@quinta Put this way, I'd argue that the Italian law is, in fact, superior to the EU law in this case.

A good belongs to #Commons only when rules exists that protect it from careless private exploitation.

And while for intellectual artifact like software and "digital" contents this should means that when something enter the public domain, its use and derivation should be bound to share-alike rules, it sounds reasonable that for physical good like artistic masterpieces, this means that private profit drawn from a reproduction should contribute to the preservation of the original artwork.

I know that @nemobis won't agree though... 😃

@quinta Good luck using that supposed exception.

It will not be easy for the company. The judge has ignored them when they asked to consider EU law. Again, have you read the documents I linked?

then the multinational can appeal and win

it will be worthwhile for them.

if the European court finds Italy's law is incompatible with EU law, it will unleash a *huge* trove of work of art for them to exploit without having to contribute to their restoration and conservation costs

(which will then be covered by general taxation, i.e. also by me and you (if you are tax resident in Italy))

@quinta It remains to be seen whether and how they can appeal and whether an Italian judge will refer the matter to the CJEU. On what basis do you expect that to be easy? Did you read https://zenodo.org/record/7655286?

As for your prediction, I'd like to see on what evidence it's based. The museum's own numbers hint revenues from this ransom-extracting business barely cover personnel cost https://www.ilpost.it/2023/02/24/pagare-diritti-puzzle-uomo-vitruviano/.

(I'm not a resident but I am a taxpayer contributing to the Republic of Italy's budget.)

the basis is, as you say, if there's an incompatibility. not only a judge can refer to the cjeu but also the multinational can directly refer the case to the commission for an infraction procedure.

i concur that requested fees are just a contribution to the conservation and restoration costs. they don't pay for all of them. they would make it absolutely unsustainable for the company.

@quinta A judge *can*, but will they? So far they didn't.

Fees *might* contribute to the costs you mention, but there's no evidence they do.

well.. the ministry's monies for conservation and restoration don't come out of thin air...

if judges don't, they can file the case directly with the commission.

multinational spend loads of money on lobby. they surely know the existing procedures

@quinta They come from the state budget. Not from loss-making factories of threatening letters.

The Commission may or may not act on such a request. It has shown repeatedly that it's not interested in protecting the public domain.

@quinta That's because they are too much influenced by common-law perspective on "public domain" (and by [US propaganda on the topic](https://sci-hub.st/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243) sold as "Science").

Any unprotected good is not in the public domain, but under the rules of the strongest/smartest bully.

@quinta

@Shamar Yes. In this case the bully is the ministry.

🤣

I don't know... I'm not sure.

As you know, I'd be very happy to find a way to keep ALL public domain derivative work... within the commons heritage of humanity.

I even wrote the #HackingLicense to achieve this sort of legal effect (and I know you do not like it).

@Shamar Read the papers I linked and you'll see the ministry is acting as a bully. :) They can afford to do that because the taxpayer covers the personnel and legal costs of these bureaucratic activities and nobody covers the externalities.

As for the #Commons, are we using Ostrom's definitions?
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6980.001.0001

On the physical maintenance, art. 108 doesn't contribute because it doesn't earn money.

As for the immaterial side, art. 108 makes projects like #WikimediaCommons impossible.

@Shamar only to the extent that WM commons allows for commercial exploitation.

one could argue that it should be WM commons the one who ought to change their license by adding Non Commercial.

historic works of art need to be conserved and restored.
someone ought to pay for that.
either all taxpayers, or those who exploit them commercially or a combination of the two.

that's what ITA's law requires.

./..

@Shamar if it's not coherent with a superior law, then that violation should be enforced. we have appeal procedures for that.
and they work. I have direct experience; in 2003 I barred a multinational from misbehaving (they had to revert course), filing a complaint to Brussels

one may not like it and prefer that any multinational can exploit them commercially for free, then the law should be changed and we have a process for that as well...

@quinta The law was changed by democratic means in the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The ministry and the judges of Florence and Venice refuse to comply.

As far as I've recently learnt, you are formally right, as EU regulations are on par with National Constitutions in the hierarchy of laws (according to EUJC and incredibly Corte Costituzionale too).

I still consider this subversive as long we don't fast-forward to a democratic Europe of People, with one Government and one Parliament elected by people.

Yet, I still think the Italian law looks reasonable and in fact wiser.

Unprotected commons thrown away as garbage always ends up be destroyed and privatized.

Public domain should be protected as share-alike by default.

If it's not, managing it as NC seems the best surrogate available.

(but beware.. I still need to read the paper you suggested... )

@quinta

@Shamar Art. 14 of directive 790/2019, promulgated in accordance to art. 11 of the Italian Constitution, correctly implements art. 9, 21 and 33 of the Italian Constitution.

What's subversive is a decree issued by a minister against the Constitution, the laws and the treaties, and a pèanel of judges issuing orders in defiance of a regularly adopted EU legislation.