On the behest of Cecilie Hollberg, director of Galleria dell’Accademia, Florence’s attorney office has filed a series of court cases, citing Italy’s landmark cultural heritage code. However, experts question the role of institutions as arbiters of taste and voice out concerns about freedom of expression.
Cecilie Hollberg to the Associated Press (AP) that she intends to take decisive action against those capitalising on David’s image for profit. Following Hollberg’s directive, Florence’s legal authorities have initiated a series of legal cases. This law aims to safeguard artistic and national treasures from any disrespectful or unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Since assuming her position as director of the Accademia in 2015, Hollberg has been leading the charge to preserve the dignity of David. She strongly opposes the sale of more explicit merchandise, such as magnets, aprons, T-shirts, and figurines, by street vendors, considering them to be demeaning.
Completed in 1504 by Michelangelo, David is one of the most iconic symbols of Italian Renaissance art. However, curators express concern that the religious and political significance of the white marble statue is diminishing due to the proliferation of thousands of souvenirs sold throughout Florence. These souvenirs predominantly emphasise David’s genitalia, as reported by AP.
Italy’s Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape
Italy’s cultural heritage is governed by the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape. Article 106 of the code states that public territorial bodies or cultural institutions, such as museums, have the authority to request a concession fee for the use and reproduction of cultural property under their care. They are also empowered to assess whether such usage aligns with the artwork’s cultural objectives.
One notable aspect of the Code is its provision for extending the author’s copyright to the museum or institution that owns the artwork “in perpetuity.” Similarly, Vatican City also implements similar legislative protections for its masterpieces and has pursued legal action in instances of unauthorised reproduction, particularly for commercial gain and to preserve the dignity of artworks.
While the Code has been in effect since 2004, the practice of museums and cultural institutions taking legal action against the unauthorised reproduction of their artworks for profit is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Museum’s legal battles
Galleria dell’Accademia filed a lawsuit against GQ Italia magazine for digitally imposing David’s head on a model’s body for their cover page. On April 20, 2023, the Italian Civil Court of First Instance in Florence ruled that GQ did not secure a license from the museum, which held the image rights to the sculpture.
The museum’s legal action invoked Article 9 of the Italian constitution, which safeguards symbols of the nation’s cultural identity and history. Additionally, Article 106 of the Cultural Heritage Code was cited, enabling the museum to demand concession fees for the commercial reproduction of David.
Hollberg expressed joy and enthusiasm over the victory in court, “There was great joy throughout all the world for this truly unique victory that we managed to achieve, and questions and queries from all over about how we did it,” reported AP.
In a separate incident in 2022, the Civil Court of the First Instance in Venice issued a restraining order against a German company, Ravensburger, preventing them from producing and selling a puzzle featuring a reproduction of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man.
The Accademia also went after the luxury French fashion brand Longchamp’s racy Florence edition of its beloved “Le Pliage” bag featuring David’s more personal details.
The Accademia’s legal victories challenge the common understanding in intellectual property rights law, which typically protects rights for a set duration before they become part of the public domain. As outlined in the Berne Convention, signed by over 180 countries, including Italy, this protection typically extends until the artist’s death plus 70 years.
Implications of their victories
The legal decisions have prompted significant questions: should institutions like the Accademia dictate matters of taste, and do such rulings restrict freedom of expression?
Thomas C. Danziger, an art market lawyer based in New York, questions the meaning of cultural heritage and the extent to which institutions should control ideas and images that are in the public domain, “It raises not just legal issues, but also philosophical issues. What does cultural patrimony mean? How much of a stranglehold do you want to give institutions over ideas and images that are in the public domain?”
Danziger cites the example of Andy Warhol’s famous series inspired by Leonardo’s “Last Supper” and asks whether such artistic endeavours would be hindered. “Many people would view this as a land grab by the Italian courts to control and monetise artworks in the public domain that were never intended to be charged for,” he reflected.
The broad scope of Italy’s cultural code, akin to that of the Vatican, is subject to intense debate. It essentially grants the museum or institution perpetual copyright over the author’s work.
The European Commission is currently examining whether this code violates a 2019 European Union directive stating that any artwork no longer protected by copyright should enter the public domain, emphasising that everyone should have the freedom to create, use, and share copies of such works.
Such legal moves against the use of copyright-free artworks by institutions such as Accademia only reinstate the hegemonic approach of museums over cultural heritage. It is important to note that it is institutions and not original artists who are profiting from these extended copyright laws. Thus, in the attempts to safeguard their intellectual property, the museums are dictating the rules over artistic freedom and expression.