Italy has long been marketed and perceived as the world’s (artistic) cultural centre. People from all over the world have long been drawn to the country’s cultural heritage sites, cities, and beauty that is up for offer. The Roman Empire’s long-lasting effects of power can still be seen today in the attraction to Italy. Every year, Italy hosts millions of tourists, who seek to experience the food, art, architecture, and culture country wide. There is something fascinating about the Italian way of life, ‘dolce far niente’.1
Article 9 of the Italian Constitution, holds the Italian Republic responsible for promoting “the development of culture, and scientific research”2 and to “safeguard the natural landscape, and historical and artistic heritage of the Nation”.3 This provision supports the notion of Italy and its long history of promoting Italian culture as the cultural centre of the world. Italy is often seen as the root of many cultural waves in the West, and the resulting culture in Italy today is an asset to the nation. As mentioned above, tourism is one of the largest ‘businesses’ in Italy, with many people visiting the country year-round.
To use this ‘business’ of tourism in Italy, the government has taken steps to exercise a certain type of control over the historical and artistic heritage of Italy. In terms of the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape,4 cultural property is now under state control. This pertains to works that are within the public domain, thus not protected under copyright anymore. Examples of types of property falling under this category include ancient art which is exhibited in public museums in Italy. The most contentious ones being The Vitruvian Man (1490), a small drawing by Leonardo Da Vinci which is exhibited in the Accademia Gallery in Venice, and the David (1504), a sculpture my Michealangelo which is exhibited in the Accademia Gallery in Florence.
This law allows the state to provide authorisation for reproductions of influential artworks of Italian culture and history for commercial purposes. The Ministry of Culture has the discretion to allow or refuse such reproductions. The first instance of this law was created to protect the integrity of three-dimensional works (as this involves a mould that may damage the work) but has now included the prohibition of any form of reproduction, even down to images. In addition to a discretionary authorisation power, the Ministry of Culture is now also entitled to a fee for allowing a person to make a reproduction. Thus, to print a photo of any famous Italian heritage image, one would require permission from the Ministry of Culture. Once accepted, they will have to pay the relevant fee amount.
This law, however, goes against the boundaries of copyright. The content of the right provides the Italian state with a very similar power to that of copyright. However, with works in the public domain, copyright is not supposed to be a factor. Copyright intends to promote creation by preserving free speech and access to information. Thus, the author of a work is granted lifelong protection as well as 70 years after death (in the European Union), and then only does a work become public domain property. This law essentially gives the Italian state the powers that authors of a work enjoy. European Directives on Intellectual Property, state that it is essential for knowledge, culture, and artistic creations to circulate freely after the author has enjoyed their copyright protections. This value is protected following expiration of the copyright. Yet, the mentioned law is in slight contravention of EU law, and further, there is no stipulated expiration of this power that the Italian government enjoys.
The Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape states that it is an exception to EU law and that in Italy the protection of cultural heritage is of utmost importance. It is important to note that the fee due is submitted to the state when a work is approved for commercial reproduction. The Italian state makes money from this. The fees are planned to fund public museums and galleries in Italy, as these institutions do not have a lot of private funding or donations. This is an effective way the Italian government has ensured the upkeep of its Article 9 responsibility in the Italian Constitution.
However, this law has also received criticism for being contradictory to the far-reaching ‘advertising’ of Italy as a tourist hotspot, and the cultural centre of the world – to now limiting access to any symbol of Italian heritage. This can arguably be a violation of personal rights such as access to information and freedom of speech. This raises the question of how far-reaching state power can be allowed to extend with regard to fulfilling its obligations. This is especially concerining personal rights. Furthermore, the Italian state has been criticised for ‘picking and choosing’ when it enforces this law.
The best example of this would be the case regarding the Vitruvian Man. A well-known German company made a puzzle which contained the Vitruvian Man. The puzzle was listed for sale online globally, making it available in Italy. The Italian government instituted action against this company and argued that it was losing income due to the unauthorised use of its property. It is important to note that the Vitruvian Man was created in the 1490s and has always been a very famous piece of art due to its mathematical qualities, spirituality, and ‘perfect’ human proportions. It has had a powerful impact on artists throughout history. It is thus not ‘Italy centred’ to the public, or indicative of Italian culture and heritage. It was created by an Italian artist but does not relate to Italy or its culture at face value.
Then on the other side, there are countless instances of advertising wherein these symbols of Italy are freely used by the government to perpetuate this ‘central culture of the world’. In the Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport (Rome International Airport), numerous images wherein the Colosseum and Gladiators feature to ‘represent the spirit of Rome’. Similarly, in Venice, the annual Carnival is constantly appropriated through tourist shops selling Venetian Masks. These instances may have received authorisation, but it is important to ask – how does the Italian government keep up with enforcing every instance of use? There are so many, and they relate so closely to public domain property, and thus public property.
Critics of this law have said that the very existence thereof can cause the opposite effect by drawing away from their desire to have Italian heritage as a symbol of superiority and a cultural centre. Publishers, creators, and businesspeople are now treading very carefully through utilising this property as they are unsure what is allowed and when it will be allowed or disallowed.
The question remains: how closely can law and culture interact, and how strictly can this be enforced upon one’s culture?
Footnotes:
Translation: The sweetness of doing nothing.
Article 9(1) of the Italian Constitution.
Article 9(2) of the Italian Constitution.
2004 Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape.
Edited by Kajal Ranchhod
Comments