(Florence) Michelangelo’s David has been a defining figure in Italian culture since its completion in 1504. But in today’s era, conservatives fear the marble statue’s religious and political significance is being diminished by the thousands of refrigerator magnets and other souvenirs sold around Florence, many of which focus on David’s genitals.
Galleria dell’Accademia director Cecilie Hollberg has positioned herself as David’s defender since arriving at the museum in 2015, quickly lashing out at those who profit from his image, often in ways she finds it “degrading”.
In this way, she herself is a bit of a David against the Goliath of capitalism unleashed with her army of street vendors and souvenir traders selling aprons bearing the image of the nude statue, sweaters representing her indulging in obscene gestures and omnipresent figurines, often in the Pop Art style.
At the request of Mme Hollberg, the Florence State Attorney’s Office launched a series of lawsuits invoking Italy’s historic code of cultural heritage, which protects artistic treasures from denigrating and unauthorized commercial use. The gallery has won hundreds of thousands of euros in damages since 2017, according to Mme Hollberg.
“There was great joy around the world for this truly unique victory that we managed to achieve, and questions and queries came from everywhere about how we achieved it,” she recounted. to the Associated Press.
Lawsuits followed, not without debate, to protect masterpieces from other museums, including The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci, David by Donatello and The birth of Venus by Botticelli.
Property rights and freedom of expression
The rulings challenge a widespread practice whereby intellectual property rights are protected for a set period before entering the public domain – the artist’s life plus 70 years, according to the Berne Convention signed by more than 180 countries, including Italy.
More broadly, these decisions raise the question of whether institutions should be the arbiters of taste and to what extent freedom of expression is limited.
“This not only raises legal issues, but also philosophical issues. What does cultural heritage mean? To what extent do you want to give institutions control over ideas and images that are in the public domain? said Thomas C. Danziger, a New York-based art lawyer.
He mentioned Andy Warhol’s famous series inspired by The Lord’s Supper by Leonardo da Vinci: “Are you going to stop artists like Warhol from creating what is a derivative work? »
The Italian cultural code is unusual in scope, essentially extending copyright in perpetuity to the museum or institution that owns it. The Vatican has similar legislative protections for its masterpieces and seeks recourse through its legal system for any unauthorized reproduction, including for commercial purposes and for violating the dignity of the work, a spokesperson said. -speech.
Elsewhere in Europe, Greece has a similar law, passed in 2020, which requires a permit to use images of historic sites or objects for commercial purposes, and prohibits the use of images that “alter” or “offend » monuments in any way.
The Louvre Museum in France, which houses often-replicated masterpieces like the Mona Lisa and the Venus of Milonotes that his collection mostly dates from before 1848, which places them in the public domain under French law.
Court filings have sparked debate over whether the Italian law violates a 2019 European Union directive stipulating that any work of art that is no longer protected by copyright falls into the public domain, which means that “everyone should be free to create, use and share copies of this work.”
The European Commission has not addressed the issue, but a spokesperson told The Associated Press that it is currently verifying “the conformity of national laws implementing the Copyright Directive” and that it would examine whether the Italian cultural heritage code interferes with its application.
“Ignorance and lack of respect”
Cecilie Hollberg won her first case against ticket scalpers who used David’s image to sell premium entry packages outside the gates of the Galleria dell’Accademia. She also targeted GQ Italia for transposing a model’s face onto David’s body, as well as luxury fashion brand Longchamp attempting to sell a bag featuring David’s more intimate details.
Longchamp had noted that the representation was “not without irony” and declared that the bag was “an opportunity to express with amused lightness the creative force which has always animated this marvelous city”.
Regardless of the number of lawsuits filed by Mme Hollberg – she won’t say how many – the proliferation of portraits of David continues.
“I regret that there is so much ignorance and so little respect in the use of a work which for centuries has been praised for its beauty, for its purity, for its meanings, its symbols, to make products of bad taste, made from plastic,” she lamented.
Building on the success of Mme Hollberg and fortified by improving search engine technology, the private entity that is custodian of Florence’s iconic cathedral has begun going after commercial enterprises using the famous dome for unauthorized and sometimes denigrating purposes – especially for underwear for men and women.
So far, cease and desist letters have been enough to secure compliance without going to court, adding an extra half-million euros (more than C$731,000) a year to revenues exceeding the 30 million euros (around 44 million CAN), revealed Luca Bagnoli, president of the Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore.
“We are generally in favor of freedom of artistic expression,” he explained. When it comes to reinterpreted copies, it becomes a little more difficult to understand where artistic freedom ends and our right to image begins. »
In its current form, the Italian code of cultural heritage has been in force since 2004, and although the files of Mme Hollberg are not the first, they represent an acceleration of the phenomenon, according to experts.
A risky approach
The case law is still being tested. A court in Venice has ordered German puzzle maker Ravensburger to stop using the image of Vitruvian Man in the first case involving a company outside Italy. The ruling implicitly rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the law was inconsistent with the EU’s Copyright Directive, lawyers said.
Experts say this aggressive stance could have the opposite effect, discouraging the licensing of Italian artworks, a source of revenue, while limiting the reproduction of masterpieces that serve as cultural ambassadors .
“There is a risk for Italy, because you can select a work of art that is not covered by this legislation,” explained Vittorio Cerulli Irelli, an intellectual property lawyer at Trevisan & Cuonzo in Rome.
“In many cases, it’s the same for you to use the Leonardo da Vinci painting that’s in the UK or the Leonardo da Vinci painting that’s in Italy. We simply opt for the simplest choice. »