>>8671168You're right, I checked their Facebook and it's an issue of "publishing rights." When she gained access to the dress she had specific parameters, which included the specific # of people who would obtain a copy of the pattern she was making, so if she wanted to do more she would need to go back and get their further permission.
I can't imagine that the museum would allow her to sell the pattern for free. She also mentioned on Facebook that she is, for right now, going to publish a pattern diagram with sketches and notes on construction academically and not commercially.
>>8671118The museum is in the UK. UK + Europe have weirder copyright laws. For example, in France you must always include the artist's name and complete date, if known, with any public domain image directly taken from a museum's digitized collection. If you don't that is considered improper use.
Although as
>>8671168 said and Mode Historique clarified, it's about publishing rights not copyright.
