Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-24/News and notes: Difference between revisions
m more precise link |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
However, in recent years some State-owned institutions have taken advantage of this interpretation of the CCHL to start lawsuits against commercial uses of works by Italian artists which, theorically, should already be in the public domain – for example, [[Michelangelo]]’s ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]'', [[Leonardo da Vinci]]’s ''[[Vitruvian Man]]'' and [[Sandro Botticelli]]’s ''[[The Birth of Venus]]''. As explained by De Angelis and Giardini, these initiatives are likely in contrast with the [[Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Article_14|Article 14]] of the [[Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market]], adopted by the [[European Union]] in 2019 and [https://perma.cc/QCU3-U4MP transposed] into domestic law by Italy two years later. |
However, in recent years some State-owned institutions have taken advantage of this interpretation of the CCHL to start lawsuits against commercial uses of works by Italian artists which, theorically, should already be in the public domain – for example, [[Michelangelo]]’s ''[[David (Michelangelo)|David]]'', [[Leonardo da Vinci]]’s ''[[Vitruvian Man]]'' and [[Sandro Botticelli]]’s ''[[The Birth of Venus]]''. As explained by De Angelis and Giardini, these initiatives are likely in contrast with the [[Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market#Article_14|Article 14]] of the [[Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market]], adopted by the [[European Union]] in 2019 and [https://perma.cc/QCU3-U4MP transposed] into domestic law by Italy two years later. |
||
In April of this year, the Italian Ministry of Culture caused even more headaches by publishing [https://www.beniculturali.it/comunicato/dm-161-11042023 "guidelines"] for the introduction of minimum fees for the commercial use of digital reproductions of State-owned cultural heritage, including works in the public domain (see previous coverage on [https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/05/open-access-to-heritage-images-is-becoming-increasingly-difficult-in-italy/ Diff] and the ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/News and notes|Signpost]]''). The decree, which was [https://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2023/05/12/news/sangiuliano_tariffario_riproduzione_opere_arte-399842122/ harshly] [https://www.avvenire.it/opinioni/pagine/il-diritto-allimmagine-nellarte-e-i-rischi-di-una-censura-culturale criticized] by numerous experts and researchers, contradicts the principles expressed both in the CCHL itself – more specifically, the Articles 1 and 6 – and the [[Faro Convention]] (which Italy [https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=199 signed and ratified]), which stress the importance of full freedom of access to and sharing of reproductions of cultural heritage in the public domain. If officially implemented, the measures included in the MoC’s decree might risk not only to impoverish [[Wikimedia]]’s projects, but also damage activities of research and promotion of Italian culture. |
In April of this year, the Italian Ministry of Culture caused even more headaches by publishing [https://www.beniculturali.it/comunicato/dm-161-11042023 "guidelines"] for the introduction of minimum fees for the commercial use of digital reproductions of State-owned cultural heritage, including works in the public domain (see previous coverage on [https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/05/open-access-to-heritage-images-is-becoming-increasingly-difficult-in-italy/ Diff] and the ''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/News and notes#EU policy report – trouble brewing in France and Italy|Signpost]]''). The decree, which was [https://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2023/05/12/news/sangiuliano_tariffario_riproduzione_opere_arte-399842122/ harshly] [https://www.avvenire.it/opinioni/pagine/il-diritto-allimmagine-nellarte-e-i-rischi-di-una-censura-culturale criticized] by numerous experts and researchers, contradicts the principles expressed both in the CCHL itself – more specifically, the Articles 1 and 6 – and the [[Faro Convention]] (which Italy [https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=199 signed and ratified]), which stress the importance of full freedom of access to and sharing of reproductions of cultural heritage in the public domain. If officially implemented, the measures included in the MoC’s decree might risk not only to impoverish [[Wikimedia]]’s projects, but also damage activities of research and promotion of Italian culture. |
||
Now, though, the Italian Court of Audit also expressed concern about the ministry's bill in a report named ''[https://trasparenza.mit.gov.it/moduli/downloadFile.php?file=oggetto_allegati/2331713031333591820O__Ocorte_dei_conti_deliberazione_20_ottobre_2023_n_762023g.pdf The results of monitoring activities done in the year 2022 and the consequential measures adopted by administrations]''. In their “Review of consequential measures adopted by administrations" – starting from page 157 of the report – the Court give credit to the MoC’s offices for their “important effort in [[digitization]]”, as for the goals set by the [https://digitallibrary.cultura.gov.it/ Digital Library] and the {{Ill|National Recovery and Resilience Plan|it|Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza|WD=}}, while noting how the introduction of the aforementioned minimum fees looks to be “against [this] trend”, especially in regards to the benefits of [[open access]]: |
Now, though, the Italian Court of Audit also expressed concern about the ministry's bill in a report named ''[https://trasparenza.mit.gov.it/moduli/downloadFile.php?file=oggetto_allegati/2331713031333591820O__Ocorte_dei_conti_deliberazione_20_ottobre_2023_n_762023g.pdf The results of monitoring activities done in the year 2022 and the consequential measures adopted by administrations]''. In their “Review of consequential measures adopted by administrations" – starting from page 157 of the report – the Court give credit to the MoC’s offices for their “important effort in [[digitization]]”, as for the goals set by the [https://digitallibrary.cultura.gov.it/ Digital Library] and the {{Ill|National Recovery and Resilience Plan|it|Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza|WD=}}, while noting how the introduction of the aforementioned minimum fees looks to be “against [this] trend”, especially in regards to the benefits of [[open access]]: |
||
Revision as of 22:57, 9 December 2023
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE
Court of Audit criticizes Italy’s plan to put public domain behind “pay-wall”
The Italian Court of Audit publicly opposed to a recent decision by the Ministry of Culture, led by Gennaro Sangiuliano, to establish minimum fees for the production and publication of digital reproductions of cultural heritage, as recently reported by Wikimedia Italia, as well as several national media (in Italian; the latter two links are behind pay-wall).
As written by Italian lawyers Deborah De Angelis and Giuditta Giardini for Communia last July, in Italy the so-called Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (CCHL) is into force since 2004; basically, it was intended to "support the role of cultural heritage institutions in sustainable economic and social development", granting them, among other privileges, discretion to choose whether to make art works such as paintings, frescoes and statues available in the public domain, through the attribution of a Creative Commons licence or, at least, the digital reproduction of images.
However, in recent years some State-owned institutions have taken advantage of this interpretation of the CCHL to start lawsuits against commercial uses of works by Italian artists which, theorically, should already be in the public domain – for example, Michelangelo’s David, Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man and Sandro Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus. As explained by De Angelis and Giardini, these initiatives are likely in contrast with the Article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, adopted by the European Union in 2019 and transposed into domestic law by Italy two years later.
In April of this year, the Italian Ministry of Culture caused even more headaches by publishing "guidelines" for the introduction of minimum fees for the commercial use of digital reproductions of State-owned cultural heritage, including works in the public domain (see previous coverage on Diff and the Signpost). The decree, which was harshly criticized by numerous experts and researchers, contradicts the principles expressed both in the CCHL itself – more specifically, the Articles 1 and 6 – and the Faro Convention (which Italy signed and ratified), which stress the importance of full freedom of access to and sharing of reproductions of cultural heritage in the public domain. If officially implemented, the measures included in the MoC’s decree might risk not only to impoverish Wikimedia’s projects, but also damage activities of research and promotion of Italian culture.
Now, though, the Italian Court of Audit also expressed concern about the ministry's bill in a report named The results of monitoring activities done in the year 2022 and the consequential measures adopted by administrations. In their “Review of consequential measures adopted by administrations" – starting from page 157 of the report – the Court give credit to the MoC’s offices for their “important effort in digitization”, as for the goals set by the Digital Library and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, while noting how the introduction of the aforementioned minimum fees looks to be “against [this] trend”, especially in regards to the benefits of open access:
For some time now, Open Access has proven to be a powerful multiplier of wealth not only for the cultural institutions themselves [...], but also in terms of increasing the GDP, and is therefore considered a strategic asset for the social, cultural and economic development of the [European] Union’s member countries. [...] The introduction of such a "fee schedule" seems, moreover, to take into account neither the operative peculiarities of the web, nor the potential damage to the community, which should be measured in terms of [...] lost opportunities, as well; therefore, [the decree] also stands in obvious contrast to the clear indications coming from the National Digitization Plan (PND) of cultural heritage.
What’s more, Avvenire and Il Sole 24 Ore (see the links cited at the top of this story) reported that the Court of Audit had already endorsed the free circulation of digital reproductions of cultural heritage in public domain in an October 2022 document, which included the following quote:
The radical transformations digital [devices and services] have produced in our society encourage [...] the abandonment of traditional "proprietary" paradigms, in favor of a more democratic, inclusive and horizontal vision of cultural heritage. Forms of economic return based on the "sale" of the single image appear anachronistic and largely outdated since, moreover, they are patently uneconomic. There is evidence that, in some cases, the ratio of costs incurred in managing the collection service to the actual revenue generated has a negative balance.
The question is: will the MoC get the memo this time around? – O
Lead story two
The story begins here.
Brief notes
- New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this month's newest Wikimedia movement affiliate, the .
- New administrators: The Signpost welcomes the English Wikipedia's newest administrators,
- Milestones: The following Wikimedia projects reached milestones this week:
- Articles for Improvement: This week's Article for Improvement is ARTICLE. Please be bold in helping improve this article!
Discuss this story
It's a shame that Wikimedia Ru has ceased to exist! Times like these! Happy New Year everyone!
---Zemant (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The T-shirt is pretty rad, to be honest. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Oltrepier, Jayen466, HaeB, and Bri. Is the "Fork" section supposed to have content, or is this some sort of meta-commentary that is going over my head? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jdlrobson Thank you for this tool: I've just tried, and it looks like a very cool idea! Oltrepier (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Tails Wx passes nomination, they will have gotten the 13th admin shirt and thus that description will be wrong. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Italian MoC is miscalculating how much they'll be able to collect—and how much cultural power paywalls will lose them. According to this 2017 Morsel article, the USDA had also put the Pomological Watercolor Collection behind a paywall to offset the costs of digitization. They never came close to breaking even and after a FOIA request and . Arguably, it has more cultural power as a free, public resource than it ever did gathering dust and obscurity behind a paywall. I know Italy has greater claim to art history than some beautiful botanical illustrations, but the Pomological Watercolor Collection anecdote alone puts doubt in my mind as to how well thought out the MoC proposal is, even from a bloodless and purely profit-driven perspective. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]