Museum Sues to Stop Copies of 500-Year-Old Da Vinci

The domain is not a public as you might think in Italy.
www.lehtoslaw.com

[@GroovyVideo2]

500 year old copy write - sounds like Disney

[@keithe2150]

I liked your answer the best :-)

[@nonsequiturm]

I was coming here to say that this is what it's going to be like in America is Disney gets their way. You beat me to it.

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

*copyright But this isn't a copyright issue as the piece of art is in the public domain, the law being used is from a "Culture and Heritage" law.

[@superdivemaster]

Because the Italians are very territorial about their Historical Figures !!!

[@gordonshumway7239]

When I did my MBA, the Business Law Professor pointed out that the copyright period for creative works was extended every time the copyright on Micky Mouse was due to expire, and predicted it always would be. That was over 40 years ago. That always stuck with me. Copyright used to be 28 years, I think. Then, maybe the life of the author. But effectively, the copyright period is the life of Micky Mouse.

[@benjaminmatheny6683]

One thing that stands out to me about Italy's law. You have to be a public entity in Italy to use it. So, even though The Louvre owns the Mona Lisa, they could not sue an Italian company for a reproduction. So it isn't even a right given to the holder of a "cultural artifact". So it is extra bullshit that they want to enforce that law across borders in Germany and France.

[@davidfryer9218]

I'm thinking it's basically a tax.

[@rychei5393]

But isn't the Louvre a public entity in France? Are you saying that Italy is only applying this to Italian Public entities? I wouldn't be shocked.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

With EU, one should be careful about 'across the borders'. It may well be somewhere in EU agreements that allows that

[@anteshell]

@@dmitripogosian5084 EU does not govern relations between individual countries. They cannot do much to force countries either way on this kind of matters.

[@spvillano]

Public domain has been under attack for years. Laws can indeed cross borders, most frequently via international agreements and ratified treaties. It'd be interesting to see what the EU courts would find on this, as this is within their purview and the EU still is a bit cordial in policy toward public domain. Still, one wonders, George Washington made bricks that sold throughout the colonies. Those certainly are cultural artifacts, so by extension, all bricks should be. Perhaps Italy brickmakers are infringing upon US cultural artifacts...

[@tracker001]

Willing to bet Leonardo DeVency never signed Copyright over to the Museum !

[@pamelamassie1199]

Good point

[@Bobs-Wrigles5555]

I pity the state of education today...

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

*da Vinci

[@2cartalkers]

Who dat, DeVency?

[@ctom4932]

Does spell checker hate Da Vinci? Nah, it let me spell it.

[@kirkmorrison6131]

That is a stupid law, the image is so common and in the Public Domain, that it can't be protected

[@jamesodell3064]

It can if Italy passes a law protecting it.

[@kirkmorrison6131]

@@jamesodell3064 I didn't say they could not pass a law, I said it was stupid to do such an action

[@gunboatwillie8536]

just like colors yet you see companies claiming trademark to them all the time. Ridiculous

[@jaykoerner]

​@@jamesodell3064 it can for a Italian citizen or company in Italy or if the government is willing to basically throw hands with other countries to force extraterritorial control, I can't remember the exact saying, but something along the lines of "laws are only as good as those that enforce them", Basically with enough power and will to expend effort to enforce it any law is valid anywhere any government wants it to be, China could decide tomorrow that any country that does any foreign trade with hong Kong will be nuked, and if we believe they weren't crazy enough to do it, we would probably follow it lest bring about the end of the world(granted they would have something happen to them)

[@jaykoerner]

​@@gunboatwillie8536 I don't think they generally copyright, but instead trademark, I understand you can't put links comments but please explain where I can find a example of copyright for a color

[@MonkeyJedi99]

The possible backfire I see from this kind of protectionism of ancient art is that if the "owners" lock them up tight enough, people will stop caring and seeking out a view of that art and it will fade from public awareness, reducing the cultural and financial value of the art.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

Well, city of Venice make many steps trying to limit the influx of tourists, so it may well be welcomed :)

[@Elrog3]

Ancient art fading from public awareness is fine by me. Not sure why so many people care about it in the first place.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

@@Elrog3Just to remind ourselves that modern is such a crap :)

[@keithdf2001]

Most original art is is private homes. No one can seem my personal collection unless I let them in my house

[@ShaggyRogers1]

@@dmitripogosian5084 That's simply because of the ultra-romanticized view of the city like how Paris is as well. The reality is that the cultural appreciation of "art" and the like is disappearing fast, however. These days, if a young person isn't already a student of art history, they are completely clueless about pretty much everything related to "older" things. Ask a person under the age of 25 to name a single painting by Da Vinci that isn't the Mona Lisa, and 95/100 will give you a blank stare. Even the Mona Lisa doesn't owe its celebrity status to its actual work as a painting, but rather due to its history being "commandeered" and later stolen. Give it another 50 years and people will officially stop caring about anything that is actually inside the Louvre and not its status symbol objectivity.

[@autobotjazz1972]

The Italian legal system is notoriously insane and protectionist. I suspect this will end up in an EU court before long. I also cannot help but wonder if the company could just not market or sell the puzzle in Italy.

[@cgi2002]

It will end up before the EU courts who will unilaterally strike down Italty's ability to enforce this outside Italy. But before then you can nearly gurantee any Italian judges involved in the case will be caught doing something highly illegal, told to "stop it" by their colleagues, cash will change hands, and they'll continue as before. The Italian legal system is entirely based on the long standing law of "money talks".

[@clefsan]

From my limited understanding of complex legal situations, and as a german, I'd say one of our courts would have probably told the italians that public domain means public domain and that they are shit out of luck with their lawsuit. Or at least that any sales fees could only apply to sales done in Italy. However, you are right in that the details ultimately depend on what certain treaties between us and the italians have to say about it. In the end, if the german company decided to take this further, it would probably be a matter for the relevant EU court to sort out.

[@tonymouannes]

I would find it weird if germany allows italy to apply italian laws to a german company outside the italian borders. It's a sovereignty issue.

[@Sakkura1]

@@tonymouannes The sovereignty issue is moot, as EU member states have ceded sovereignty over certain cross-border legal matters to the EU. The EU then enables courts in one country to have cross-border jurisdiction in certain matters with a bunch of complicated rules about how that works. This judgement might be valid by those rules, but I think it's more likely it will be struck down if it's appealed.

[@3141micha]

@@Sakkura1 You missed the point. Your argument only applies to laws "created" by the EU. Italy cant enforce laws that are unique to them.

[@Sakkura1]

@@3141micha That's not true, the EU specifically has its doctrine of judicial cooperation in civil matters.

[@johnclements6614]

It will most likely end up in the ECJ (European Court of Justice, EU court that deals with these sort of things and nothing to do with ECHR)

[@jessicav2031]

These days, everyone has to own everything and take a cut. It is really sickening. Society cannot operate if every thought and idea is controlled by some entity which wants a fee.

[@Rosenzweigjcb]

​@@M167A1 Because even the founding fathers knew that IP isn't real property and had to instill meaningful limitations for it. Why do we have property rights in the first place? Because physical property is rivalrous (only one of us can drive my Corolla at a time). But IP can be shared infinitely.

[@LeoH3L1]

Sadly there are opportunistic C U Next Tuesdays everywhere.

[@randomnobody660]

​@@M167A1​Can I also assume that you are also of the opinion that any copyright created based on or inspired by any public domain work of any kind should therefore be invalid? After all those copyright owners created their ip by benefiting from something they didn't own and without paying? Like for example if you want to legally paint a picture, you have to make sure you paid licensing fees to the person who invented/owns that particular way of manufacturing the paint, and royalties to the person who first synthesized/named that particular color, and you do the same for your brush, canvas, etc. If you got your supplies from somebody who are benefiting from things they didn't pay for, surely your own painting is illegal and you don't own the copyrights to it?

[@LeoH3L1]

@@M167A1 You're confusing the copyright owner with the item owner. You may own the painting, but that does NOT mean you own the copyright, and last I checked it's kind of hard for someone that's 500 years old to benefit from anything.... from account of them being long dead.

[@MrElemonator]

Subscriptions will set you free 👹

[@jmpattillo]

The Italian legal system is nutty.

[@lookingup3752]

I can say < You have proof of what you are saying 👍

[@additudeobx]

No, It's Italian!!!

[@rokronroff]

@@lookingup3752 I do

[@ran196]

what do you expect from the same country that imprison scientist for not being able to predict when an earthquake will specifically strike

[@heathbruce9928]

Thanks for the heads up. I will strike visit Italy from my bucket list.

[@sealubrious7208]

I'm a surviving descendant of the vitruvain man with a long-standing lawsuit against the Da Vinci Trust, because my great, great, great, grand-cousin was never paid for his modeling. The suit also claims harassment, because Da Vinci made my relative stand naked with his legs together, and then asked him to spread them. Where's my justice?

[@sealubrious7208]

BTW, he never liked being called the vitruvian man. I heard stories passed down that people would yell at him in the streets, pointing their fingers, "Hey look! There goes the Vitruvian Man. I heard Da Vinci made you spread him and then took a painting." This would humiliate him, you might understand. His name was Jorge.

[@AshleeKnowsNot]

As an American, this sounds like a perfectly valid and sound lawsuit.

[@sealubrious7208]

@@AshleeKnowsNot Thank you. I was thinking about setting up a GoFundMe page, but I'm not sure for how much I should ask. How much do you think it cost to hire that very special lawyer, meaning a good one, who would take this case?

[@davepirtle9790]

Very American and valid lawsuit and I see those attorneys chasing an ambulance right now.

[@sealubrious7208]

@@davepirtle9790 Ha! Thank you, sir. You know, for a long time I didn't know what the term "ambulance chasers" meant; I thought they were government employees, like, "dog catchers". So until recently, I've had an overgenerous opinion of lawyers.

[@willstearns3603]

Dear Italian Museum...."Go pound sand!"

[@arribaficationwineho32]

Italy has lost its place world domination so must wield control in any way they can.

[@davepirtle9790]

Signed Leonardo davinci!

[@joelee2371]

Wonder how one would say that in Italian. Anyone?

[@stijnvandamme76]

@@joelee2371 "Va’ in malora" (roughly : Go find your demise)

[@UpnorthHere]

@@davepirtle9790 "Signed Leonardo davinci!"? Or maybe the de Medici or other patrons of the time. In many countries (even today) the people who pay the independent artist to create the work automatically own some or all of the resulting copyright, absent written agreement to the contrary. It is the opposite in the US -- unless written otherwise, the independent artist automatically owns some or all of the copyright in their original works of creative authorship created for a client.

[@matthewmuellner]

500 yrs later why does the museum have any standing

[@ShaggyRogers1]

because the Italian government wants to profit off of Renaissance artists centuries after their death, purely because they know that people care about those artists themselves. The question is what makes the paintings any different than all of the historical cultural artifacts stolen by colonials that make up the museum halls. I'm pretty sure the Italian government doesn't care about giving the Egyptian wing the same protections...

[@mandolinic]

I wonder if this case could end up in the Court of Justice of the European Union, since both Germany and Italy are EU members, and IP law is supposed to be uniform across the entire EU?

[@spvillano]

@@KameraShy which is precisely why they have courts. In many cases, those older agreement and treaties were replaced by the EU accords.

[@johaquila]

My understanding is that the old Italian copyright law explicitly contradicts Article 14 of the 2019 EU copyright directive. An EU directive 'directs' the member states to change their laws so they follow certain principles, and it directs the courts of the member states to interpret their national laws in such a way that they don't contradict the directive. The court in Venice should have seen that the old copyright law it was using contradicts Article 14. As far as I know, the correct way to deal with this would have been for the Italian court to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for advice if they had any doubts. There is a process for this. As they neglected to do this, an appeal to the Court of Justice will likely lead to a decision that the Italian court was wrong. I am not sure if the court of Justice can directly force anyone to do anything, but if the Italian court system continues to ignore the problem, this will be a breach of Italy's obligations as an EU member. Therefore the problem will be fixed sooner or later. Due to the principle that EU members trust each other's legal systems without any checks (in the same way that they trust their own legal systems) this rogue Italian court has done real damage to the puzzle manufacturer with effect in the entire EU.

[@adriaandeleeuw8339]

One suspects that this will be appealed to the EU court system!

[@roberteltze4850]

Bingo. Everyone knows there are benefits to copyrights expiring but Italy is trying to be special. Imagine if Germany retaliated by enacting a law that prohibits the performance of music by German composers without permission.

[@edwardwright8127]

@@roberteltze4850 It’s not special. I’ve seen numerous museums and libraries in the US asserting that items in their collection cannot be reproduced without their permission.

[@johaquila]

It will be appealed if and only if the two parties cannot come to an agreement (which they may have done already, likely even before going to the Venice court) that benefits both of them: For a paying an undisclosed (tiny) fee to the painting's owning institution, Ravensburger might create so much fear, uncertainty and doubt around the use of such paintings that they have essentially a monopoly.

[@cesaravegah3787]

Hope so, Italian law courts are clownish corrupt, they need to be exposed and hopefully correct their act

[@pabloapostar7275]

I saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. I then went through the gift shop. Every single item in the gift shop with the Mona Lisa (books, mugs etc.) did not reproduce the Mona Lisa with the correct colors and shades. The reproductions had brighter colors and almost no shadows. The effect of the original painting was not reproduced.

[@josephteller9715]

Note that over time the appearance of the original has changed as it the oils are slowly decaying (as they do) becoming darker over time. Oil Fades in its own way, and also accumulates air pollutants.... this is also why it is so very hard to make fakes of older works, they have to age the materials (and match them) to pass inspection to fool an art expert.

[@ctom4932]

Those brighter colors are possibly truer to the original Mona Lisa before centuries of fading. There's been a lot of work with the Mona Lisa in digital remastering. Look it up, you'll probably like what you see.

[@awesomeferret]

And if you watch that documentary recently uploaded to Nova's YT channel, you learn that the painting you see isn't actually the correct painting, as it's been purposefully unrestored. There would be a lot more detail and the colors would be notably different if the paining was restored to its original state, so the public's idea of what the painting is is already notably distant from the artist's intent! Yeah, I was pretty surprised to learn how faded the Mona Lisa is too.

[@HHH-nv9xb]

Are you sure you are looking at the original?

[@SoloRenegade]

doesn't matter, anyone can make copies.

[@adoggz]

Chinese puzzle makers: “lol, lmao even.”

[@UmmmmmmmWhat]

Also, "Tank you fol no competition."

[@flazzorb]

American -cheese- _puzzle_ makers: "Lol, comma, lmao."

[@PeanutButter-19]

​@@flazzorb How do you stroke out words, like you did on cheese?

[@Bobs-Wrigles5555]

@@PeanutButter-19 DashwordDash

[@PeanutButter-19]

@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 -I'll-try-that-out- . Thanks Bob!

[@gshenaut]

When I was in Paris with my family in the summer of 2001, I was lucky enough to meet a Parisian woman who told us a way to enter the Louvre through an employee entrance before they opened the main gates. We all were *alone* with the Mona Lisa for as long as we wanted (not that long, actually). What a difference the lack of crowds made!

[@alantaylor3910]

The painting is probably reproduced in many old art books that are out of copyright.

[@josephteller9715]

True, especially since it is a B&W image originally.... museums themselves sold books with prints of it and other works as far back as the early 1900s that they sold of many famous works.

[@CrankyBeach]

Some years ago I posted one of my sunset photos on my (now-defunct) blog. Later, I saw my photo in somebody's video compilation of sunset photos. Needless to say, I had not given permission for its use.... Not long after that, I actually got an email from a college choir director, asking for permission to use my photo on their CD cover. Since they asked nicely, I granted permission and requested two things; one, a photo credit; and two, a copy of the CD when it came out. They complied with both requests.

[@davepirtle9790]

So is the question morally , if the person intends to use your photo to make money ? Or gain publicity ?

[@Hatbox948]

I paint, and trashed a painting once in my apartment complex dumpster. Later, I saw it hanging up on someone's patio.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

@@Hatbox948 That is called rescued previously unknown painting of a famous artist :)

[@CrankyBeach]

@@davepirtle9790 As far as I know, neither use had any monetary or publicity factors attached to it. But that's just this one situation. For all I know, someone could be selling my photos online and I just haven't caught them at it yet.

[@murrijuana2842]

You must be new to the internet, welcome.

[@iankester-haney3315]

The question is what happens of they go to higher courts. As part of the EU, they are signatories to Copyright rules that would make that law unconstitutional as it's superceded by the Berne Convention.

[@EvilGenius007]

Not in Italy/Germany, but in the US/UK Bridgeman v. Corel disagrees that a photo of a well known piece of art like the Mona Lisa is necessarily subject to copyright protection, given that reference photos (as one would use when making a puzzle) lack protectable expression.

[@mbgrafix]

Being a professional graphic designer, one copyright case in particular caught my attention years ago. Artist Richard Prince was sued by photographer Patrick Cariou for copyright infringement after Prince used several of Cariou's photographs in a series of collages and paintings without Cariou's permission. The case was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court ultimately ruled in Prince's favor, stating that his use of Cariou's photographs constituted fair use under U.S. copyright law. The court found that Prince's works were transformative, meaning that they added new meaning or expression to the original works, and that they did not compete with the market for Cariou's photographs.

[@rongarrett1366]

Getty Images demanded a fee from photographer Carol Highsmith for using a photo she had donated to the Smithsonian.

[@KatzenjammerKid61]

"BIll Gates Images" to be precise.

[@spacethoughts7819]

There may be a rule under the European Union where judgments of its members are enforceable between members.

[@primoroy]

High resolution copy is freely available on Wikipedia! Is the law enforceable outside Italian jurisdictions? 🤔

[@CHMichael]

EU

[@kitsunekaze93]

@@CHMichael not enforceable in EU, only italy

[@dmitripogosian5084]

Well, wikipedia is not making money out if it

[@valenrn8657]

@@dmitripogosian5084 Wikipedia asking for money donations.

[@dmitripogosian5084]

@@valenrn8657 So is my local Diabetes society

[@mephitismephitis6825]

How can Italy claim Leonardo's work as a "cultural artifact" when the nation of Italy did not exist during Leonardo's lifetime?

[@phonatic]

I am writing this from a perspective of German copyright law, there is the term called "level of creation": If you took a photo of the DaVinci with no other real creative implication, it was likely not going to be copyrightable due to the low level of creation. Even if you photoshopped it to, let's say, clean it up, that would not be sufficient creative input to constitute a new copyright. Without that principle, expired public domain works could be easily abused to be "renewed" through that backdoor. Interesting would be what EU copyright statutes would have to say here.

[@edwardwright8127]

It’s the same in the US, unless your photograph contains some element that is transformative and creative.

[@Mysdia]

Well, same in the US.. Your copyright only protects the original and creative parts of your photograph. If someone else can extract the Da Vinci image from your photo and remove any creative elements added by you, then there's no copyright

[@ethanchapman1776]

Going to chime in a third US perspective, even though it's not super relevant: Under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, a photograph exactly copying a 2D artwork does not have sufficient originality for copyright.

[@spvillano]

@@TheBooban original creative art vs a photographic reproduction, the original creative work is able to be copyrighted, the photographic reproduction isn't a creative work without some transformative process making it a creative work. Otherwise, Xerox would own damned near every written and printed word.

[@diamondjim7560]

@@spvillanoExcellent point

[@machintelligence]

Denver discovered the difference between ownership of a piece of art and the representation of the work. They wanted to use an image of the "Big Blue Bear" sculpture and had to pay the artist for the privilege in spite of owning the sculpture itself.

[@siewheilou399]

Got a link?

[@ShiningSakura]

That is common in the art world, you need the right to copies of the art separate from the work of art itself. Its due to artists wanting to sell their own prints separate from the original piece of art. You need to make sure you have both and the artist then cannot make prints or money from the prints as long as the owner of the rights to prints says NO.

[@toomignon]

Yes, a reproduction license in any manner is not included in the sale of artwork. Most people are extremely surprised by thia, but it makes sense if you think about it. Public domain for visual arts is a thing, but photographs of the artwork can be copy-written and museums wouldn’t allow photographs except for their own photographers.. Now cell phones and software can produce a decent photos for reproduction purposes.

[@sarowie]

@@toomignon yes and no. If the photographer is accurately reproducing the image, there is no creative input and thus copyright. Placing the lights to correctly reproduce a flat image is not art, it is a craft. Wikipedia is using the argument when debating with art galleries and museums. Now, if the museums wants to argue that they have copyright and thus imply that they reproduce incorrectly, that is very funny.

[@thedevilinthecircuit1414]

It's no different from buying software and installing it on one computer in your home. If you want to load it on a 2nd computer, you must pay a license fee for that additional installation.

[@nonionbeezness]

This sounds like the sort of case that ends up before the European Union court as EU law likely covers this sort of thing. EU law doesn’t like having one country deviating massively from the rest on things that affect consumers and commerce. Now the question is, does the Ravensburger Vitruvian Man 1000 piece puzzle get more valuable due to rarity?

[@alexandersimpson3638]

Maybe the so called enigmatic smile might be a rye smile after all! 😂

[@v2joecr]

One problem for the company in Germany is that Germany & Italy are in the European Union which makes the laws go really crazy like this. If you look up parmesan cheese Italy says it can only be made in one section of Italy or it is counterfeit. I was told that in the USA Italy was able to get it so in the USA if it is sold as Parmigiano Reggiano it can only come from that region of Italy, but they were supposedly not granted the rights to restrict parmesan cheese.

[@LaggyWizard]

Should be thanking the toy company, theyre bringing more interest to the painting and thus possibly more visits to the museum to see the real painting. (Of course none of the paintings in the museum are real anymore.)

[@thedevilinthecircuit1414]

I agree. It's similar to KZbin creators like Rick Beato who use pieces of iconic music works as instructional material to bring awareness of artists to music students, only to get hit with a copyright strike by the owner of the original work. They're biting the hand that feeds them.

[@spvillano]

Actually, it guarantees that I'll not view any DaVinci works in the future, just out of spite over such abuses of public domain, which has been under concerted, protracted attack globally.

[@mattmanyam]

​@@spvillano So... Your cancelling DaVinci over this? Your intellect is dizzying...

[@keithdf2001]

It is the museum's property. They get to decide. Most likely is was the museum's official photograph since you need a light box and proper lighting to get a decent picture.

[@harpintn]

@@keithdf2001 The Museum may own the painting but they don't own the IP rights to the painting.

[@davenotdoug8394]

An interesting parallel is the famous bust of Nefertiti, held in a Berlin Museum (which the Egyptians are asking to be repatriated back to its rightful home). Anyway, the 3D scan of the bust, done by the museum, has been released into the public domain, after a guy went through a court process to have it released under a German statute, possibly regarding public information or public domain (although I know these are entirely different, I can't be arsed to look it up). The museum wasn't keen, as anyone with a 3D printer can now almost exactly reproduce the bust. But heck, it wasn't Germany's to start with, and really it's the World's 3,500 year old art treasure, not the Berlin Museum who happened to (mis)appropriate it in the early 20th century.

[@Bobs-Wrigles5555]

Ben not quite high enough to see over the hood of the Red Viper, Steve's RHS

[@tekelupharsin4426]

Modernity has really blurred the lines between sovereignty, intellectual property, and copyright laws.

[@kennethstaszak9990]

Watch out Steve! Benjamin is looking to steal your Viper!

[@flowerpt]

Another example of "Intellectual Property rights" destroying real property rights. In a just world reality trumps abstraction.

[@cthullhufhtagn2924]

Simple solution to teach them the error of their ways, just have other nations add a caveat into their copyright laws that restrict Italy from using expired copyrights from around the world. If they don't want to share history, show them what greed gets.

[@kevindalby520]

When I was working at a historic house and took some pictures there. After I left there, the executive director wanted copies of them, now using them without a photo credit. I didn't think about adding a watermark to them. Plus they accused me of stealing my own laptop and those same pictures, after I left there.

[@Christopher.Bingham]

I can't cite the case from memory, but there is a SCOTUS case that came down on the public domain side of direct copy images. In other words, in the US and other signatories to the Berne Convention, (of which I'm pretty sure Italy signed) unless the image has transformative elements, no matter who owns the original artwork, copies of public domain images are public domain. Museums have been attacking the decision for years, and will bully people into paying when they don't have to pay, but the decision still stands.

[@UpnorthHere]

That "pubic domain" issue was raised in the defense of the original Ravensburger case that resulted in the 2019 injunction. "Più specificamente, le resistenti allegavano: i) che la commercializzazione del prodotto contestato avveniva sin dal 2009 attraverso canali di distribuzione fisici gestiti da terzi sul presupposto che l’opera fosse di “dominio pubblico” (e non già mediante un proprio sito di shopping online destinato al pubblico italiano);" considering and dismissing the argument "che la privativa sulle opere di “dominio pubblico” esercitata da Gallerie dell’Accademia risulterebbe contraria all’intento del legislatore comunitario espresso con la direttiva CE 790/2019..." Remains to be seen how that holds up in the October appeals to the E.U.

[@baileealligood7862]

Won't work in the US. It is safe to say that in principle, the copyright on works whose authors died more than one hundred years ago has lapsed. This means that ancient works (sculptures, paintings) such as Da Vinci’s, Géricault’s or Rembrandt's works are no longer protected by copyright - they are said to be part of the public domain. Accordingly, you are free to reproduce them.

[@UpnorthHere]

As mentioned in the article, Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code applies "regardless of their copyright status." There could be similar restrictions in the USA, in theory, as long as they are not preempted by federal or state copyright laws.

[@dennisberman4640]

Ben - By the red viper, top shelf, far left (your view). Easy one, I thought.

[@DJShihTzuman]

I've actually had to file a complaint on Facebook because someone took two pictures I took of my two now deceased fur babies as babies and claimed them as their own. One of which is hilarious and I can describe it in detail: Treasure (my late female maltese) is two months old, it was taken at Christmas time of 09 in the living room of my old apartment where I lived with my late grandmother, to her right is an oversized chair and she's up on her hind feet waving her front paws at my grandmother and just behind my late grandmother's legs you can just see the tushie and back legs of my male shih tzu. I can still remember the caption I put on it for a caption contest 'Put up yer dukes and lets fight it out like dogs! Oh wait! You're no dog! You're a Human! Let's fight anyways!' She lost in all categories but some dude posted the EXACT SAME PHOTO and won first place by photo shopping Treasure and changing her secondary coloring and adding boy parts to her. I IMMEDIATELY contacted the admins of the group saying 'Hey, you just had a photo thief win first place in your contest with MY dog's puppy picture! I have the original on my computer in a file folder! In your contest rules you explicitly state that contestants MUST prove they took the photo before they can submit the photo! Just because this douche is an assistant admin doesn't give him a pass to steal my dog's puppy photo! Either DQ him and take his prize away or I contact the head admin of this group and show them the altered picture and the real pic and see what happens.' Whelp the 'Assistant' Admin refused to revoke his prize so I contacted the group admin saying 'Hey you have a photo thief who just won your contest using MY dog's puppy picture that I submitted! I've tried the group admins but they stand by their decision to allow him to keep the prize. What's gonna happen here? Do I need to contact FB themselves?!' Nope not two hours later, the head Admin posted on the groups home page 'Due to an egregious error and outrageous false submission, top prize goes to Ernesta Golda Marie Shuman's owner who RIGHTFULLY submitted this original hilarious photo or Ernesta Golda Mare Shuman at two months old trying to fight her owner's grandmother!' Was he pissed? Yep, did he appeal? Yep did it make a difference in him getting his prize back? Nope, found out he was a serial photo thief and photo shopper and was banned from any and all future pet contests. More than happy to post that photo again, its cute, adorable and hilarious!

[@nhansen197]

I've run into this issue myself while doing a research project. To gain access to the original we must go into a contract with the museum. The museum then controls who can reproduce an artwork via the contract, and yes, even a ticket counts. It's a form of copyright similar to what the Japanese did with wood block prints prior to the ability to just photocopy things. Whoever held the wood blocks held the copyright. Only in this case it's whoever holds the original artwork effectively has the copyright even though the item in question is in the public domain. You kind of touched on the work around. If a person or company starts with a reproduction that has come into the public domain and past the statute of limitations for the contract with the museum, the museum would have no say over that work. Another method is for a company to have an in house artist create a brand new version.

[@rychei5393]

This sound like appropriation of rights by simple possession, with roots in warfare and colonialism.

[@aintquitewright1480]

When Lubbock, Texas wanted to name a street after Buddy Holly, his widow tried to get paid for the use of his name. Don't know if she succeeded.

[@201950201950]

Something that I found very interesting at the Getty about 20 years ago. I had a 35 mm camera and I was told not to take any up close photos of the paintings. I just did with the security people said and I didn't take any. About five or six years later I went back again and I was able to take photos of the paintings with my cell phone if I wanted. I thought that was interesting.

[@wafflefin]

It is true that UV light, including the light from some camera flashes, can cause damage to pigments. However, in practice any art or artifact with value will be behind glass or film that can block such harmful wavelengths. And in reality most flashes are well behaved and don't produce those wavelengths. Furthermore flashes on cell phones are LEDs that usually can't do those wavelengths.

[@ChuckvdL]

I think this change is mostly due to improvements in the light sensitivity of digital sensors which now allow taking such photos without the flash enabled. As Will points out there was concern over the effect of the flash bulbs and strobes on the paintings, but also the flashes are obnoxious and intrusive and annoying to other patrons of the museum. I wouldn’t be surprised if the limitations of no FLASH photos are still in place at most museums, just out of respect for other patrons if not to protect the art.

[@murrijuana2842]

Well as the cops are finding out, you can't stop everyone with a camera phone.

[@ShaggyRogers1]

@@ChuckvdL The "no pictures" is almost always referring to flash photography, with any blanket bans simply being because it became clear too many idiots would use flash anyway and having to tell people directly defeats the point of trying to prevent it entirely. These days, night/low light imaging has gotten to the point that the only time flash is even turned on with most cameras is when its pitch dark night. Even simple camera phones typically produce better images with their night mode than with the flash, so the camera app doesn't even do the flash. Since flash photography is pretty much a thing of the past outside professional shooting setups, there isn't the same danger to the art anymore. It used to actually be a problem when 3/10 people were trying to use their cheap flash cameras and there were thousands of visitors a day to boost the numbers up.....

[@ChuckvdL]

@@ShaggyRogers1 precisely my point.

[@AndrewHalliwell]

That image is everywhere. It was even the opening sequence for World in Action, a tv programme in the UK.

[@maxmillian3527]

Restorations? I recall that a while back a (Japanese ?) company paid for restoring the Sistine Chapel. As a result, they secured a limited exclusive right to sell merchandise based on it. It would be interesting to know if "restored" art works has some limited protection. Maybe not in the US, but perhaps in other countries.

[@ceoatcrystalsoft4942]

In the US, it would be full protection

[@johaquila]

In Germany it depends on level of creativity. The intent behind almost all restorations is purely technical: restoring them to as close as possible to the original state. This is very hard to do, but is not considered to be the kind of creativity for which there is a copyright. I think it works more or less the same way in most countries. However, when 81-year-old Cecilia Giménez famously tried to restore the c.1930 Jesus painting "Ecce homo" in her local church in Borja, Spain, the result was actually a completely different (catastrophically bad) work, in which she no doubt owns the copyright.

[@Goatcha_M]

The Italian Courts are probably enforceable in Germany and FRance because they are all part of the EU. But that doesn't change the fact that enforcing copywrite on a 500 year old Public Domain work is insane. And appealing has to happen given they want $1600 a day going back several years, its just absurd.

[@UpnorthHere]

It's not copyright. It's Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, typically used to restrict export of antiquities. Not clear how far the "extraterrestrial" application (outside of Italy) can extend (for reproductions), but this has been litigated since the injunction in 2019 after Ravensburger refused to pay the 10 percent "concession fees " for use of the image in producing a physical object.The current fine of €1,500 ($1,626) only applied for each day that the puzzle was manufactured since November 17, 2022 to the day they ceased.

[@lancecluster]

This is an issue for a lot of public domain movies - the movie may be in the public domain, but often the soundtrack (especially for old silent movies) is not in the public domain.

[@afriedrich1452]

I bet someone will figure out how to copyright "silence."

[@KatzenjammerKid61]

Why? Unless it's a movie made before 1924 and then scored in 1925 I don't see how that is true.

[@maxsdad538]

That's because "silent movies" didn't HAVE sound tracks. They were added later, decades later in many cases.

[@josephteller9715]

@@maxsdad538 Actually some do have soundtracks, that is there is sheet music for a piano player or an organist to play while it plays, and others have records that were supposed to be played in synch (a best they could) to set the mood of the displayed scene.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

That is strange how a movie can be public domain but an ancient music track used in it is not?

[@seth7745]

Enforcing laws in America not passed by elected officials in America would be unconstitutional.

[@daviddrrouin5797]

I went to the carousel museum in Bristol Connecticut. Three-quarters through the tour, the guide told me, you cannot take photographs. I explained these are my own personal photos and not for reproduction. I snapped a photo of her and thanked her. I continue taking pictures. I paid for the tour and now have lasting memories because of these photos. I understand the reason for the request. These photos are my own personal property now.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

I always thought they said no photography due to flashes. We can now take pics without a flash. So, it had nothing to do with flash photography.

[@UpnorthHere]

In theory, the museum can have and enforce any photography policy it wants, including charging fees or disallowing them for any reason. Just because you're standing there doesn't mean you're allowed to take picture without permission.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

@@UpnorthHere surprising as they don’t own rights in perpetuity and good luck trying to enforce that now. No one needs flash so good luck with enforcement

[@UpnorthHere]

@@arribaficationwineho32 I was referring to their right to prevent you from making them. Once you got away with it, the physical photos are clearly yours. What it means to any possible claim of primary right would depend upon who was the legal owner of the copyright (if any) of things you photographed and whether they have any reason to take action (the vast majority don't).

[@ashleyhathaway8548]

Didn't the modern country of Italy not exist until the late 19th century? How exactly is that museum able to claim rights to it?

[@ardentdrops]

The mere act of duplicating an image doesn't contain enough creative input to qualify as a copyrightable event. You probably don't own the rights to a picture you took of another picture, unless you do something else to it. No sweat of the brow applies. The puzzle maker is probably in the clear even if they used someone else's photo of the painting

[@ardentdrops]

Okay reading this back to myself it came on stronger than I wanted it to. I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something and was wrong somehow. Also Italy clearly has different laws than us, so...

[@Temo990]

Don't know how it is in Italy (or the US), but in Germany photos have special protection. The person who took it has copyright regardless of the creativity of the picture, just for taking the picture. You obviously can't use the photo of a picture that has still copyright protection. Anything else would be awkward if someone could just publish or sell your photos from your last vacation, just because you are not creative enough as an amateur photographer.

[@MrHealingartist]

What you were describing about how the law perceives the ownership of an image and the use of its likeness reminded me of how classical music can work that way too. You can copyright the recording of your own performance and license the use of that recording as you decide. You can't just commercially use a copyrighted recording of a performance of a piece without permission from its owner. Likewise, these orchestras and performers can't sue each other for performing the same exact piece. They don't get to own the intellectual property that is the composition of notes and rhythms, but they can own the recording of their performance and dictate the terms of licensing the use of that owned, recorded instance of the piece.

[@socket_error1000]

I am pretty sure there are multiple versions of the Vitruvian Man sketch including one in his famed Da Vinci Codex that was purchased by Bill Gates back in the early 90s and he still owns that. He actually used it and other famous images from that codex in Windows 95 as one of the screen saver options included in the operating system.

[@Nickle314]

There's a homer simpson version

[@rickwise9910]

So some little country, like Monaco, should pass a law that any use of a public domain image anywhere means they get 10% of all profits.

[@nolongeramused8135]

Europe is so messed up.

[@beauthestdane]

It's even more complicated for them as both countries are part of the EU, so there may well be additional laws regarding interactions between the countries.

[@alpheusmadsen8485]

I already have a strong dislike for copyright law in general, but I can't help but think that the notion that you can have a copyright claim on an image you took of something that's already in the public domain to be *particularly* farcical! (In this case, Da Vinci's work, but I have also seen copyright claimed for images of government records -- which *are* *not* copyrightable -- and they were old ones at that.)

[@dmitripogosian5084]

One can say that the museum incurs significant expenses host and preserving the artwork, so it make sense for it to want a cut when somebody makes money out it. It is a modern tendency to push public entities to operate as businesses, so that's the outcome

[@UpnorthHere]

"copyright claimed for images of government records -- which are not copyrightable"? Not universally true. US copyright law only withholds copyright from "works of the US government." Different states may have different policies. For instance, FOIA laws (FOIL) do not generally abrogate copyright in documents created by local governments in NY.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@dmitripogosian5084 > *One can say that the museum incurs significant expenses host and preserving the artwork* IMO, the only reasonable answer to that should be "So find people to help with coming up w/ ideas, don't abuse copyright (and so blatantly, too)."

[@dmitripogosian5084]

@@DanknDerpyGamer Well, they found people, and people came up with that idea

[@AlanTheBeast100]

Bach's music: public domain. Recording of performance by London Philharmonic.

[@jiaan100]

all numbers are clearly and obviously in the public domain, therefore any digital works, digitally representable works, and digitally representable ideas are all in the public domain.

[@jiaan100]

notably this does not mean all numbers should be legal

[@maxsdad538]

Numbers aren't, numerals are.

[@UpnorthHere]

You're joking, right? Try adding a smiley or a "/s" next time. Some people might not otherwise get it.

[@vegan-cannibal714]

I posted a link to a puzzle found on Amazon (USA), but it's refusing to post. The point I wanted to make was simply good luck trying to stop people from using that drawing

[@kazi1]

Damn

[@jeremyashford2115]

Well explained. Also, the image has been substantially altered because it is a printed jigsaw not a drawing. It has been substantially altered, inasmuch as its substance is different.

[@ceoatcrystalsoft4942]

When the only thing you have to contribute to the world is hundreds of years old, you are no irrelevant and worthless. The courts in Italy protect relics from a bygone Era because they have nothing to offer

[@Iz0pen]

Attorney Steve Kinsella breaks down intellectual property better than anybody Iv heard. Great video

[@rongarrett1366]

Tweety Bird sued Twitter for "Teft of intewectuwal pwopewty". He also sought damages for "pain and tuffewing."

[@Napa39]

It's not a puzzle of the vetruvian man, it's a puzzle of a picture of the vetruvian man.

[@LadyLexyStarwatcher]

When a website disables the right click I often feel a challenge to dig through the code inspector and find the image link. If it shows up on screen there is a way to save it.

[@Mysdia]

Websites that do that are so annoying "right-click protection" or "disable text selection" nonsense is not effective protection, either.. takes about 10 seconds to get around that with the right steps. Or 5 seconds if users have one of the browser extensions such as the "Allow right click" extension, and a bookmarklet to turn text selection back on.

[@frozencanary4522]

I Googled Vitruvian Man. There's a ton of things for sale based on the art piece. All this museum could go after is a German jigsaw puzzle company?

[@UpnorthHere]

Yes, a "German jigsaw puzzle company" with an office in Metropolitan Milan, Italy (Asago).

[@Thoringer]

Yea... wonder how long that will stand. I doubt Italy will prevail through the courts on this.

[@richardmattingly7000]

Fun Fact.. Years ago GM won a lawsuit against their using Albert Einstein in an ad but a Court in California found the icon was in the Public Domain. Though he did leave the bulk of his work to a University the claim that his image no matter where it came from was theirs didn't fly in its ruling. No doubt the Museum needs the money for "expenses" meaning the lifestyle of those in charge more than sweeping the floors and keeping the lights on..💸💸

[@JxH]

I believe that the book, 'Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent', describes how citizens and residents of the USA are actually under legal peril if they break certain laws of foreign jurisdictions, even if those laws are written in a non-English language. Something to do with treaties where the jurisdiction of certain types of laws are universal, no matter the 'details'. Similar thing applies the other way. If the USA takes offense to something that a citizen of another country has done, then they may be extradited to the USA. Once extradited, it's almost certainly a slam-dunk 100% rate of conviction, essentially: no matter what. No worse than Plea Bargains: 'Yes you're innocent, but do you want likely 4,000 years in prison or 4 years? Your call.'

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

As an artist I want copyright laws to just end, it never benefitted me, they just gave my well earned reward to Madonna of all people.

[@UpnorthHere]

You would simply need to amend the US Constitution to start the process to have "copyright" end, and same for patents, while we're at it.

[@MiGujack3]

Then how do you expect to get paid and be protected if someone steals your work? Your community? What if it's nonexistent? Don't get me wrong, current copyright is very abused and unreasonable but completely abolishing it is not the solution. The same goes for the patents guy.

[@necoom]

Please note that that last line of "try missing a few payments" right at the end of the video is definitely not legal advice.

[@ancienttech4603]

I am not a lawyer, but in the USA, taking a picture of a painting would NOT be considered a copyrighted work. See the U.S. District Court ruling of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Basically, if you photograph a painting or scan a sculpture, you are not adding anything creative and can not claim a copyright. Taking a picture of a sculpture is another matter, as you are choosing the angle, lighting, etc. Lots of sites claim otherwise, but they really have no legal standing that I am aware of.

[@davidbenner2289]

Italian law is not based on British Common Law. I bet if we printed pictures of the Da Vinci and made it into a puzzle here in America, Italy would not win.

[@robertbailey5239]

There is a significant issue with this case involving the European Common Market. The courts in Italy and Germany have no jurisdiction over this case. The museum needs to press its claim through the European Union court system.

[@Smedleydog1]

I wonder if that Italian museum is going to sue Amazon also. There are at least 7 pages of posters and canvas prints of the Vitruvian Man alone and other paintings like the Mona Lisa, The American Dream, Starry Night by artists like Monet, De Vinci, Van Goh, Dali and others. Some are even hand painted reproductions.

[@ologhai8559]

and i wonder if Brazil will sue Amazon company for using their river's name 😂

[@volundrfrey896]

I love Italy, it's a country everyone should visit, but every time I see something about the legal or governmental process there I get reminded that the spirit of Mussolini is still alive in their public affairs.

[@mrbob4u495]

As a member of the EU, the Italian court may have limited jurisdiction in Germany.

[@LeoH3L1]

They don''t own the copyright, no one does for something like that.

[@edale2]

0:18 ...My uncle was a reasonably famous science fiction artist (famous enough that probably around 20-30% of sci fi book and magazine covers from the 50's-80's were done by him). At one point in the 90's a jigsaw company contracted him to draw 2 paintings featuring dragons (he was a sci fi artist, not a fantasy artist, lol), which they were going to make into jigsaw puzzles. They rejected both paintings as "too artistic" for a jigsaw puzzle (it's like they didn't look at any of his previous work beforehand, lol). ... He literally got both designs printed on T-Shirts that he sold. I still have a few of them in storage, lol.

[@kaythegardener]

But since both Italy & Germany have been EU members for years, don't they have to recognize each other's jurisdictions & laws??

[@thomasthompson2899]

I imagine that since both countries are members of the European Union that the Italian courts have some level of jurisdiction in both countries.

[@bob_._.]

Italy and Germany are both in the European Union, so their legal systems are somewhat intertwined and it's more like us suing someone in another State than suing someone in Columbia for example.

[@bradybyrum6885]

This is similar to the velvet Elvis paintings done in Mexico, but imported into America, and the Graceland suits to cease the unlicensed use of the LIKENESS of Elvis.

[@Itmakesyouthink]

Sadly nowadays, people don't experience the world first-hand, but through their phone's lens.

[@superdivemaster]

It is a work of art ... but it was a "Map" of the Measurements of a Human Body that many artists thereafter used to create Bodies in their Art-Work ... it was like when Brunelleschi Built the Children's Orphanage/Hospital ... Using an innovative Cube/Arch Dimension, everybody in the world came to look at the building to learn how to build !!!

[@bellwethertrucking3650]

Emcee Escher's estate sued quite a few companies for using Eschers work in puzzles, on coffee mugs, etc. but there's so many people that still do it that they'd have to have 3 shifts 24 hours a day tracking down all the people profiting off his work and filing motions. Lol I'm not an attorney, but if I were arguing this case, I'd ask, "how many of the *thousands* of products with that image have they sued to stop?"

[@UpnorthHere]

They can sue one at a time until they've made their point.

[@thogevoll]

How does this harm the museum? I'd think it only increases interest and possibly more tourism that they can benefit from.🤦‍♂️

[@scofab]

While still watching this I bought the puzzle online... screw the Man. That said... helping museums is good, what would be the harm in kicking back 10%? So maybe I'll send the Italians $10. Fascinating... thanks again.

[@jcangelluk]

Both Italy and Germany are members of the European Economic Community - (which the UK tried and has now left.) - so the laws are now the laws of the EEC, supposedly applied in both countries in exactly the same way, supposedly in exactly the same way.

[@victormiranda9163]

it is a decided growth of copyright... the Italians have a lot of ideas of both what is 'art' and cultural that exceeds many other nations.

[@fr.clementdickieop7737]

In the United States, photographic reproductions of artwork is not separately copyrightable.

[@ctom4932]

Of everything mentioned here, I'd say "museum sues Pornhub" was the most ear catching part.

[@namename9998]

And that your comment wasnt censored lol

[@darkguardian1314]

EU members have very restrictive copyrights like building architecture photos online.

[@ws6002]

If Italy can create a law with jurisdiction over Americans, who are operating in America, what stops the US from creating a law with jurisdiction over Italians? Perhaps mandating that Italian companies and government agencies must use English.

[@ljwhitmire200]

This idiot law makes copyright pointless. The whole point of IP law is to balance the rights of the artist with the public good. In exchange, the creator gets exclusive rights for a limited time. This essentially grants perpetual IP for the owner of the work. Thanks Italy.