[HN Gopher] Florence museum won suit against publisher that used...
___________________________________________________________________
Florence museum won suit against publisher that used Michelangelo's
David image
Author : josephcsible
Score : 69 points
Date : 2024-04-13 14:44 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.artnet.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.artnet.com)
| stickfigure wrote:
| Multinational corporations are going to have it rough in the
| future, as governments with competing (and sometimes
| contradictory) interests discover they have the ability to punish
| corporate behavior anywhere in the world. China is leading the
| way here.
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| Italy seems to be right there too. Just saw they deemed a car
| model name illegal because it sounds Italian but isn't made in
| Italy: https://www.thedrive.com/news/italy-tells-alfa-romeo-
| its-ill...
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Wait 'til they hear about the Pepperidge Farm cookies.
| afiori wrote:
| None of those words sounds even vaguely italian
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The single most famous one is Milano, and there is also
| Verona.
| afiori wrote:
| So Milano and Verona are products in the Pepperidge Farm
| brand?
|
| I was not familiar with the brand or their product naming
| playingalong wrote:
| It'd be legal to produce it in Italy outside of the city of
| Milan. But it's illegal to produce it abroad.
|
| I don't think they even pretend it's not protectionism.
| Affric wrote:
| Yeah... the Italian badge has to produce the Milano in
| Italy... absolutely crazy. Marketing guys who want to sell a
| Polish car should not be able to use the cultural cache built
| by Italy to do it.
| pyottdes wrote:
| What are your feelings about the Ferrari California?
| evantbyrne wrote:
| It's going to take a bit more persuasion to get auto
| manufacturers to move to an entirely different state than
| silly rules around names. And while the Italian government
| fixates on the past, the rest of the world is hooked
| straight up to the fire hose of American culture, which is
| to the benefit of Americans.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _while the Italian government fixates on the past, the
| rest of the world is hooked straight up to the fire hose
| of American culture_
|
| Most modern Italian culture has direct roots in its post-
| War boom, with substantial portions having been grafted
| from Americana, _e.g._ pannetone, parmesan, tiramisu and
| quite a few "classic" pastas like carbonara [1].
|
| [1] https://www.ft.com/content/6ac009d5-dbfd-4a86-839e-28
| bb44b2b...
| ISL wrote:
| It leads to balkanization -- see Google's total withdrawal from
| China.
|
| As a consumer, I recently selected a new device in large part
| because its cloud-affiliated software (and bespoke operating
| system) was written, stored, and administered in countries with
| appropriate and ethical legal frameworks. The competition was
| more feature-complete, but I concluded that I couldn't trust
| any of those options.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| Seems more and more that to lead a completely ethical
| existence means sacrificing luxury, happiness, and time. Or
| surrender to willful ignorance.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > to lead a completely ethical existence means sacrificing
| luxury, happiness, and time
|
| Hasn't this always been true? It's also getting
| increasingly easy to buy things that meet ethical standards
| (or more cynically, it's easier to buy things that meet
| some low bar that someone setup).
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _It leads to balkanization -- see Google 's total
| withdrawal from China._
|
| True _balkanization_ does not occur in Italy, except Trieste
| and perhaps parts of Friuli-Venezia Giulia... and I put that
| in _Italics_!
| lolinder wrote:
| In order to be able to use these public domain works without
| paying licensing fees, would a company have to just not do
| business in Italy or would they have to pull out of the EU
| entirely?
| Nemo_bis wrote:
| The court of Venice claimed world-wide jurisdiction. A German
| court fought back.
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240410141158/https://www.nytim...
| greatgib wrote:
| Both this law usage and the reason of complaint from the museum
| are so stupid.
|
| And I'm not usually supporting big company using public goods but
| in that case I think that it was legitimate
| xoa wrote:
| > _And I 'm not usually supporting big company using public
| goods_
|
| Do you mind if I ask why? I don't see why the size of the
| entity should matter one bit when it comes to the public domain
| and human history, nor why some other entity should, even in
| principle, get a permanent monopoly on artistic expression they
| played zero role in (or for that matter their polity played
| zero role in). The physical objects themselves of history are
| of course by definition limited and necessarily require
| custodianship and care. But the ideas and imagery they
| expressed centuries or millennia ago should have long since
| passed to all of humanity, all of us from the smallest to the
| largest. It being locked down retroactively is even worse. It's
| not as if a "big company" using the public domain in any way
| diminishes anyone else's ability to do so nor the original
| work.
| pedja wrote:
| > It's not as if a "big company" using the public domain in
| any way diminishes anyone else's ability to do so nor the
| original work.
|
| Not OP, but big companies tend to abuse public goods after
| they use them. Think of all the DMCA takedown notices that
| these companies made for people playing classical music.
| not_your_mentat wrote:
| This is strange conflicted space for me. Were this the
| case, Disney would have had to produce nothing but original
| work, which would probably benefit us today but would leave
| us without the eventual cultural heritage that they
| produced (if it can ever be pulled from their claws). I'm
| coming more and more to the conclusion that public domain
| is very much like other idealogical freedoms I was raised
| to believe in, which is to say beautiful conceptually but
| possibly messy and requiring potentially painful sacrifices
| on the part of individuals if consistency with the ideal is
| the goal.
| troupo wrote:
| Thing is, Disney has profited _immensely_ from public
| domain, and then they have done everything in their power
| to restrict public domain as much as possible.
|
| Works have to be released into the public domain, or
| there will be nothing but licensed regurgitation of the
| same things.
| olliej wrote:
| Exactly: a huge proportion of Disney's historical works
| are for existing stories which had far less IP protection
| than Disney's _reproductions_ had.
| quickslowdown wrote:
| I can answer this without even reading past your 2nd
| sentence. Because large entities are dicks. They'll take this
| public work for their own uses, and then attack anyone else
| using it as if they own the exclusive rights. And if they're
| large enough, they'll essentially steal whatever the work is
| from the public by using the law and their stable of bulldog
| lawyers to go after any other entity using the image they
| feel they own.
| eviks wrote:
| Does the museum have permission from David?
| fsckboy wrote:
| Actually, it's not even David; we know that David, King of
| Israel, was circumcised, and Michelangelo's David is not.
|
| (What some Italian was thinking of, recycling a Hebrew King
| into inauthentic art sold for profit on commission, is still
| quite sus, but them claiming ownership of it is beyond the
| pale.)
| angiosperm wrote:
| Technically, to have been circumcised, King David would first
| need to have existed. However, even without existing,
| notional David could be _described_ as having been
| circumcised. Presenting an image uncircumcised, as
| Michelangelo did, then ought to suffice to, er, sever any
| proprietary claim, as it cannot then be the same notional
| David, but another unspecified stand-in David, perhaps akin
| to the popularly blond and blue-eyed stand-in Jesus.
|
| Jesus, by the way, is described in Paul as having been
| constructed, after the manner of Adam and of saved souls'
| post-resurrection bodies (even now awaiting them in heaven
| against the fore-ordained apocalypse), from aforesaid David's
| (implied captured and preserved, or allegorical) "seed". This
| too does not require actual existence. The waiting bodies,
| notional or manifest, canonically lack anything for foreskins
| to be attached to or severed from, perhaps a mercy, and
| presumably navels as well. No forecast is made about nose
| hair, either way. Jesus, in contrast, as a fertility totem is
| necessarily endowed. Who would essay to circumcise Him is an
| open question; theologically, He doesn't seem to need it.
| Karellen wrote:
| Rights are generally granted to the creator of a work of art
| (painter, photographer, sculptor, etc...), rather than its
| subject.
|
| However, given that there will probably be some difficultly in
| tracking down the subject's model release paperwork, your
| concerns are likely also valid :-)
| olliej wrote:
| David (and a lot of such art) was work for hire, so the
| artist would have no IP rights then or now.
| beej71 wrote:
| Public domain with license fees? What kind of crazy public domain
| is this?
| andy99 wrote:
| It's about the precedent. Without protections like this, it's
| pretty hard to imagine creators being incentivized to produce
| new work.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Yea Michelangelo hasn't produced in a while now probably due
| to motivation, it's hard out there for an artist who is just
| trying to break into the scene.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I believe that it's more about protecting the image of the
| artwork. Imagine using the statue to promote product X.
| Then imagine that every icon/building/etc. being used to
| promote something that you/the nation goes against (i.e.
| the statue in the cover of a porn magazine, or a historical
| monument to promote the latest crypto-fraud-coin. I
| understand that the Colosseum, the Acropolis, or the statue
| of David won't be physically damaged by such an ad, but
| still..
| darby_eight wrote:
| You're describing a more restrictive version of a
| trademark. Why don't they call it such?
| atmosx wrote:
| Maybe he not that good after all. Sculpting is not for
| everyone.
| colordrops wrote:
| I'm assuming this is sarcasm.
| sircastor wrote:
| Yeah, because without financial incentive, why would anyone
| bother to create anything?
|
| Even without protections, creators are going to make new
| stuff. Without theses protections, maybe a dozen fewer
| lawsuits will be filed because quite frankly, most people
| can't afford to pursue legal action, whether or not they're
| in the right.
| otherme123 wrote:
| The sad thing is that Michaelangelo was paid to do a lot of
| his art. And the David was a commision, he was creating art
| the same we are coding today: not for the copyright, but
| for a wage. It was financial incentive enough.
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| So what you are saying is that the statue has been bought
| and paid for, so why do we need to pay a licensing fees
| for something made 15-20 generations ago (~510 years ago)
| that was paid for already.
|
| Do you get royalties for the code you write for work?
| Will your great-grand(x15-20)-kids get paid royalties for
| that JavaScript you made last year?
| atmosx wrote:
| Artists express themselves through their work primarily
| because of an uncanny need to do so. Not because others are
| going to pay of it. Most likely people are going to shit on
| it, which is exactly what happened to Yorgos Lanthimos
| (hottest filmmaker Hollywood at the moment) until his works
| reached a wider audience outside Greece, his home country.
| Wasn't about money. To this day he works only with studios
| that will allow him 100% "final cut" control.
|
| Are there "frauds" out there? Sure, is it always clear which
| one is which, no. But at it's core art is the most well
| established form expression, other than talking, known to man
| kind since _forever_.
| ronsor wrote:
| It's not public domain anymore. It's Italy's domain.
|
| Companies should be more willing to stop doing business with
| countries that produce crazy rulings like this.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| They could use different images.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| They could pay the (relatively small fee) before discussing
| internally and someone with 'authority' saying "f... them,
| we use it and let them sue us!"
|
| I cannot believe that nobody rang the warning bell about
| using some photo/material in the magazine, in the whole
| flow it takes from inception/decision on articles, all the
| way to the printer.
| primitivesuave wrote:
| At the end of the article it points out that a foreign toy
| company was successfully sued for making a puzzle from Leonardo
| da Vinci's _Vitruvian Man_. I 'm curious what enforcement
| authority the Italians have over a German company, if any. The
| court ruling is effectively saying that the historical IP of the
| Italian peninsula belongs to whichever Italian museum happens to
| have the original artifact in their possession, but would a
| German or EU court uphold this?
| Affric wrote:
| Italian peninsula?
|
| Also it's not conincidental that David is in La Galleria
| dell'Accademia di Firenze.
|
| It was moved there from its highly symbolic place at the Piazza
| della Signoria in part due to political implications.
|
| Copyright law in Italy comes with moral rights.
| nilamo wrote:
| I'm not sure this answered the question. The company is based
| in Germany. Can they not just ignore the Italian ruling,
| since they're not in Italy?
| lolinder wrote:
| Someone posted this elsewhere in the thread. It looks like last
| month a German court said Italy can't actually do that because
| EU copyright is is standardized at life + 70. The Italian
| government says they'll challenge the ruling, but I'm having a
| hard time imagining any court in the EU siding with Italy on
| this one.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240410141158/https://www.nytim...
| bawolff wrote:
| One of the few areas where USA copyright law is more sane than
| many other countries.
| nomagicbullet wrote:
| > _In a statement, the museum claimed that by "insidiously and
| maliciously [juxtaposing] the image of Michelangelo's David with
| that of a model," the publisher was "debasing, obfuscating,
| mortifying, and humiliating the high symbolic and identity value
| of the work of art and subjugating it for advertising and
| editorial promotion purposes."_
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-13 23:01 UTC)