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.
It is so strange to see people volunteer imaginary explanations for the Rodin Museum's behavior and motives. It is understandable, though, since the museum refuses to make any public comment on the case or its policies. In court, however, the Rodin Museum itself says it does not use its scans for conservation: in its many court filings it was adamant that it did not use its scans for any purpose whatsoever and that the scan documents were of such low quality as to be useless. They told the court they had to search for them in response to my request. Their scans do not guide any conservation work: they sit idle on DVDs in a locked filing cabinet.
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.
CosmoWenman · · focus · HN ↗
ZiiS · · focus · HN ↗
However storing them idle in a locked filing cabinet for a conservationist to reference in 100 years may well still be valuable.