The Italian [state] had demanded a licensing agreement for the commercial use of one of the Renaissance master’s most famous drawings, despite the fact that he died more than 500 years ago, placing his works in the public domain under international copyright law.
The [Italian] plaintiffs argued that a domestic law aimed at protecting Italy’s cultural heritage meant they had the authority to demand agreements with those who profit from culturally significant artworks, even if they are based abroad.
Is it cultural appropriation if a state appropriates the work of an artist because it deems it culturally relevant? /s 🤔
On a more serious note: This could have probably served as a blueprint for Big Mouse if it had been successful.
This may not be over. The Italian state can attempt to get its way on the EU level via new laws. It wouldn’t surprise me if that succeeded.
I’m puzzled why they even thought it would be possible to enforce their Italian laws outside of Italy.
This and only this is a valid case of cultural appropriation. Acquiring copyright for work in the public domain and denying legitimate use. Having a hairstyle somebody else does not like has nothing to do with it. Nor does an artist’s ethnicity, surface color or sexual orientattion. These are just pretexts for self-declared “defenders of the faith” to discriminate arbitrarily agains whoever they want.