Perhaps look at the case from another perspective.
Ask if, since they used public money to create these, what public benefit was produced by it.
If you can have them admit, or can prove, no public benefit, it's misspent public funds.
If it's misspent public funds then its public reimbursement at the least for all the works they have scanned as a minimal response.
You could argue the case the directors are liable for incompetence, or possibly criminality for knowingly misappropriating the public funds or contempt of court for earlier cases.
When faced with this as a more serious charge, the museum may then choose to simply release the documents to settle the case. You may not even have to prove anything.
IANAL but have been involved in (other country) public council appeals.
The scans guide conservation work, concerving the statues is a public benefit.
Whilst I think on balance the scans should be public; it is more important that the FOI laws strike a perfect balance of enabling efficient administration whilst shinning enough light to reduce corruption.
I would not want museums to be reluctant to create scans and archives that compromise their short term funding models if they are useful for conservation.
The purpose of conservation in this case is for the public good, else it would be a private collection and hoarded.
To say they are useful for conservation is to say it's for the public, there is afaics no separation of concerns here unless you're arguing the museum should act a private collector in its conservation?
To counterpoint your next argument that the conservation using this material must be handled by specialists, yes it should, if they were casts of bones etc and are themselves genuinely rare and difficult to replicate.
Digital goods are only rare by virtue of the body holding them not making copies... By acting in a private capacity.
SillyUsername · · focus · HN ↗
Ask if, since they used public money to create these, what public benefit was produced by it.
If you can have them admit, or can prove, no public benefit, it's misspent public funds.
If it's misspent public funds then its public reimbursement at the least for all the works they have scanned as a minimal response.
You could argue the case the directors are liable for incompetence, or possibly criminality for knowingly misappropriating the public funds or contempt of court for earlier cases.
When faced with this as a more serious charge, the museum may then choose to simply release the documents to settle the case. You may not even have to prove anything.
IANAL but have been involved in (other country) public council appeals.
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗
Whilst I think on balance the scans should be public; it is more important that the FOI laws strike a perfect balance of enabling efficient administration whilst shinning enough light to reduce corruption.
I would not want museums to be reluctant to create scans and archives that compromise their short term funding models if they are useful for conservation.
SillyUsername · · focus · HN ↗
To say they are useful for conservation is to say it's for the public, there is afaics no separation of concerns here unless you're arguing the museum should act a private collector in its conservation?
To counterpoint your next argument that the conservation using this material must be handled by specialists, yes it should, if they were casts of bones etc and are themselves genuinely rare and difficult to replicate.
Digital goods are only rare by virtue of the body holding them not making copies... By acting in a private capacity.