1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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”

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Nicola D’Orta, con “Anfiteatro campano dell’Antica Capua”
(Santa Maria Capua Vetere)

9. Giacomo
Barbaro, “Fontana di
Nettuno” (Bologna)

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 “Accordo
Quadro”
• Employees of Europeana:
• Maarten Zeinstra
• Christina Angelopoulos
• Resources and information from Director and affiliates of
the Nexa Center
• Federico Morando- Director
• Stefano Costa- Archeologist

16. THANK YOU!
…QUESTIONS AND
FEEDBACK?