ITALIAN

CULTURAL HERITAGE

PROTECTION LAWS

AND DIGITAL COLLECTIONS OF ART AND

CULTURAL HERITAGE

ANGELICA TAVELLA

MAY 8, 2013

UC BERKELEY

GOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

THE POLICY

In 2004, a legislative decree known as the

Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (the

“Codice Urbani”) was passed.

• AKA Cultural Heritage Protection Laws

The Ministry of Heritage and Cultural Goods

(MiBAC) control permission to reproduce any

cultural heritage good.

• Including digital reproductions (posting a

photo on your blog for example)

THE POLICY

The fee for a reproduction is dependent on:

• who is in control of the cultural good (if it is not owned by the State),

• the purpose of the reproduction,

• where and when the reproduction will be used,

• the expected economic benefits coming from the reproduction

“No fee is owed for reproductions requested by private individuals, for personal use for purposes of study, or by public bodies for purposes of enhancement”

THE EFFECTS ON WEB-BASED

CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS

• Case Studies used:

• Europeana

• Wikimedia Foundation/ Wiki Commons

• Defining Characteristics as A Cultural Institution

• Not for profit

• All collections under terms of Creative Commons open

licenses

• User-generated collections

• A connected/linked structure to goods of related

background/ historical context

THE CASE OF

WIKI LOVES MONUMENTS ITALIA

• Wiki Loves Monuments is an international photo

competition hosted by The Wikimedia Foundation.

• The purpose: to develop and document cultural

heritage goods throughout the world, “particularly for

the purpose of promoting a greater-spanning

knowledge through the use of projects using 'open

content'".

• Began in 2011, resulting in 365,000 added of 33

countries added to Wiki Commons.

• Italy was not able to participate because of its

Cultural Heritage Protection Laws.

THE ACCORDO QUADRO

(FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT)

• After being denied permission to participate in the 2011

Wiki Loves Monuments, a lawyer was hired to write a

framework agreement between MiBAC and Wiki Loves

Monuments which stated that:

• Only specified monuments in each of Italy’s regions could

be entered.

• Photos can be published explicitly on Wiki Commons.

• Use of photos must explicitly state that the photographed

materials are property of MiBAC and are separate from

being protected under Copyright.

OUTCOMES

• Over 12,000 photos of Italian goods were

entered and are now available on Wiki

Commons.

• Win-win situation: people all over the

world are able to view and learn about

these monuments

• MiBAC’s goal of increasing visibility of

Italy’s lesser-known goods succeeds.

Nicola D’Orta, con “Anfiteatro campano dell’Antica Capua”

(Santa Maria Capua Vetere)

Giacomo

Barbaro, “Fontana di

Nettuno” (Bologna)

THE CASE OF

EUROPEANA

• The Europeana Foundation: purpose is to

aggregate, facilitate, distribute, and engage in

Europe's cultural heritage

• It is the largest collection of Europe’s leading

galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

• Funded largely by the European Commission

• The goal is to bring cultural organizations that

range from State archives to private museums

together

• so people know where to access this cultural

material.

EFFECTS

• According to one Europeana

employee, Italy is generally the least

enthusiastic to provide Europeana and

other cultural websites with cultural

materials.

• There is no (inclusive) State-organized

digital collection of Italy’s extensive art

and cultural goods.

• But their Cultural Heritage Protection

Laws make it difficult for any other cultural

institution to provide these services.

CONCLUSIONS

• Unnecessarily high transaction costs involved in

getting rights to use photos of Italian art and cultural

goods.

• Must request rights to MiBAC for each individual

photo. This sometimes takes 30 days just to get a

response.

• These policies have negative implications for

organizations that are trying to engage a broader

audience with a greater range of art and cultural

goods.

• Cultural Heritage Protection Laws are most

restrictive to public consumers of art and culture

SUGGESTIONS

Identify and limit a few specific works/ cultural goods to be protected under the terms of Cultural Heritage Protection Laws.For example, Portugal has 9 distinguished monuments which require permission and/or fees to photograph or publish.

SUGGESTIONS

• Reproductions may be subject to the application of a

CC license + an ad hoc agreement concerning the

CHPLs, identified by the cultural heritage institution.

This would in effect:

• Reduce transaction costs

• Enforce a share-alike approach

• And/or preserve a stronger stream of licensing fees

for such cultural institutions

• e.g. conditioning the validity of the CC+

agreement to the non-commercial use or simply

to a low resolution of the images.

SOURCES AND

RESEARCH PROCESS

• I Began independently researching this topic Fall 2012

• At the Nexa Center for Internet and Society in Turin, Italy.

• Interviews

• Deborah De Angelis- lawyer who wrote the “AccordoQuadro”

• Employees of Europeana:

• Maarten Zeinstra

• Christina Angelopoulos

• Resources and information from Director and affiliates of the Nexa Center

• Federico Morando- Director

• Stefano Costa- Archeologist

THANK YOU!

…QUESTIONS AND

FEEDBACK?