Florence court's decision on use of David's image now available

Michelangelo's David
Last weekend I reported on this blog the news of an interesting decision of the Florence Court of First Instance (Tribunale di Firenze) that prohibited a travel agency, Visit Today, from using the image of Michelangelo's David for commercial purposes, including to sell unofficial tickets for guided tours inside the Galleria dell'Accademia.

At the time when the blog post was published the text of the interim decision was not yet available. Now readers can access and download it here, thanks to Katfriends Fabio Ghiretti (Mondini Rusconi) and Francesco Rossi (SIB Legal).

The decision (ordinanza) was rendered in the context of interim (emergency) proceedings that the Avvocatura dello Stato had brought against Visit Today pursuant to Article 669-octies of the Italian Civil Procedure Code.

As anticipated, the reasoning underlying the granting of the injunction against Visit Today is rooted within the provisions of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code, also known as Codice Urbani, notably Article 108 therein.

As explained by the Florence court [the translation from Italian is mine],

"Article 108 of the Cultural Heritage Code provides that the authority which administers a cultural good has the right to allow its reproduction, subject to an application and the payment of a royalty set by the authority itself, with the sole exception of reproductions of work for non-profit purposes.
There is no doubt that the sculpture at issue [David] is a cultural good, nor is there any doubt that the authority that administers it is the Galleria dell'Accademia, which is subject to the Ministry [of Culture]; it follows that its use for for-profit purposes done through the reproduction of its image falls within the cases for which the authorization of the administrative authority is needed."

While ordinary proceedings should follow the issuing of the injunction, for the time being the court ordered that Visit Today's advertising materials be destroyed, and prohibited it from using the David's image in Italy and all over Europe, whether by analogue or online means (including the undertaking's website). 

The court however rejected Avvocatura dello Stato's request to block completely access to Visit Today's website in that such measure would be disproportionate to the nature and scope of the infringement. 
[Originally published on The IPKat on 28 November 2017]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more