[Guest Post] [Conference Report] – Botticelli v Warhol – 2025 Cultural Heritage Conference in Florence (Day 1)

A few weeks ago, former Kat Chiara Gallo had the opportunity to attend the two-day conference Botticelli v Warhol: Comparative Perspective on the Use of Cultural Heritage Images held in Florence and organised as a joint effort by Giacomo Pailli, Jennifer Celani, Lucrezia Palandri, Eleonora Rosati, Niccolò Galli, Alessandra De Luca, and Chiara Gallo. Here’s Part 1 of Chiara’s report (Part 2 is available here):

[Conference Report] – Botticelli v Warhol – 2025 Cultural Heritage Conference in Florence (Day 1)

by Chiara Gallo

Given the theme of the conference, which partly referenced the IP-like protection of Italian cultural heritage, this former Kat, having done research in the past on this topic, could not pass on the opportunity to participate and write a report about it for the IPKat. [Please see the several articles written by various Kats over the years, including Eleonora Rosati: here]. Over the course of two days, the conference hosted 26 speakers, and it covered a wide range of topics that spanned across jurisdictions and sectors. This two-part report tries to distil and analyse the most important points raised, in order to bring to the international IP community an aspect of cultural heritage laws that is almost unique to Italy (although, there are other examples too, as it will be considered in the second part).

Introduction

Merpel channelling her inner Warhol’s Venus

(Illustration by Arianna Gallo)

Florence, as considered during the introduction remarks and known to be the symbol of the Renaissance, with its rich artistic and cultural tradition including names such as Giotto, Filippo Brunelleschi, Sandro Botticelli, Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo, could not have served as a more fitting stage for this interdisciplinary conference on cultural heritage and the law. The connection also lies in the fact that some of these names have been associated with court judgements that, in recent years, have made the headlines in both the IP and the art law communities, due to their uniqueness and, at times, controversial nature. Several questions have been raised by commentators over the years. Some examples include: “How is it possible for works that were created centuries before modern copyright laws to not benefit from the public domain?”, “Who owns these culturally significant works?” and a fan favourite “Isn’t this Italian law in violation of Article 14 of the European Union Digital Single Market Directive?”

In order to find answers to these and many more questions, the event, held at Villa Ruspoli, one of the campuses of the University of Florence, brought together scholars, museum professionals and legal experts to analyse the issue and discuss how reproduction of artistic works and cultural heritage images sometimes falls outside the pure scope of copyright protection.

Opening remarks

The opening remarks

(Photo by Chiara Gallo)

The conference was officially opened with the welcome remarks from the institutions and organisations that made the event’s organisation and successful realisation possible. Giacomo Pailli introduced the conference and explained that this marked the second edition in a series of conferences initiated by the University of Florence in 2022, aimed at exploring cultural heritage from a comparative perspective. Alessandro Simoni followed by stating that there is no better place than Florence to engage in these discussions and, given the wide range of sectors represented throughout the two days, no better speakers and colleagues to shed light on the relationship between cultural heritage protection and accessibility. Antonella Ranaldi highlighted the interest in relation to the outcomes of the conference and the potential impact on areas such as conservation and restoration. She underlined the important role that the Italian Cultural Heritage Code (“ICHC”) plays in this realm, particularly when reproductions require compliance with safety protocols. However, applying these procedures is not always straightforward given the tensions around public versus private management of cultural heritage and around the contrast between free concessions and access versus commercial fees and reproductions. Vittoria Barsotti and Alessandra De Luca stressed the importance of going beyond the Italy-vs-US perspective, pointing to the growing regulatory strength of the Italian system and the challenges this poses for proponents of open cultural access. This convergence of perspectives set the stage for the keynote address.

Keynote address: Ariane Thomas, Louvre Museum

Ariane Thomas during her keynote address

(Photo by Chiara Gallo)

In a fascinating keynote, Ariane Thomas offered a museum practitioner's perspective. She examined the history of the Louvre in terms of reproducing its artworks. The museum has a long-standing tradition of allowing artists to copy works from its collections, a practice known as “les copistes”. Outside of these practices, the Louvre and other French museums historically placed bans on photography and reproduction. These bans remained in place until 2005 at the Louvre, 2010 at the Musee d’Orsay and 2017 for temporary exhibitions. Restrictions may still apply to certain temporary exhibitions, depending on the specific agreements with the lenders. Thomas then addressed the Louvre’s digital collections database, which contains images of more than 500,000 works and allows users to download them free of charge. It is not exhaustive and there are some exceptions, on the basis of legal considerations and international agreements. She also raised questions for the audience, in relation to photography or reproduction of images of human remains, joint ownership of cultural objects (Statue of Ui-Ningirsu), the roles of emerging technologies (i.e. NFTs, 3D printing and AI), preservation of works of art and architecture that have been destroyed or damage by wars (Mosul Museum). She emphasised that, when addressing these questions, it is essential to strike a balance between the right to reproduce a work of art and the rights of others to experience that same work, and the law might not resolve all these questions while simultaneously ensuring that museums receive the resources they need to contribute their work.

Roundtable

The keynote address was followed by a roundtable moderated by Jennifer Celani and included professors and visiting scholars based in Italy and the United States.

The roundtable

(Photo by Giacomo Pailli)

Giorgio Resta opened with a legal analysis of Italy’s regulatory framework, considering Article 9 of the Italian Constitution, Article 10 of the Civil Code, and then analysing the ICHC, specifically Articles 106 to 110, which set out the conditions under which cultural assets can be reproduced and the administrative mechanisms that govern such use. He flagged the specificity of the Italian system compared to France, Germany and the UK. To assess the application of the ICHC, the speaker considered how a canvas by Velásquez was at the centre of proceedings in front of the Bologna court. The case provided an example of how the state controls the exploitation of cultural heritage objects, which can include paintings and works of art that were created by foreign artists but are somehow linked to the history or artistic and cultural tradition of Italy. Additionally, he raised a particular point in relation to Article 106. It is in the power of the administrative authorities to grant the relevant authorisation and impose the fees, but he then asked the audience whether it about artistic protection or about institutional gatekeeping? Resta suggested that this approach favours the pursuit of fiscal objectives, i.e. licence fees as a cultural tax.

In contrast, Simone Torricelli brought to the table a public law perspective, arguing that there is a public law objective in regulating cultural heritage. Indeed, image rights, when attached to cultural heritage, should be understood as a form of public property. These rights should belong to the community and are therefore administered by public authorities. He stated that licensing mechanisms are both administrative controls and also a way for the state to actively participate in the cultural economy and in the profit made in relation to the reproduction and reuse of the cultural heritage image.

Cecilie Hollberg considered the topic from a more institutional point of view, recounting one of the first legal cases involving the reproduction of Italian cultural heritage and the application of the ICHC [The IPKat discussed it here]. This case involved Michelangelo's David, and it was brought to court by the same Hollberg, who at the time was the Director of the Galleria dell’Academia in Florence. She referenced the 2017 Florence court decision, which upheld the museum’s right to control reproductions of the David, especially in response to what she described as “disrespectful or exploitative commercial uses”, namely the sale of €50-60 tickets by bagarini (ticket touts). “My David, from my museum,” she said, underlining the idea that this is not about revenue generation, because merchandise should be allowed as long as it does not denigrate the art, but about safeguarding the dignity and symbolic integrity of artworks (and institutions) that have national and even societal weight.

A “Kat”-rendition of 

Michelangelo’s David

(Illustration by Arianna Gallo)

Marketa Trimble rounded up the panel with a transatlantic perspective. She emphasised and listed the pressures museums face in the globalised and digital age, namely shrinking public funding, the rise of anti-intellectualism, the shifting dynamics of attention span due to the rise of TikTok and Instagram and, what she called, the ‘remix era’. The rights to reproduce artworks, she argued, seek to both protect artistic and cultural creations and to ensure the financial survival of cultural institutions, a theme already considered by Thomas during her keynote. She pointed to the need for museums to retain some exclusivity in their digital assets, while still embracing openness, especially when digital solutions can help institutions cope with destruction caused by wars. She concluded by stating that there are countries and jurisdictions that protect folklore, and this approach could be also applied to the protection of cultural heritage, especially in relation to the rights of unrepresented societal groups, including the indigenous communities.

The discussion that followed touched upon several different aspects, sometimes reaching provocative statements. Resta asked whether these frameworks would apply equally to problematic artworks, for instance, pieces with ties to fascism and what kind of ownership is really at stake when talking about images and territorial applications. Trimble asked whether we should start thinking beyond the law and toward perception, context and use. Celani considered the issue of decorum as compared to image rights linked to people.

The first day set the scene for the more IP-focused panel discussions that took place during the second day (Part 2). However, the debate regarding the boundaries of protection, i.e. “when does it preserve, and when does it restrict?”, echoed throughout this first session and reminded the audience that cultural heritage law is as much about people and politics as it is about paintings and other artistic objects.