1. ITALIANCULTURAL HERITAGEPROTECTION LAWSAND DIGITAL COLLECTIONS OF ART ANDCULTURAL HERITAGEANGELICA TAVELLAMAY 8, 2013UC BERKELEYGOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
2. THE POLICYIn 2004, a legislative decree known as theCode of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (the“Codice Urbani”) was passed.• AKA Cultural Heritage Protection LawsThe Ministry of Heritage and Cultural Goods(MiBAC) control permission to reproduce anycultural heritage good.• Including digital reproductions (posting aphoto on your blog for example)
3. THE POLICYThe fee for a reproduction is dependent on:• who is in control of the cultural good (if it is notowned by the State),• the purpose of the reproduction,• where and when the reproduction will be used,• the expected economic benefits coming from thereproduction“No fee is owed for reproductions requested byprivate individuals, for personal use forpurposes of study, or by public bodies forpurposes of enhancement”
4. THE EFFECTS ON WEB-BASEDCULTURAL 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 openlicenses• User-generated collections• A connected/linked structure to goods of relatedbackground/ historical context
5. THE CASE OFWIKI LOVES MONUMENTS ITALIA• Wiki Loves Monuments is an international photocompetition hosted by The Wikimedia Foundation.• The purpose: to develop and document culturalheritage goods throughout the world, “particularly forthe purpose of promoting a greater-spanningknowledge through the use of projects using opencontent".• Began in 2011, resulting in 365,000 added of 33countries added to Wiki Commons.• Italy was not able to participate because of itsCultural Heritage Protection Laws.
6. THE ACCORDO QUADRO(FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT)• After being denied permission to participate in the 2011Wiki Loves Monuments, a lawyer was hired to write aframework agreement between MiBAC and Wiki LovesMonuments which stated that:• Only specified monuments in each of Italy’s regions couldbe entered.• Photos can be published explicitly on Wiki Commons.• Use of photos must explicitly state that the photographedmaterials are property of MiBAC and are separate frombeing protected under Copyright.
7. OUTCOMES• Over 12,000 photos of Italian goods wereentered and are now available on WikiCommons.• Win-win situation: people all over theworld are able to view and learn aboutthese monuments• MiBAC’s goal of increasing visibility ofItaly’s lesser-known goods succeeds.
8. Nicola D’Orta, con “Anfiteatro campano dell’Antica Capua”(Santa Maria Capua Vetere)
9. GiacomoBarbaro, “Fontana diNettuno” (Bologna)
10. THE CASE OFEUROPEANA• The Europeana Foundation: purpose is toaggregate, facilitate, distribute, and engage inEuropes cultural heritage• It is the largest collection of Europe’s leadinggalleries, libraries, archives, and museums.• Funded largely by the European Commission• The goal is to bring cultural organizations thatrange from State archives to private museumstogether• so people know where to access this culturalmaterial.
11. EFFECTS• According to one Europeanaemployee, Italy is generally the leastenthusiastic to provide Europeana andother cultural websites with culturalmaterials.• There is no (inclusive) State-organizeddigital collection of Italy’s extensive artand cultural goods.• But their Cultural Heritage ProtectionLaws make it difficult for any other culturalinstitution to provide these services.
12. CONCLUSIONS• Unnecessarily high transaction costs involved ingetting rights to use photos of Italian art and culturalgoods.• Must request rights to MiBAC for each individualphoto. This sometimes takes 30 days just to get aresponse.• These policies have negative implications fororganizations that are trying to engage a broaderaudience with a greater range of art and culturalgoods.• Cultural Heritage Protection Laws are mostrestrictive to public consumers of art and culture
13. SUGGESTIONSIdentify and limit afew specific works/cultural goods tobe protected underthe terms ofCultural HeritageProtection Laws.For example, Portugal has 9distinguished monumentswhich require permissionand/or fees to photograph orpublish.
14. SUGGESTIONS• Reproductions may be subject to the application of aCC license + an ad hoc agreement concerning theCHPLs, 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 feesfor such cultural institutions• e.g. conditioning the validity of the CC+agreement to the non-commercial use or simplyto a low resolution of the images.
15. SOURCES ANDRESEARCH 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 ofthe Nexa Center• Federico Morando- Director• Stefano Costa- Archeologist