@quinta Nope. EU law is clear, this puzzle doesn't need any authorisation. Yet it's subject to a court order claiming the contrary.

Have you read https://zenodo.org/record/7655286 and https://zenodo.org/record/7679296?

@nemobis I am not arguing about the inconsistency with EU law.

cultural heritage stuff is protected in Italy under this provision which clearly states that they are free for non commercial uses. (sort of cc-nc licence)

this is a fact (art. 108 codice beni culturali)

if you are correct and this is inconsistent with EU law, it will be easy for this multinational to appeal, win the case and eventually lead Italy to an infraction procedure

@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.

@nemobis 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 useful? 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.)

@nemobis 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.

@nemobis 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 letter factories.

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.

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