3 ms·

> The case hinged on article nine of Italy’s constitution, which protects symbols of the nation’s cultural identity and historical memory. A related law allows

by 627467 3y ago

> The case hinged on article nine of Italy’s constitution, which protects symbols of the nation’s cultural identity and historical memory. A related law allows the country’s public institutions to request concession fees for commercial reproductions of artworks of cultural heritage, regardless of their copyright status Lots of discussions here on copyright but the ruling doesn't seems to have anything to do with copyright per se. Also, playing devil's advocate here: agree or not (I don't) is not uncommon for portrails of cultural/historical symbols to be regulated, just look at the ban of nazi symbolism in - Germany (Italy also bans them, but not - finland for example).

Dylan16807 3y ago
Having to pay the particular museum pushes this beyond that kind of general regulation.
- 627467 3y ago
  Why? Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > Why? Because that method makes it act more like permanent single ownership than something cultural. > Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions. Whether the result is good is different from how far it's pushing, and I think the result sounds like it has the potential to be helpful. But I don't like how closely it ties revenue to the popularity of each museum's specific artifacts, since these are public institutions.
  - opello 3y ago
    > Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions. If it's culturally valuable then the members of that cultural group can (probably happily) pay for that upkeep? Presumably covering some shortage if tourism doesn't satisfy the base need to keep the artifacts intact?
ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
It's about copyright in that ignores normal copyright rules. Falling into public domain (or equivalent) after x years is standard in the EU and most every other country. If it's determined to be allowed in the EU other countries can go wild with what they consider cultural symbols. It's now a stash to cram in anything you don't want ever falling into the public domain. Disney would kill for a similar loophole in the US.
- teo_zero 3y ago
  It's not about copyright in that nobody in the case mentioned the copyright doctrine.

by 627467 3y ago

Dylan16807 3y ago

Having to pay the particular museum pushes this beyond that kind of general regulation.

627467 3y ago
Why? Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > Why? Because that method makes it act more like permanent single ownership than something cultural. > Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions. Whether the result is good is different from how far it's pushing, and I think the result sounds like it has the potential to be helpful. But I don't like how closely it ties revenue to the popularity of each museum's specific artifacts, since these are public institutions.
- opello 3y ago
  > Seems like a perfectly fine way to pay for upkeep of museums, particularly in this case since these are public institutions. If it's culturally valuable then the members of that cultural group can (probably happily) pay for that upkeep? Presumably covering some shortage if tourism doesn't satisfy the base need to keep the artifacts intact?

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago

It's about copyright in that ignores normal copyright rules. Falling into public domain (or equivalent) after x years is standard in the EU and most every other country. If it's determined to be allowed in the EU other countries can go wild with what they consider cultural symbols. It's now a stash to cram in anything you don't want ever falling into the public domain. Disney would kill for a similar loophole in the US.

teo_zero 3y ago
It's not about copyright in that nobody in the case mentioned the copyright doctrine.