Musée Rodin, Paris: The French Conseil d’État Defines the Legal Limits of Access to Digitised Cultural Works

In a landmark decision dated 23 December 2025 (CE, 23 Dec. 2025, No. 487950), published in the Recueil Lebon, the French Conseil d’État clarified the legal regime applicable to digital files resulting from the digitisation of artworks held in national museum collections.

Through a dispute relating to the three-dimensional digitisation of sculptures by Auguste Rodin, France’s highest administrative court provided an important clarification at the intersection of administrative transparency, cultural heritage law and digital technologies.

‍

1. A Request Based on the General Right of Access to Administrative Documents

Between 2010 and 2013, the Musée Rodin carried out an extensive campaign to digitise several works from its collections, for purposes of conservation, scientific analysis and cultural dissemination. This project resulted in the creation of several categories of digital files:

• so-called “renderings no. 1”, consisting of raw 3D capture data (point clouds);
• derivative files (“renderings no. 2 to 5”), processed, meshed and textured, allowing visualisation of the works.

A request for access to these files was submitted by an individual referred to in the decision as “Mr A… B…”. The judgment does not specify the status of the applicant nor the purpose for which the files were sought. In particular, nothing indicates that the request was made in the context of scientific research, a contractual relationship with the museum, or any institutional cooperation.

The Conseil d’État therefore examined the dispute exclusively under the general legal framework governing access to administrative documents, as laid down in the French Code des relations entre le public et l’administration (CRPA).

Under this framework:

• Article L. 300-1 CRPA establishes the principle of a right of access to administrative documents;
• Article L. 300-2 CRPA defines administrative documents as documents produced or received by public bodies in the course of their public service mission;
• Article L. 311-1 CRPA provides that such documents must in principle be communicated upon request, subject to statutory exceptions.

It was on this basis that the Musée Rodin had refused to disclose the requested files, giving rise to the litigation.

‍

2. The Interaction Between Administrative Transparency and Cultural Heritage Law

The Conseil d’État then proceeded to articulate the above principles with the specific legal regime governing national museum collections.

The Court recalled that the Musée Rodin is a public administrative establishment governed in particular by Decree No. 93-163 of 2 February 1993, and that it falls within the category of musées de France as defined by the French Code du patrimoine.

Under this framework:

• the works held in museum collections form part of the public movable domain of the State;
• they are inalienable pursuant to Article L. 451-5 of the Code du patrimoine;
• their conservation and enhancement constitute a specific public service mission.

Moreover, the Musée Rodin is entrusted with a particular responsibility to safeguard and promote Rodin’s work, including control over its reproduction and dissemination, as expressly provided for in Article 2 of the 1993 Decree.

This legal status, the Court held, necessarily affects the legal qualification of digital reproductions derived from such works.

‍

3. Digital Reproductions Are Not Administrative Documents Subject to Disclosure

The central contribution of the decision lies in the Court’s legal qualification of the digitised files.

The Conseil d’État held that:

“Works belonging to the collections of the Musée Rodin, as well as their reproductions, including in digital form, do not constitute administrative documents within the meaning of Article L. 300-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration.”

Accordingly, the digital files resulting from the 3D scanning process, including raw source data, cannot be regarded as administrative documents subject to mandatory disclosure.

The Court’s reasoning is grounded in substance rather than form:
the digital format of the files does not alter their intrinsic legal nature, which remains inseparably linked to the works themselves.

Importantly, the Conseil d’État expressly disregards the intended use of the requested files. The decision is based solely on the legal status of the works and their reproductions, irrespective of whether the applicant’s purpose was scientific, cultural or otherwise.

‍

4. A Structuring Decision for Cultural Digitisation Policies

The implications of this decision extend far beyond the Musée Rodin.

It provides essential legal certainty for museums and cultural institutions engaged in large-scale digitisation projects. The ruling confirms that the digitisation of cultural assets does not transform them into freely accessible administrative data.

Institutions therefore retain full control over the conditions under which digital reproductions may be accessed, used or licensed, including for research, educational or technological purposes — notably in contexts involving artificial intelligence, 3D modelling or data exploitation.

In doing so, the Conseil d’État draws a clear boundary between administrative transparency and the legal protection of cultural heritage.

‍

Conclusion

Through its decision of 23 December 2025, the Conseil d’État firmly establishes that the digitisation of a work of art does not alter its legal status. By excluding digital reproductions of museum collections from the scope of administrative documents subject to disclosure, the Court affirms a coherent and protective interpretation of cultural heritage law.

This ruling now stands as a key reference for museums, legal practitioners and digital stakeholders alike, both in France and internationally, at a time when the digital transformation of cultural heritage continues to raise complex legal and policy questions.