Previous post
In an ever-expanding digital age, where AI scrapes published images and text to create problematic facsimiles and corporations can erase whole libraries of music or books that people thought they owned, how far will the law go in staking out the “protection” of objects in the public domain?
Michelangelo’s David has been a towering figure in Italian culture since its completion in 1504. But in the current era of the quick buck, curators worry the marble statue’s religious and political significance is being diminished by the thousands of refrigerator magnets and other souvenirs sold around Florence focusing on David’s genitalia.
The Galleria dell’Accademia’s director, Cecilie Hollberg, has positioned herself as David’s defender since her arrival at the museum in 2015, taking swift aim at those profiteering from his image, often in ways she finds “debasing.”
In that way, she is a bit of a David herself against the Goliath of unfettered capitalism with its army of street vendors and souvenir shop operators hawking aprons of the statue’s nude figure, T-shirts of it engaged in obscene gestures, and ubiquitous figurines, often in Pop Art neon.
At Hollberg’s behest, the state’s attorney office in Florence has launched a series of court cases invoking Italy’s landmark cultural heritage code, which protects artistic treasures from disparaging and unauthorized commercial use. The Accademia has won hundreds of thousands of euros (dollars) in damages since 2017, Hollberg said.
Copyright law, while appearing pretty straight forward, can be a field full of landmines for any person wishing to publish images or snippets of text or music, not of their own creation. Even sharing one’s own copy of “X” can be hazardous.
Remember Napster?
It appears that Italy, wishes to have complete control over its “cultural heritage”. And yet, what this law does is extend in perpetuity the creator’s copyright for the benefit of “the museum or institution that owns it.”
Disney would faint in ecstasy if handed that kind of power.
On the one hand, Disney pushed for the law that extended the copyright term to 95 years, which became referred to derisively as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” This extension has been criticized by scholars as being economically regressive and having a devastating effect on our ability to digitize, archive, and gain access to our cultural heritage. It locked up not just famous works, but a vast swath of our culture, including material that is commercially unavailable. Even though calling it the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” may overstate Disney’s actual role in the legislative process – the measure passed because of a much broader lobbying effort – Disney was certainly a prominent supporter, and the Mouse was sometimes a figurehead.
On the other hand, Disney itself is a talented and successful practitioner of building upon the public domain. In fact, the public domain is Disney’s bread and butter. Frozen was inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen. The Lion King draws from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Biblical stories, and possibly an epic poem about the founder of the Mali Empire.[3] Fantasia’s “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” comes from a poem by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and in other segments the Fantasia film showcases public domain classical music. Alice in Wonderland, Snow White,The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, and Pinocchio came from stories by Lewis Carroll, The Brothers Grimm, Victor Hugo, Charles Perrault, Hans Christian Anderson, and Carlo Collodi.
In the case of David and the ubiquitous hawkers of knockoff flotsam for tourists, one gets the feeling this kind of thing started after 5 minutes after it was unveiled in 1504 in public square in Florence, Italy.
Copyright law is written to protect the property of the creator and allow the creator (and his/her immediate family) to enjoy the fruits of their labor in its creation. For a limited time. Locking up such works from passing into the public domain, or limiting public domain because of cultural heritage, is counter-productive. Reproduction, derivative works, etc, of public domain works in reality exposes new audiences to the original works. Think of audiences worldwide that may have never heard of Hans Christian Anderson without Disney’s The Little Mermaid? I should make a note here I am not passing any judgement on the derivative nature of Disney’s work at all. Love it or hate it, it exposed Anderson to new generations of readers.
But there is a nefarious side to laws, like Italy’s, that lock up public domain creations. As we’ve seen in museum after museum, the woke are increasingly in charge. And if your digital library of games or music or even books can be disappeared for any reason, what’s stopping institutions from removing the paintings or statues of dead white males – like Michelanglo – from public view? David is made of marble … and marble shatters.
Italy and other countries eager to pass similar laws, should be careful what they wish for.
featured image, cropped, Adobe stock standard license
GWB says: US Copyright law should be 40 years or the lifetime of its creator, whichever comes first. And, no, I don’t think the heirs should be able to rest on the laurels of their progenitor. One generation is all. Period. No extensions. And a corporation should have the same rules: 40 years or its death – again, a successor corporation does not get the benefit.
And I think music needs to return to an older paradigm… say, Tin Pan Alley. Way too much music is not available out there because it is not licensed properly.
Also, if you refuse to publish it, then (as under the old rules) I have every right to do so. If you refuse to exercise your right to make money off of it, then copyright no longer protects it. Period. (That’s why you could, once upon a time, get VHS copies of Song of the South legally. Disney swore they would never distribute it – because racism – so it became public domain. Just copy your version and publish it for money.)
I would at least add “life of spouse” to that, GWB. Presumably of the same generation, in most cases.
GWB says: Nope. That’s what life insurance and retirement accounts are for. Otherwise, you get some 30 years younger gold-digger come in and live off of it. To my mind, the right cannot be transferred (unlike patents).
Oh, and all software should be a patent, NOT a copyright. You’re building with widgets, not writing a novel (despite some code I’ve seen).
Darleen Click says: I’m going to respectfully disagree here, GWB. Intellectual property is still PROPERTY. If I can leave my home, the money I’ve earned and saved or invested, my business I’ve built to my spouse and family, then if my business is writing novels v having a family restaurant, then if I’m hit by a bus, my family should get the proceeds of sales of my writings v it reverting to the publisher. IMHO I think life of creator plus 40 years is about right to take care of own’s family.
Pau says: Not life plus 40. Think about it. Song is written when writer is age 25. Lives to 85. Plus forty years. So the copyright is 100 years? Most people born the day after the song is written are DEAD before the copyright expires. That’s Disney type stuff.
This crushes creativity because everyone is anfraid to riff on other songs written in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS! and ultimately only makes money for corporations.
Do you really think the music industry paid Springsteen 9 figures because they think they will lose money?
Flat 40 years. Maybe 40 or life which er is longer. (In case you day a year later. Let the wife and children benefit for a few years). And it has to be available for sale /licensure or you lose the rights.
5 Comments