à y répondre favorablement.

Vous souhaitant bonne réception de ces éléments et restant à votre disposition
pour tout complément, je vous prie d'agréer. Madame la Secrétaire générale,
l'expression de mes meilleures salutations.

Catherine Chevillot
Conservateur général du Patrimoine
Directrice du musée Rodin

87

BACK TO TOP

From: Hélène Brunel <brunel@musee-rodin.fr>
Date:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:

mardi 21 mai 2019 18:05
CADA Cada
Catherine Chevillot; Xavier Teboul; Elisabeth Saillant; Pauline Géroux
LE (06-06-2019) Musée Rodin : Réponse à la demande d'informations dela CADA (référence : 20192300)
Réponse MR 21052019.pdf; Annexe 1.pdf; Annexe 2.pdf; Annexe 3.pdf;
Annexe 4.pdf; Annexe 5.pdf
HauteBonjour,
Please find enclosed the response of the Director of the Rodin Museum and its annexes (n°1 to5) to the CADA request for information received on May 06, 2019 following the referral of Maître
Alexis Fitzjean O'Cobhthaigh on behalf of Mr. Cosmo Wenman (reference: 20192300). Wishing
you good reception, we remain at your disposal for any further education in the context of theinvestigation of this file.
Cordialement,
Hélène BRUNEL
Chargée des affaires juridiques
Service des ressources humaines et des affaires juridiques
Musée Rodin
01.44.18.61.56

88

BACK TO TOP[Obtained July 8, 2019 via secondary FOIA request directly to CADA]

Paris, le

21 MAY 2019

Commission d’accès aux documents
administratifs
A l’attention de Madame Christelle GUICHARD
Secrétaire générale
cada@cada.pm.gouv.fr
LRAR 671
REF COURRIER
CCh/XT/ELS
Affaire suivie ar:
Hélène Brunel
Chargée des affaires juridiques
brunel@musee-rodin.fr
tél. 01 44 18 61 56
fax. 01 44 18 61 80

Objet : Rodin Museum's response to the CADA request for information received on May 06,
2019 following the referral of Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH on behalf of Mr. Cosmo
WENMAN (reference: 20192300)
Appendices :- Request for the communication of administrative documents addressed to the Rodin
Museum by Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBFITHAIGH on behalf of his client Mr Cosmo
Wenman (annex n ° 1)
- Musée Rodin's response to the aforementioned request (appendix 2)- Request for advice from the Rodin Museum to CADA concerning three-dimensional
digitizations of works of art (Appendix 3)- CADA's response to the above request (Annex 4)- Letter sent by the Rodin Museum to Mr. Philippe BARBAT, Director General of Heritage(Annex No. 5)

Madame la Secrétaire générale,
By letter dated May 2, 2019, received on May 6, you told me that the Commission for
Access to Administrative Documents had received a request for an opinion from Maître Alexis
FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH on behalf of his client Mr Cosmo WENMAN, following the refusal
by the Rodin Museum to his request for communication of administrative documents. I hereby
confirm that none of the requested documents has so far been communicated to Mr. Cosmo
WENMAN, the management of the Rodin Museum considering that this request can not besatisfied. In order for the CADA to give its opinion, please find below all documents,
observations and information useful for the preparation of this file.
As a preliminary, I would like to inform you that the public institution of the Rodin Museum,
whose first statutory mission is to publicize Rodin's work and to uphold the moral rights attached
to it, has not yet established internal policy on openness and sharing of three-dimensional
digitizations of works of art; works for which it insures as a museum the presentation, custody,
conservation and presentation, on the one hand, and over which it holds, irrespective of his

89

BACK TO TOP

status as a public institution acting within the framework of a mission of public service a right, amoral right in its capacity as the owner of Rodin's works, on the other hand. The request forcommunication from Mr Cosmo WENMAN is an opportunity for museum teams to seize this
topic. Nevertheless, the effects for the establishment of the communication of three-dimensionalscans of sculptures from its collections are of concern to me and I would like to avoid that theRodin Museum creates a precedent by relinquishing its files to third parties without having firstobtained the opinion of the Ministry of Culture.
To return to the facts. Mr. Cosmo WENMAN, an American provider of digitization services andthree-dimensional reproductions, wrote to the Musée Rodin on November 8, 2018, through hiscounsel Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH, in order to obtain the communication of anumber of documents of the establishment (see Annex No. 1), including the three-dimensionalscans of the sculptures of the museum's collections; request to which my teams and I answeredin the negative on December 11, 2018 (see appendix n ° 2). In response to this refusal, Maître
Alexis FITZJEAN O'COBHTHAIGH wrote again to the Musée Rodin on February 8 to challenge
our motives and inform us of his intention to seize the CADA.
At the same time, I would like to remind you that the Rodin Museum itself asked CADA on
December 24, 2018, for a request for advice concerning the three-dimensional scanning ofworks of art (see appendix n ° 3). In its answer no 20190026, dated February 7, 2019 (seeappendix n°4), the CADA considered that the three-dimensional digitizations, which themuseum preserves for the purposes of study and commercial exploitation, constituteadministrative documents which are in principle communicable to any person who requests
them. However, the content of this recommendation worries me, since its implementation - if itwere to be confirmed - would have disastrous consequences not only for the Rodin museum's
economic model, but also for other operators of the Ministry of Culture such as the Réunion desMusées Nationaux - Grand Palais, as it would simply provide free of charge to potential
competitors and forgers our production tool. By way of comparison, it would in no way be
admitted or even envisaged to solicit such deprivation on the part of a private operator, who
could avail himself of business secrecy or lucrative licenses in order not to undermine his
economic model.
In effect, these "3D" files are in particular a tool for producing reproductions of sculptures forsale. Their dissemination for exploitation by third parties presents several types of risks for themuseum: risks related to counterfeiting, artistic fraud, parasitism and unfair competition, on the
one hand, and risks of great fragility of its economic model and its own resources, on the otherhand. As a reminder, the Rodin museum, which fulfills the usual missions of any museum inFrance, is the only national museum that is fully self-financing for its operating budget. To dothis, it is in direct charge of commercial missions including the production of original copies ofbronzes and resin reproductions, the sale of which allows the funding of its missions called"public service". The tax sectorization of the establishment also reflects the nature of its various
activities (non-profit sector, lucrative sector, mixed sector). I therefore wrote to Mr. Philippe
BARBAT, Director General of Heritage, on April 26, 2019, in order to draw his attention to theeffects of the communication of these documents and to seek his advice and support (seeAnnex No. 5).
Finally, three-dimensional digitizations of works of art are used to document the current state ofcultural heritage. As such, they are invaluable resources for specialists who conserve works ofart and researchers who study them, as well as for the development of media for dissemination
to the general public. It is therefore essential for the institution to be able to guarantee theintegrity of these data, as a museum, invested in addition with the quality of the rights of Rodin.

90

BACK TO TOP

The specific issue of three-dimensional digitizations of works aside, the Rodin Museum has
decided to wait for the CADA to decide on all the requests of Mr Cosmo WENMAN. According
to the museum's counsel in this matter, Maître Raphaël CRESPELLE, the communication of acertain number of documents requested by Mr. Cosmo WENMAN may legitimately be refusedby the museum, because of the vagueness of the requests and/or taking into account that therequested documents do not exist. The list of documents for which we are requested isreproduced below with our observations point by point:

1) Files containing the three-dimensional digitized version (3D scan) of Mr. AugusteRodin's "Thinker", including the version used to print the Thinker copies promoted on
the following address: https:boutiaue.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculDture-reDroductions/380the-thinker- miniature.html as well as any other version of better quality;
Given the non-binding nature of the aforementioned CADA Board No. 20190026
and the strong risks for the institution to compromise its economic model and in
the absence of a position of the Ministry of Culture on the subject, the MuséeRodin refuses today to grant the request for communication of theaforementioned files and does not exclude to defer to the judge before
proceeding;2) The list of all the files currently in your possession, containing digitized threedimensional versions of the sculptures composing the collections of the Musée Rodinor other collections (the 3D scans in your possession), as well as the said files;
To date, the Rodin Museum does not have a list of the files in its possession
containing digitized three-dimensional versions of the sculptures in its
collections and for the reasons mentioned above (point 1), the Rodin Museum
refuses to grant the request for communication of the aforementioned files; In
addition, the Rodin Museum declares that it does not have in its possession
files containing digitized three-dimensional versions of sculptures from othercollections.;3) All e-mails exchanged, sent or received by the Rodin Museum, one of its employees ora member of its management team, for the purpose of processing or mentioning theprevious requests of Mr. Wenman;
Assuming that the aforementioned e-mails constitute communicableadministrative documents and that the present request is provided with thenecessary precision, the Rodin Museum is inclined to respond favorably;4) All internal notes, analyzes, reports, studies, guidelines, directives, email exchanges or
any other Rodin Museum policy document regarding files containing digitized threedimensional versions of a sculpture comprising the collections the Musée Rodin or othercollections, in particular the museum's policy regarding the accessibility of these data;
As mentioned above, the Rodin Museum still has no policy in terms of opening up

91

BACK TO TOP

and sharing three-dimensional digitizations of works of art; this application can
not be satisfied;5) All the agreements, contracts, conventions, treaties linking the Rodin Museum and theBaltimore Museum of Art, in particular, those whose purpose is to process or mention files
containing the three-dimensional digital version (3D scan) of the "Thinker" of M AugusteRodin, or any other sculpture;
No agreement, contract, convention or treaty binds the Rodin Museum and theBaltimore Museum of Art; this application can not be satisfied;6) Any document demonstrating that the Rodin Museum has obtained income from the useof files containing the three-dimensional digitized version (3D Scan) of the "Thinker" of
Mr. Auguste Rodin for the purpose of making replicas;
To date, such a document does not exist;

7) Any document demonstrating that the Rodin Museum has obtained royalties fromlicenses granted to third parties concerning the use of any of the files containing digitized
three-dimensional versions of the sculptures composing the Musée Rodin collections orother collections;
The Rodin Museum does not allow the reuse by third parties of three-dimensionalscans of its collections and does not hold a three-dimensional digitized version of
sculptures from other collections, it has defined no license, nor revenue, inconnection with the exploitation of the aforementioned files;

8) In particular, for the period from January 1, 2014 to the receipt of this application: allcorrespondence between the Rodin Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, allinternal emails, internal notes, analyzes, reports, guidelines or any other document
relating to three-dimensional printing and correspondence, exchanged, sent or received
between the Rodin Museum, one of its employees or a member of its management
team, on the one hand, and the Ministry of Culture, on the other hand, dealing with or
mentioning three-dimensional printing, three-dimensional digitization or the Baltimore
Museum of Art;The Rodin Museum has no correspondence or agreements with the Baltimore
Museum of Art: the Rodin Museum has also not established internal
documentations on printing in three dimensions, its policy on the subject not
being defined; the Rodin Museum did not have any exchanges with the Ministry of
Culture about the Baltimore Museum of Art: the only exchanges that the Rodinmuseum had about three-dimensional printing imply not the Ministry of Culture,
but the President of the Higher Council for Literary and Artistic Property, as
referred to in paragraph 9; concerning the three-dimensional digitization, the92

BACK TO TOP

Rodin museum did not have any doctrinal exchanges with the Ministry of Culture,
only the aforementioned letter sent by the museum to Mr. Philippe BARBAT and
the exchanges of 2010 and 2011 have been recorded so far concerning the
Department's national digitization plans, assuming that these documents must be
communicated, the Rodin Museum is inclined to follow up on them favorably;

9) In particular, for the period from 1 January 2018 to the receipt of this application, allcorrespondence exchanged, sent or received between the Rodin Museum and Olivier
Japiot, conseiller d’Etat member of the Superior Council of literary and artistic property;
Assuming

that

the

aforementioned

e-mails

constitutecommunicableadministrative documents and that the present request is provided with thenecessary precision, the Rodin Museum is inclined to respond favorably.
Wishing you good reception of these elements and remaining at your disposal for any
complement, I beg you to accept, Madame la Secrétaire générale, the expression of my best
regards

Catherine Chevillot
Conservateur général du Patrimoine
Directrice du musée Rodin

93

BACK TO TOPCADA public legal opinion affirming Wenman’s FOIA demand

94

BACK TO TOP

95

BACK TO TOP96

BACK TO TOP

Avis n° 20192300 du 06 juin 2019Maître Alexis FITZJEAN O COBHTHAIGH, on behalf of Mr. Cosmo WENMAN, seized the commission foraccess to administrative documents by registered mail at its secretariat on 8 February 2019, following therefusal by the director of the Rodin Museum to his request for disclosure of documents following:
1) the files containing the three-dimensional digital version (3D scan) of the "Thinker" of Mr. Auguste
RODIN, including the version used to print the Thinker copies whose promotion is insured on the following
address: https://boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculpture-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html, as wellas any other higher quality version;2) the list of all the files, currently in your possession, containing digitized versions three-dimensional
sculptures composing the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections (the games 3D scan in yourpossession), as well as said files;
3) all e-mails exchanged, sent or received by the Rodin Museum, one of its employees or a members of its
management team, whose purpose is to deal with or mention previous requests by Mr WENMAN;
4) all internal notes, analyzes, reports, studies, guidelines, guidelines, exchanges of e-mails or any otherdocument relating to the Rodin Museum's policy regarding files containing digitized three-dimensionalversions of a sculpture composing the collections of the Musée Rodin or other collections, in particular themuseum's policy regarding accessibility of these data;5) all agreements, contracts, conventions, treaties linking the Rodin Museum and the Baltimore Museum ofArt, in particular, those whose purpose is to process or mention the files containing the digitized version
three-dimensional (3D scan) of the "Thinker" of Monsieur Auguste RODIN, or any other sculpture;6) any document proving that the Rodin Museum has obtained income from the use of files containing thethree-dimensional digital version (3D scan) of Mr. Auguste RODIN's "Thinker" for the purpose of
manufacture of replicas;
7) any document proving that the Rodin Museum has obtained license revenues from third parties the useof any of the files containing three-dimensional digitized versions sculptures making up the collections of
the Musée Rodin or other collections;
8) for the period from 1 January 2014 to the receipt of this application: all correspondence between theRodin Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, all internal emails, internal notes, analyzes, reports,
guidelines or any other document related to printing in three dimension and correspondence, exchanged,
sent or received between the Musée Rodin, one of its employees or a member of its management team,on the one hand, and the Ministry of Culture, on the other hand, having for object, treating or mentioning
three-dimensional printing, three-dimensional scanning or the Baltimore Museum of Art;9) for the period from 1 January 2018 to the receipt of this application, all the correspondence exchanged,
sent or received between the Rodin Museum and Mr Olivier JAPIOT, State Councilor, member of theSuperior Council of Literary and Artistic Property.
Firstly, files containing the three-dimensional digitized version of works mentioned in points 1) and 2):
The Committee recalls firstly that under Article L300-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public andadministration: "Are considered as administrative documents, within the meaning of Titles I, III and IV of
the book, whatever their date, their place of preservation, their form and their support, the documents
products or received, as part of their public service mission, by the State, local authorities as well as byother persons of public law or persons of private law responsible for such mission."

97

BACK TO TOP

The Committee notes that, pursuant to Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993 concerning the MuséeRodin, the museum is a national public administrative institution under the supervision of the ministery
responsible for culture whose mission is to publicize Rodin's work and to uphold the moral right that is
attached. To this end: "1. It presents to the public the collections comprising the objects donated orbequeathed by Auguste Rodin and the works acquired later, will take care of it, preserve it and put it intovalue ; 2. It organizes exhibitions, colloquia and any educational and cultural activity likely to to contributeto the influence of Rodin's work and sculpture; 3. It is entitled to acquire any work or any document ofinterest for the knowledge of Rodin's work and sculpture; 4. It carries out or causes to be carried out any
work of arrangement or extension of the premises of the head office of the museum or of its annex; 5. Itshall make or have made under its control, original editions of bronzes drawn at from molds and plastermodels in the collections. These editions are limited to twelve, numbered 1/8 to 8/8 and I / IV to IV / IV,
including existing original editions; 6. It edits and commercializes reproductions of Rodin's works,
publications and audiovisual products."
The commission deduces that the digitizations of works of which the Rodin Museum ensures conservation,
purposes of both study and commercial exploitation, constitute administrative documents within themeaning of the aforementioned provisions, since they have been drawn up and are held in the frameworkof the public service entrusted to this establishment. They are therefore, in principle, comminicable to all
persons who makes the request, on the basis of Article L311-1 of the same code.
The Committee then states that in its decision of 8 November 2017 no. 375704, the Conseil d'État Article
L311-4 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration, which provides that:“administrative documents are communicated or published subject to the rights of literary and artistic
ownership," implies, before proceeding to the communication of administrative documents encumbered byrights of authorship and not already having been the subject of a disclosure within the meaning of Article
L121-2 of the property code intellectual property, to obtain the agreement of their author. However, theCommittee notes that the documents requested are not themselves copyrighted, and there is no doubt thatthe works of the sculptor Auguste Rodin whose three-dimensional reproductions are requested havealready been the subject of a disclosure within the meaning of the Intellectual Property Code.
In response to the request addressed to her, the director of the Rodin museum pointed out theinconvenience of communicating the requested files, both in terms of the institution's resources, and thepreservation of the integrity of the data collected against the risks of counterfeiting and artistic fraud. The
Committee takes note of this, but cannot but note that none of the provisions of Book III of the Code ofRelations between the Public and the Administration makes it possible to legally oppose a refusal toprovide an administrative document for such reasons.
The committee therefore gives a favorable opinion to the communication to Mr WENMAN, through hiscounsel, files containing the digitized three-dimensional version of works.
The Committee recalls that the Musée Rodin, in its capacity as rightsholder of the artist, is responsible for
upholding the moral rights of the sculptor and must ensure the respect of the work when reusing therequested documents.
Moreover, Article L323-1 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration provides thatthe reuse of public information may give rise to the establishment of a license and that such a license ismandatory when reuse is subject to payment of a fee. If the reuse of public information is, in principle, free
under Article L324-1 of the same code, Article L324-2 provides for the possibility of a fee when the re-use
relates to "information from operations digitization of fonds and collections of libraries, including university
libraries, museums and archives, and, where appropriate, related information when they are marketed
jointly. The total revenue from the amount of this royalty, measured over an appropriate accounting period,
does not exceed the total amount of the costs of collecting, producing, making available or disseminating,keeping their information and acquiring the rights of intellectual property. The methods for calculating thisfee are specified in article R324-4-3 of the same code. The Rodin museum will thus be able to establish
the submission of the reuse of three-dimensional scans to a license and match it with a tariff that complies
with these provisions.
Secondly, the list of all files containing digitized versions three-dimensional mentioned in point 2):
The director of the Rodin Museum, in response to the request addressed to her, told the committee thatshe did not have such a list. The Committee takes note of this, but notes that Book III of the Code of98

BACK TO TOP

Relations between the Public and the Administration guarantees everyone the right of access to existing
administrative documents as well as to administrative documents that may be obtained by automatedprocessing in common use. The committee therefore gives a favorable opinion to the communication of
the list requested, in the event that it could be obtained by such treatment.
Third, the documents relating to Mr WENMAN's applications mentioned in point 3):
The Committee considers that these documents, provided that they are no longer preparatory to a decision
which has not yet been taken, may be communicated to the person concerned pursuant to Article L311-6of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. It therefore gives a favorable opinion
to their communication, if necessary after concealment of the information whose communication would be
likely to infringe the protection of the privacy of a third party.
Fourthly, the documents referred to in points 4), 5), 6) and 7):
In response to the request addressed to her, the Director of the Rodin Museum informed the Committeethat these documents do not exist, in the absence of a defined digitization policy, an agreement with theBaltimore Museum of Art, and reuse of scans by third parties. The commission can therefore only declarethat the request for opinion is not applicable on these points.
As regards lastly the documents referred to in points 8) and 9):
In response to the request addressed to her, the Director of the Rodin Museum informed the Committeethat the only exchanges with the Ministry of Culture on national digitization plans were in 2010-2011 andwith the Superior Council of Literary and Artistic Property which spoke on the subject of three-dimensionalscanning and printing. The Commission, which was unable to review these exchanges, considers thatthese documents constitute in principle administrative documents communicable to any person who
requests them, pursuant to Article L311-1 of the Code of Relations between the Public and theAdministration, provided that they are no longer preparatory in nature to a decision which has not yet beentaken and subject to the reservations provided for in Articles L311-5 and L311-6 of the same code.
The Committee therefore gives a favorable opinion to the communication of these documents, to thisextent alone. For the rest, it can only declare the request has no object.
For the President
and by delegation

Bastien BRILLET
General Reporter
First Administrative Court Counselor

99

BACK TO TOPFOIA request to CADA for its correspondence with Musée Rodin

JULY 8, 2019
Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh requests and receives from CADA copies of CADA’s own correspondence with
Musée Rodin, which are themselves public records. This request was made through a form on CADA’s
website, which is why there is no letter recorded here.
This novel FOIA-within-a-FOIA maneuver is how Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh and Wenman obtained threedocuments shown on the preceding pages; Musée Rodin’s initial, private request to CADA for guidance;
CADA’s private response telling the museum its reasoning was in error; and the museum’s dramatic letterto the Ministry of Culture’s Director General of Patrimony warning about this case, and announcing its
intent to ignore the CADA. That letter appears to be an effort by the museum to politicize the dispute andimpress the CADA.
These documents were surely not intended for Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh and Wenman’s eyes, and reveal themuseum’s bad faith and the incoherence and disarray of its position and pre-litigation strategy.

100

BACK TO TOP

Final FOIA demand to Musée Rodin

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***
Musée Rodin77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris
A Paris, le 15 novembre 2019
Par LRAR n° 2C 135 548 7161 3

Objet : demande de communication de documents administratifs
A l’attention de Mme Catherine Chevillot, Directrice du musée Rodin, conservateur
général du patrimoine

Madame la Directrice,
Je reviens vers vous à la suite de l’avis rendu par la Commission d’accès aux documents
administratifs (CADA). Comme vous le savez, cet avis – dont je vous joins une copie –est positif : la CADA a jugé que les documents administratifs dont je vous ai demandésla communication dans mes précédents courriers, dans l’intérêt de M. Cosmo Wenman,
sont bien communicables.
A ce jour, sauf erreur de ma part, je n’ai toujours reçu aucun de ces documents.
Je vous remercie de bien vouloir me faire parvenir les documents sollicités dans lesmeilleurs délais, de préférence sous forme numérisée. A défaut de réponse positive devotre part sous huitaine, je me verrai malheureusement contraint de saisir le tribunal
administratif de Paris afin de faire respecter les droits de mon client.
Avec l’espoir que nous puissions trouver une issue précontentieuse favorable à ce litige
et restant naturellement à votre disposition et à celle de vos conseils habituels pourévoquer ce dossier, je vous prie de croire, Madame la Directrice, en ma parfaiteconsidération.
Pièce jointe : avis positif de la CADA

Fait à Paris, le 15 novembre 2019
Alexis FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris101

BACK TO TOP

ALEXIS FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris | Attorney at the Paris Bar
Chargé d’enseignement à l’Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas***
Musée Rodin77, rue de Varenne
75007 Paris
A Paris, le 15 novembre 2019
Par LRAR n° 2C 135 548 7161 3

Subject : Request for communication of administrative documents
For the attention of Mme Catherine Chevillot, Directrice du musée Rodin, conservateur
général du patrimoine

Madam Director,

I return to you following the opinion issued by the Commission d’accès aux documents
administratifs (CADA). As you know, this notice – of which I attach a copy – is positive:
CADA has judged that the administrative documents for which I have requested thecommunication in my previous letters, in the interest of Mr. Cosmo Wenman, are wellcommunicable.
To this day, unless I am mistaken, I have still not received any of these documents.
I will thank you for sending me the requested documents as soon as possible, preferably indigital form. In the absence of a positive response from your share within a week, I will
unfortunately be forced to go to court at the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in order to enforce
the rights of my client.
With the hope that we can find a favorable pre-litigation outcome to this dispute and naturally
remaining at your disposal and that of your usual advice to discuss this matter, please believe,
Madam Director, in my perfect consideration.
Attachment : positive opinion from the CADA

Fait à Paris, le 15 novembre 2019
Alexis FITZJEAN Ó COBHTHAIGH
Avocat au Barreau de Paris102

BACK TO TOP

LITIGATION
Lawsuit filed in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris

December 9, 2019
The museum having failed to respond, Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh files suit on
Wenman’s behalf in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris.
Wenman and Fitzjean Ó Cobhthaigh have both the CADA advisory to MuséeRodin and the public CADA opinion, each affirming Wenman’s documents
request with specific refutations of the museum’s objections. Fitzjean Ó
Cobhthaigh’s court filing in part reiterates the CADA’s own analysis. It asks thecourt to annul the museum’s refusal to produce its documents, compel themuseum to deliver those documents to Wenman, to charge the museum for
Wenman’s legal expensese, and to assess a financial penalty for any
subsequent delay.
It will be up to the museum to explain to the court how CADA—the government’s
own lawyers—misunderstand the law.
Wenman’s complete Court filing is available at:https://cosmowenman.com/bmamuseerodinthinker3dscan/103

BACK TO TOP

The Court directs Musée Rodin to present a defense

February 8, 2021
More than a year having passed with the museum failing to respond to
Wenman’s lawsuit, the Administrative Tribunal of Paris directs Musée Rodin topresent a defense.
This communication from the court to the museum was not made publicly, but it
is recorded in the court’s records as having occurred on this day.

104

BACK TO TOP

Musée Rodin files its Mémoire en défense with the Court

March 5, 2021
Musée Rodin files its Mémoire en défense with the Court.
The museum makes several significant concessions, including declaring to the
Court its intention to make its scans available online. The museum explicitly
acknowledges that its concessions are in response to Wenman’s suit and to the
CADA opinion initiated by him.
The museum produces some of its correspondence with representatives of the
Ministry of Culture, including the Ministry’s response to the Museum’s April 26,
2019 letter of alarm; the Ministry tells the museum that Wenman’s suit raises
important questions and will be a good opportunity for the Court to clarify thelaw.
In an obvious attempt to avoid having the Court decide the questions of law, witheach of its concessions the museum explains to the Court that Wenman’s
demands are thereby rendered moot, and that the Court no longer needs to ruleon them. The museum refuses to produce any list of its scans, and claims
several of its scans are incomplete and therefore not subject to disclosure. In an
indirect way, it implies to the Court that it has no 3D scan of The Thinker.
In its statement of facts and its exhibits, the museum attempts to impugn
Wenman’s motives by showing evidence of his sculpture and jewelry
adaptations of public domain works. It includes an interview he gave to NPR
about digitization, and Auguste Rodin’s century-old handwritten bequest of his
oeuvre to the French state. The museum also includes a court decision in thecriminal prosecution of an alleged multi-million dollar forgery operation that has
nothing to do with Wenman or 3D scans.
Despite the museum’s explicit acknowledgement that its concessions are theresult of Wenman’s successful suit, it asks the Court to make him pay for themuseum’s legal expenses in the amount of € 9,000. Wenman views this as an
obvious, vindictive attempt t to intimidate him and anyone else who may crossthe museum, and to thwart both the public’s use of public domain works, and its
rights under French freedom of information laws.
Musée Rodin’s complete Mémoire en défense is available at:https://cosmowenman.com/bmamuseerodinthinker3dscan/

105

BACK TO TOPRESOURCES
Project Home & Contacts

PROJECT HOME

cosmowenman.com/BMAMuseeRodinThinker3DScan/(Check this page for the latest version of this document)

CONTACTS
Cosmo Wenman
Wenman’s open access projects
Wenman’s professional services

cosmo.wenman@gmail.com
cosmowenman.com
conceptrealizations.com

Alexis Fitzjean Ó CobhthaighAttorney at the Paris Bar

afoc@afocavocat.eu

Catherine Chevillot
Director, Musée Rodinchevillot@musee-rodin.fr
musee-rodin.fr

Christopher Bedford
Director, Baltimore Museum of Art

cbedford@artbma.org
artbma.org

Katy Rothkopf
Senior Curator,
European Painting & Sculpture, BMA

European@artbma.org

Phillipe Barbat
philippe.barbat@culture.gouv.fr
Directeur de l'Institut national du patrimoine(Directeur Général des Patrimoines, November 2018- February 2021)

Olivier Japiot
Conseiller d’Etat, Conseil d’Etat

olivier.japiot@conseil-etat.fr

106

BACK TO TOPFRENCH LAWS, CADA OPINIONS, AND COURT FILINGS

Law relating to the establishment of Musée Rodin as a national public administrative agency under thesupervision of the Ministry of Culture:
Décret n°93-163 du 2 février 1993 relatif au musée Rodin:
legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000725762/
Decree n° 93-163 of February 2, 1993 relating to the Rodin museum (English)

Law on public access to administrative records:
Code des relations entre le public et l'administration, Livre III : L'accès aux documents administratifs
et la réutilisation des informations publiques (Articles L300-1 à L351-1)
legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000031366350/LEGISCTA000031367685/
Code of relations between the public and the administration, Book III: Access to administrative
documents and the reuse of public information (Articles L300-1 to L351-1) (English)

Law on reproductions of artwork and fraud (the irrelevant law Musée Rodin referred Wenman to in its initialrefusal to him):
Décret n°81-255 du 3 mars 1981 sur la répression des fraudes en matière de transactions d'oeuvres
d'art et d'objets de collection legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000684875/
Decree no. 81-255 of March 3, 1981 on the suppression of fraud in transactions in works of art andcollectibles, (English)

CADA’s February 7, 2019 advisory opinion to Musée Rodin:
https://cada.data.gouv.fr/20190026/ (English)

CADA’s June 6, 2019 public opinion affirming Wenman’s documents request:
https://cada.data.gouv.fr/20192300/ (English)

Wenman’s court filing in the Administrative Tribunal of Paris:
cosmowenman.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/cosmo-wenman-req-projet.pdf

107

BACK TO TOPBACKGROUND ON MUSÉE RODIN, BMA, AND THEIR 3D SCANS
Musée Rodin’s use of public funds from the Ministry of Culture to produce 3D scans of Sleep, The Kiss,
and The Gates of Hell: Musée Rodin Annual Report 2010, page 40:
musee-rodin.fr/sites/musee/files/resourceSpace/3390_235995248d176a6.pdf

Musée Rodin’s use of public funds from the Ministry of Culture to produce 3D scans of twenty plastercasts, including The Thinker: Musée Rodin Annual Report 2013, page 24:
musee-rodin.fr/sites/musee/files/editeur/PDF/musee-rodin-rapport-d-activite-2013.pdf

All Musée Rodin Annual Reports: musee-rodin.fr/fr/etablissement-public/rapports-dactivite

Musée Rodin’s statement on their moral rights, to which BMA referred Wenman:
Musée Rodin, Respecting Rodin's moral right; A warning to collectors about the notion of authenticity,
musee-rodin.fr/en/musee-rodin/respecting-moral-right

Musée Rodin’s gift shop Thinker replica, made via 3D scan and low-quality 3D print,
boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/sculpture-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html

BMA’s announcement about their Thinker scan and plans to make it freely available to the public:
Suse Cairns, 3D scanning Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker, Baltimore Museum of Art, July 7, 2017
blog.artbma.org/2014/07/3d-scanning-auguste-rodins-the-thinker

BMA’s gift shop Thinker replica, made via 3D scan and 3D print (deleted since Wenman’s inquiries),shop.artbma.org/browse.cfm/sculpture:-rodins-the-thinker-6-in.html

108

BACK TO TOPRELATED RESEARCH PAPERS, BOOKS, AND PRESENTATIONSSamuel Bonnaud-Le Roux, Les enjeux juridiques liés à la numérisation tridimensionnelle dupatrimoine, In Situ, 42 | 2020, http://journals.openedition.org/insitu/27773

Charles Cronin, Possession is 99% of the Law: 3D Printing, Public Domain Cultural Artifacts & Copyright(March 8, 2016). USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 16-13. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2731935 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2731935

Sonia K. Katyal, Technoheritage, 105 California Law Review, (August 2017) Volume 105, No. 4,
https://www.californialawreview.org/print/3-technoheritage/

Adam Lowe, Elizabeth Mitchell (editors), The Aura In The Age Of Digital Materiality Rethinking
Preservation In The Shadow Of An Uncertain Future, Factum Foundation, 2020

Yseult Marique, Emmanuel Slautsky, Freedom of Information in France - Law and Practice, September 7,
2017, EGPA 2017 CONFERENCE Milan, Italy, 28th August-1st September 2017https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3033917

Linnea Dale Pittman, Combatting Copyright Overreach: Keeping 3D Representations of Cultural Heritage
in the Public Domain, (October 2020) New York University Law Review, Volume 95, No. 4
nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NYULawReview-Volume-95-Issue-4-Pittman.pdf

Merete Sanderhoff, Exit Control. Enter Creative Chaos.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YPkZOKzkwb0
Keynote address at the European Library Automation Group’s 2016 conference

Andrea Wallace, Ellen Euler, Revisiting Access to Cultural Heritage in the Public Domain: EU andInternational Developments. IIC 51, 823–855 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00961-8

Cosmo Wenman, 3D Printing, 3D Capture, and Opportunities for Design Custodians, June 2, 2014
https://medium.com/@CosmoWenman/3d-printing-3d-capture-and-opportunities-for-design-custodians7985097d2ac4 See section on modern bronzes, with images of Picasso heads.

109

BACK TO TOP

RODIN FOIA-RELATED MEDIA COVERAGE TO DATE
Anna Sansom, Musée Rodin could be forced to release 3D scans of bronze sculptures—including The
Thinker—to the public, The Art Newspaper, March 5, 2021 theartnewspaper.com/news/rodin-3d“If the French court rules that the Musée Rodin cannot withhold its own 3D scans from the public, themuseum’s perceived authority to prevent other museums from publishing their own scans will be shown to
be lawless and imaginary.”

Glyn Moody, Imminent Win For The Public Domain: Court Likely To Compel Musée Rodin To Release Its
3D Scans Of Sculptor's Works For Free, Techdirt, Mar 18, 2021
techdirt.com/articles/20210317/04015746433/imminent-win-public-domain-court-likely-to-compel-muserodin-to-release-3d-scans-sculptors-works-free.shtml “The knock-on effects of one person's dogged
pursuit of a few computer files could have a major impact on the wider availability of 3D scans ofsculptures and ancient artifacts -- a real win for the public domain.”Musée Rodin In Paris May Be Ordered To Release 3D Scans Of Sculptures, ArtsJOURNAL, March 5,2021 artsjournal.com/2021/03/musee-rodin-in-paris-may-be-ordered-to-release-3d-scans-ofsculptures.html “The museum has 3D scans of its holdings but is extremely reluctant to release them tothe public, since the institution supports itself by selling its own reproductions of Rodin’s works. Those
works, however, are legally the property of the French state, and thus should be subject to freedom of
information laws.”

Marc Rees, Le scan 3D du Penseur de Rodin est un document administratif communicable, NextINpact,
June 24, 2019nextinpact.com/news/107996-le-scan-3d-penseur-rodin-est-document-administratif-communicable.htm(English translation here) “This is the first time that CADA has found that 3D data generated from a scan ofa three-dimensional work are administrative data communicable to citizens.”

Charles Cronin, Sculpture in the Age of the 3D Scan, The New Criterion, March, 2019,
cosmowenman.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/sculpture-in-the-age-of-the-3d-scan-by-charles-croninpublished-in-the-new-criterion-march-2019.pdf“[Wenman’s] inquiry resulted in a year-long game of hide the ball, documented in a series of dilatory andimpertinent responses to Wenman’s requests for information. Ultimately, and oddly, the BMA deflected therequest to the Musée Rodin in Paris, telling Wenman that it would provide him a copy of the Thinker scan
only if he first obtained the Musée’s permission to access it.”Laura Sydell, 3-D Printing A Masterwork For Your Living Room, All Tech Considerd, October 11, 2013,
npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/10/11/231450884/3-d-printing-a-masterwork-for-your-living-room
MP3: https://goo.gl/Q25VsF

Naomi Rea, An Artist Has Won a Three-Year Legal Battle to Force a German Museum to Publicly ReleaseIts 3-D Scan of a Bust of Nefertiti, Artnet News, November 17, 2019news.artnet.com/art-world/3d-scans-museums-nefertiti-1706181“[Wenman] plans to take the [Rodin] museum to court, and a victory could have wider consequences forthe 3-D scans of works in all the French national collections.”

110

BACK TO TOPWENMAN’S BUST OF NEFERTITI 3D SCAN FOIA PROJECT

Nefertiti 3D Scan Access Campaign: cosmowenman.com/nefertiti-3d-scan-foia-project/
Cosmo Wenman, A German Museum Tried To Hide This Stunning 3D Scan of an Iconic Egyptian Artifact.
Today You Can See It for the First Time, Reason, November 13, 2019

Select media coverage of Nefertiti project:
Slate: The Nefertiti Bust Meets the 21st Century
Creative Commons: Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain
Smithsonian Magazine: 3-D Scans of the Bust of Nefertiti Are Now Available Online
Artnet News: An Artist Has Won a Three-Year Legal Battle to Force a German Museum to
Publicly Release Its 3-D Scan of a Bust of Nefertiti
Techdirt: The Curious Case Of The Bogus CC License On A 3D Scan Of A 3000-Year-Old BustOf Nefertiti
Electronic Frontier Foundation: The Queen of all FOIA Denials; The Foilies 2020, Recognizing
the Year’s Worst in Government Transparency
Hyperallergic: Official 3D Scans of Nefertiti Bust Are Released After Three-Year Battle
Club Innovation & Culture France: Neues Museum de Berlin: les scans 3D du buste de Nefertiti
sont maintenant disponibles en ligne, après 3 années de bataille juridique
Islamic Republic News Agency: ‫شود می م ن ت شر م صر م ل که ت ندی س ب عدی سه ا س کن‬111

BACK TO TOPIMAGES

Miniature resin reproduction of The Thinker, manufactured and sold in Musée Rodin’s gift shop. Notedetails on following pages indicating use of 3D scan.
Photo © Musée Rodin, source: boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/124-le-penseurminiature
Image is archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20181018011603/https:/boutique.museerodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html

112

BACK TO TOP

Note the layer lines throughout, and defects in hands, which indicate low-quality 3D printing. Use of 3D
printer idicates use of a 3D scan.
Photo © Musée Rodin, source: boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/124-le-penseurminiature
Image is archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20181018011603/https:/boutique.museerodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html

113

BACK TO TOP

Note the layer lines throughout, and defects in hands, which indicate low-quality 3D printing. Use of 3D
printer idicates use of a 3D scan.
Photo © Musée Rodin, source: boutique.musee-rodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/124-le-penseurminiature
Image is archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20181018011603/https:/boutique.museerodin.fr/en/miniature-reproductions/380-the-thinker-miniature.html

114

BACK TO TOP

3D printed replica of Rodin’s The Walking Man, next to bronze original at the Norton Simon Museum,
Pasadena, California. Photo by Cosmo Wenman
For high-resolution images to accompany any articles, contact cosmo.wenman@gmail.com

115

BACK TO TOP

Illustration of a simulated 3D digitization of Rodin’s The Thinker. Illustration by Cosmo Wenman
For high-resolution images to accompany any articles, contact cosmo.wenman@gmail.com

116