A Fight for Copyright
Ravensburger v. Italian Ministry of Culture illustrates the limitations of national cultural heritage protection laws in a globalized economy and the challenges and implications of enforcing these laws internationally.
The Ravensburger v. Italian Ministry of Culture case began in November 2019 when the Italian Ministry of Culture (IMoC) and the Gallerie dell’Accademia filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Ravensburger, a German puzzle manufacturer, in Venice, Italy. IMoC claimed that Ravensburger violated Articles 107-109 of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code by using Leonardo da Vinci’s drawing of the Vitruvian Man, currently in the permanent collection of the Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice, as the subject of one of its puzzles sold in Italy and other European Union countries. [1]
Italian Cultural Heritage Laws vs. the European Union
In 2004, Italy enacted the Italian Cultural Heritage Codes (ICHC), establishing the legal framework for protecting its cultural heritage. Articles 107-109 of the ICHC specify that Italian cultural works, such as the Vitruvian Man, cannot be used for commercial purposes without prior authorization and a licensing fee agreement between a company and the Italian museum that holds the physical work, even if the artwork is in the public domain.
In contrast, copyright law in the European Union (EU) states that an artwork enters the public domain seventy years after the artist’s death. Leonardo da Vinci died in 1519; thus, under EU law, the Vitruvian Man is considered a public domain artwork that Ravensburger can commercially reproduce without the consent of the Gallerie dell’Accademia. [2]
Case Proceeding to Trial
Ravensburger initially expressed interest in settling the lawsuit and agreed to a one-time payment and a ten percent licensing fee on the net sales of all puzzles sold in Italy. IMoC rejected this offer, stating that the licensing fee should apply to all sales in Italy and abroad. Ravensburger did not accept IMoC’s demand, prompting the case to progress to an Italian court, which ruled that Ravensburger had violated Articles 107-109 of the ICHC and mandated that the company cease all puzzle sales in Italy and the EU. Following this ruling, Ravensburger filed a negative declaratory judgment in Germany, arguing that the Italian court’s decision only applied within the Italian border and that “enforcement of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code outside of Italy would violate the international legal principle of territoriality.” The German court ruled in favor of Ravensburger on the issue of territoriality but did not take a definitive position on whether copyright protection can last more than seventy years.[3] This copyright dispute will be further litigated at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in 2025.
Licensing Agreements
If you are the owner of a company that wishes to create products using Italian art in the public domain, and the original artwork is part of the permanent collection of an Italian museum, we advise securing a licensing agreement between your company and the Italian museum where the original piece is located. Obtaining a licensing agreement will help your company avoid costly litigation that the IMoC could initiate to enforce its national cultural heritage laws. If you'd like to learn more about licensing agreements and how they can protect your company's legal and financial interests, please don't hesitate to complete our consultation form below to schedule a phone call with one of our attorneys.
[1] Case Review: Ravensburg v. Italian Ministry of Culture (LG Stuttgart, Judgement of 14.03.2024 – 17 O 247/22) itsartlaw.org (Last Accessed: January 30, 2025).
[2] The Institute of Art and Law: The Second Chapter of the Vitruvian Man Dispute. ial.uk.com (Last Accessed: January 30, 2025).
[3] Italy’s Expansive Control over Cultural Heritage. https://artlawpodcast.com/2024/06/03/italys-expansive-control-over-cultural-heritage/. (Last Accessed: January 30, 2025).
Consultation Form