Both this law usage and the reason of complaint from the museum are so stupid.
And I'm not usually supporting big company using public goods but in that case I think that it was legitimate
And I'm not usually supporting big company using public goods but in that case I think that it was legitimate
Do you mind if I ask why? I don't see why the size of the entity should matter one bit when it comes to the public domain and human history, nor why some other entity should, even in principle, get a permanent monopoly on artistic expression they played zero role in (or for that matter their polity played zero role in). The physical objects themselves of history are of course by definition limited and necessarily require custodianship and care. But the ideas and imagery they expressed centuries or millennia ago should have long since passed to all of humanity, all of us from the smallest to the largest. It being locked down retroactively is even worse. It's not as if a "big company" using the public domain in any way diminishes anyone else's ability to do so nor the original work.
The recent Momofuku chil{i,e} cr{unch,isp} situation is a great example of "large entities are dicks" though.
Not OP, but big companies tend to abuse public goods after they use them. Think of all the DMCA takedown notices that these companies made for people playing classical music.
Works have to be released into the public domain, or there will be nothing but licensed regurgitation of the same things.