Germany is a sovereign state. You might say: obviously, what kind of news is that? And yet, evidently, not everyone was aware of this. So much so that, a few days ago, the Stuttgart court rejected a request from our Ministry of Culture to impose a fee on a German company for using Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man, held in Venice, in a puzzle: “Every national legal system is limited to its respective national territory,” say the German judges, “This principle of territoriality is generally recognized in international constitutional law and is an expression of the sovereignty of each state. This means that an Italian law, such as this one for the protection of cultural heritage, is only valid within Italian territory.”
The Outburst of the Official
The suspicion that our sovereignty ended at the Brenner Pass was, in fact, shared by Antonio Leo Tarasco, the promoter of the Italian decree on tariffs, head of the legislative office (later promoted and removed), who had confessed at a conference: “We will lose the case in Stuttgart 99% of the time… To defend the Vitruvian Man, we had to spend tens of thousands of euros. The State Attorney’s Office won’t defend you because it’s beyond national borders. So you have to find a foreign lawyer, hire them, pay them, pay for translation services… All of this costs. Who pays? We do…” It was a damning outburst, which ended up on YouTube and was quickly deleted but too late: Alessandro Beltrami had recorded everything. Word for word. On Avvenire. But let’s take a step back.
Failed Negotiation
It all started with a request from the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice to charge reproduction rights to the toy and board game company Ravensburger for a 1,000-piece puzzle (there are several like Degas’ Four Dancers or Klimt’s The Kiss) featuring the famous Homo Vitruvianus. A negotiation that led nowhere (the German offer: a donation of 250 euros and 10% of sales) ended in a legal dispute with a request to the judiciary to “prohibit” Ravensburger “in Italy and abroad from commercially using the image of the work.” This argument was taken up in a ruling by the Venice Ordinary Court in October 2022 and then “referred,” so to speak, to the German judges.
The Court of Auditors
That the attempt at a “worldwide injunction,” to use their words, was adventurous and reckless had already been explained a year and a half ago by the Court of Auditors: “The radical transformations that digital has brought to our society invite us to abandon the traditional ‘proprietary’ paradigms, in favor of a more democratic, inclusive, and horizontal vision of cultural heritage. Economic returns based on the ‘sale’ of a single image appear outdated and largely surpassed, as they are obviously uneconomical.”
This argument was reiterated last October: “Open Access has long proven to be a powerful multiplier of wealth not only for the cultural institutions themselves (see the well-known national and international best practices), but also in terms of GDP growth, and is therefore considered a strategic asset for the social, cultural, and economic development of the member countries of the Union. The introduction of such a ‘tariff’ seems to overlook both the operational peculiarities of the web and the potential harm to society, which must also be measured in terms of lost opportunities and benefits; placing itself, thus, in clear contrast with the guidelines of the National Digitalization Plan (PND) of cultural heritage.” Could it be any clearer?
Raphael and Panettone
This same argument is supported by much of our cultural world, from the Italian Library Association to the Federation of University Archaeology Councils, from the Conference of University Rectors to various members of the Accademia dei Lincei, who recall how many things have already changed in Italy as well. See the collaboration between the Pinacoteca di Brera and the famous pastry shop Giovanni Cova & C. to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Raphael’s death with special panettone packaging to “bring people closer to culture and art through a popular Christmas tradition.” Or the one between the Naples Archaeological Museum and Maison Cilento with a line of scarves featuring key museum “icons.” Are these contaminations contrary to the dignity of our heritage? Opinions differ, and all are legitimate. But as archaeologist Giuliano Volpe says, “You can’t legislate against bad taste or even vulgarity, which should instead be fought with the weapons of culture, education, and even irony and satire. Also, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The words of Juvenal come to mind when thinking of the horrendous advertising campaign with Botticelli’s Venus as an influencer, promoted by Daniela Santanché.”