Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by beej71 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

beej71

Public domain with license fees? What kind of crazy public domain is this?

View on HN

It's not public domain anymore. It's Italy's domain.

Companies should be more willing to stop doing business with countries that produce crazy rulings like this.

They could use different images.

They'd need to know beforehand though.

It sounds like anything from Italian museums is a no-go due to this, whereas things from German or British museums (;>) would be fair game.

The mention of British museums is due to this recent case:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38817128

SD variations to the rescue

They could pay the (relatively small fee) before discussing internally and someone with 'authority' saying "f... them, we use it and let them sue us!"

I cannot believe that nobody rang the warning bell about using some photo/material in the magazine, in the whole flow it takes from inception/decision on articles, all the way to the printer.

Despite the allegations here being ridiculous (how is this use humiliating?), i do not find necessarily absurd to ask for a small fee for commercial use. Iconic works of art like this one belong to our collective heritage (not just the italian government). But while the use of their image should be left as free as possible, unlike a poem or a novel, they are also real objects that require constant, highly specialized manteinance and care that has non negligible costs. Is not that crazy to ask companies who profit from them to contribute back a little, so that those money can help the institutions that take care of these and other works of art. Stuff in the public domain sometimes also require the public to take care of them.

The artefacts/artworks that people would like to commercialize are hot properties that allow their caretaker institutions to draw crowds and make $$. If anything, businesses that use images of David are helping by providing free advertising and keeping these works from fading from the public consciousness.

That's what tourism revenue is for

It's about the precedent. Without protections like this, it's pretty hard to imagine creators being incentivized to produce new work.

Yea Michelangelo hasn’t produced in a while now probably due to motivation, it’s hard out there for an artist who is just trying to break into the scene.

Maybe he not that good after all. Sculpting is not for everyone.

I believe that it's more about protecting the image of the artwork. Imagine using the statue to promote product X. Then imagine that every icon/building/etc. being used to promote something that you/the nation goes against (i.e. the statue in the cover of a porn magazine, or a historical monument to promote the latest crypto-fraud-coin. I understand that the Colosseum, the Acropolis, or the statue of David won't be physically damaged by such an ad, but still..

You're describing a more restrictive version of a trademark. Why don't they call it such?

And why does some modern nation that didn't even exist back when these works were created gets to claim this kind of right on them?

Artists express themselves through their work primarily because of an uncanny need to do so. Not because others are going to pay of it. Most likely people are going to shit on it, which is exactly what happened to Yorgos Lanthimos (hottest filmmaker Hollywood at the moment) until his works reached a wider audience outside Greece, his home country. Wasn't about money. To this day he works only with studios that will allow him 100% "final cut" control.

Are there "frauds" out there? Sure, is it always clear which one is which, no. But at it's core art is the most well established form expression, other than talking, known to man kind since _forever_.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm.

Yeah, because without financial incentive, why would anyone bother to create anything?

Even without protections, creators are going to make new stuff. Without theses protections, maybe a dozen fewer lawsuits will be filed because quite frankly, most people can’t afford to pursue legal action, whether or not they’re in the right.

The sad thing is that Michaelangelo was paid to do a lot of his art. And the David was a commision, he was creating art the same we are coding today: not for the copyright, but for a wage. It was financial incentive enough.

So what you are saying is that the statue has been bought and paid for, so why do we need to pay a licensing fees for something made 15-20 generations ago (~510 years ago) that was paid for already.

Do you get royalties for the code you write for work? Will your great-grand(x15-20)-kids get paid royalties for that JavaScript you made last year?

Yes, that's exactly what my message says... almost word by word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com