Case Review: Ravensburger v. Italian Ministry of Culture (LG Stuttgart, Judgment of 14.03.2024 – 17 O 247/22)

October 19, 2024

Fragment, Leonardo da Vinci, Vitruvian Man, 1492, Gallerie dell’Academia, Wikimedia Commons.

By Lydia Filipsson

The Vitruvian Man, created by Leonardo da Vinci around 1490, is a renowned drawing that illustrates the ideal human proportions, depicting a nude male figure inscribed within a circle and a square, symbolizing the connection between the divine and the earthly. Currently housed in the Galleria dell’Accademia di Venezia in Italy, it is rarely on display to the public due to its fragile condition. Recently, the drawing became the subject of a legal dispute, with the Italian Ministry of Culture alleging a violation of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio) due to its unauthorized commercial use in a jigsaw puzzle by a German puzzle manufacturer, Ravensburger. Enacted in 2004, the Code serves as Italy’s main legal framework for the protection and promotion of its cultural heritage. This case follows similar legal actions against other entities, such as GQ Italia for using Michelangelo’s David on a magazine cover, and Jean Paul Gaultier for featuring Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus in a fashion collection. However, unlike the previous cases, this matter took on a cross-border dimension, starting in a Venetian court in Italy and ultimately reaching a German court in Stuttgart. The case raises substantial questions regarding the principle of territoriality, the cross-border applicability of laws, and the tension between cultural heritage regulation and copyright law.

Facts of the Case

The legal dispute began in November 2019 when the Italian Ministry of Culture, together with the Galleria dell’Accademia di Venezia, filed a lawsuit against Ravensburger, a Germany-based puzzle manufacturer, for using the drawing of the Vitruvian Man in one of their jigsaw puzzles. The plaintiffs argued that this commercial use violated Articles 107–109 of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code, which stipulates that significant cultural works cannot be commercially exploited without prior authorization and licensing from the relevant authorities.^[1] Initially, Ravensburger was open to settling the case quickly by paying €250 as a one-time payment and a licensing fee of 10% of the net sale price of every puzzle sold in Italy.^[2] However, the Italian Ministry of Culture insisted that the Italian Cultural Heritage Code be applied to sales even outside Italy, demanding a complete cessation of all sales. As no agreement could be reached regarding the limitation of the licensing area, the parties turned to the Italian court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that Ravensburger’s actions breached the Italian Cultural Heritage Code and ordering the company to pay €1,500 for each day of delay in complying with the decision.^[3] Furthermore, the court ordered an immediate cessation of sales, both within Italy and abroad.

One year after the Italian court’s ruling, Ravensburger brought the case to a regional German court in Stuttgart for a negative declaratory judgment. The puzzle company argued that the Italian court’s decision to restrict sales outside Italy should be deemed inapplicable beyond Italian borders, as the Italian Cultural Heritage Code is only applicable within the Italian border. They further contended that Italian law contradicted European Union (EU) law, particularly Directive 2006/116/EC, which establishes that copyrighted works fall into the public domain 70 years after the author’s death.^[4] They argued that the Italian Code attempted to impose “unlimited copyright protection,” thus bypassing the principle of works falling into the public domain.^[5] Conversely, the defendants maintained that the Stuttgart court lacked jurisdiction and that Italian law should continue to apply.^[6]

Judgment of the Stuttgart Court and Legal Issues

In March 2024, the Stuttgart court rendered its decision. The court began by establishing its jurisdiction, rejecting the Italian Ministry of Culture’s argument that an Italian law fell outside the German court’s authority. The court ruled that, since Ravensburger, the parent company, is headquartered in Germany, the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the German court.^[7]

After establishing jurisdiction, the Stuttgart court sided with Ravensburger, maintaining that the enforcement of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code beyond Italy’s borders would violate the international legal principle of territoriality. In both private and public international law, the principle of territoriality limits the application of a nation’s laws to acts committed within its borders. Consequently, laws enacted by any given country are typically enforceable only within that country’s jurisdiction, unless an international treaty or bilateral agreement states otherwise.^[8] The Stuttgart court argued that the principle of territoriality is foundational to international constitutional law, reflecting a nation’s sovereign authority over its own legal system.^[9] Ultimately, the court dismissed the application of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code to acts occurring within German territory, thereby limiting the scope of the Code and dismissing the Italian Ministry of Culture’s attempt to seek global injunctive relief, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs for a negative declaratory judgment. ^[10]

Regarding copyright and whether the work was in the public domain under EU law, the court adopted a more cautious stance. The EU Directive 2006/116/EC, which has been harmonized in both Germany and Italy, establishes that copyright protection lasts for 70 years following the author’s death. While the court acknowledged the potential conflict between the Directive and the Italian Cultural Heritage Code, it ultimately refrained from taking a definitive position, leaving unanswered whether the Italian Code contradicts the Directive and the principle of works entering the public domain 70 years after the author’s death.

Analysis of Legal Issues and Broader Implications

The Stuttgart court’s ruling raises several significant legal issues, particularly regarding the principle of territoriality: the copyright protection of culturally significant works and the absence of an international or European Union framework that adequately addresses the cross-border regulation of cultural heritage. It also raises broader questions about the ethical responsibilities of companies to adhere to national laws of cultural heritage protection.

The Principle of Territoriality

The decision underscores a legal reality: while Italy has the right to protect its cultural heritage domestically, it will have difficulties imposing these protections internationally in light of the principle of territoriality. This highlights the tension between the desire of Italy and other states to safeguard their cultural heritage and the limitations imposed by the territoriality principle, preventing the extension of national laws beyond state borders. It also reflects the difficulties countries face in controlling the international use of their cultural heritage in a world where markets and commercial activity cross national boundaries. Following this decision, Italy and other countries may find it increasingly challenging to enforce their desired protections for cultural heritage outside their borders.

Copyright Law vs. Cultural Heritage Regulation

Furthermore, the case reveals an underlying conflict between copyright law and cultural heritage protection, highlighting the challenges faced by countries like Italy that wish to control the commercial exploitation of culturally significant works while navigating copyright laws. Although the ruling leaves unanswered the question of whether cultural heritage laws are incompatible with copyright laws, it demonstrates how cultural heritage laws can potentially serve as a workaround for the expiration of copyright protections and raises further concerns about how companies should navigate these legal ambiguities when using cultural heritage works across borders. Countries like Italy may need to deal with these legal realities and rethink how they protect their cultural heritage in a world where commercial activities often cross national borders.

The Lack of an International Framework

The case also underscores the absence of an international or EU framework for cultural heritage laws. While national cultural heritage laws can be effective within a country’s borders, the case highlights the challenges of enforcing such laws internationally, especially without treaties or directives that harmonize cultural heritage protection. In an increasingly globalized world, where nations are demonstrating a growing interest in protecting their cultural heritage, it remains to be seen whether these developments will lead to an international framework that effectively addresses the cross-border protection of cultural heritage.

The Responsibility of Companies

Beyond strictly legal issues, the case also raises ethical questions regarding the moral obligations of companies operating in a globalized market. Should companies like Ravensburger voluntarily respect the cultural heritage laws of foreign countries, even when those laws are not enforceable within their own legal systems? The case may compel companies in the future to reconsider how they can effectively balance profit-driven goals with the ethical responsibility to respect and comply with the national laws of other countries seeking to protect their cultural heritage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Stuttgart court’s decision highlights the inherent limitations of national cultural heritage protection laws in an increasingly interconnected global market, particularly regarding the enforcement of those laws across borders. The case also underscores the tensions between copyright protection, especially in regards to works in the public domain, and cultural heritage laws that seek to preserve historically significant works from commercial exploitation. It will be interesting to follow developments in this field, especially as the need for clear legal guidance may become more urgent. As globalization continues, striking the right balance between the interests of nations, businesses, and consumers will likely become even more important, particularly when navigating the intersection of cultural heritage and commercial interests. Since the Italian Ministry of Culture has appealed the case, there is hope that the next ruling may provide more clarity and a more precedent-setting decision on these issues.

Selected Sources:

• LG Stuttgart , judgment of 14.03.2024 – 17 O 247/22, available to read (in German) here: https://openjur.de/u/2486810.html
• Venice Civil Court, order no. 5317/2022, October 20, 2022, available to read (in Italian) here: https://deap.web.uniroma1.it/sites/default/files/allegati/%20Trib_Venezia_ord_17.11.2022_Ravensburger.pdf
• Ryngaert, Cedric, ‘The Territoriality Principle’, Jurisdiction in International Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law (Oxford, 2008; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2009), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544714.003.0003, accessed 2 Oct. 2024.

About the Author:

Lydia Filipsson is a postgraduate intern with the Center for Art Law, with an LL.M from Stockholm University and a Master in Art history from Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, specializing in international and comparative law, as well as intellectual property law with a special focus on the study of moral rights of authors. She can be reached at filipssonlydia@gmail.com.

Bibliography:

1. Stuttgart Regional Court, judgment of March 14, 2024, case no. 17 O 247/22, section 10 ↑
2. Ibid., section 12. ↑
3. Venice Civil Court, order no. 5317/2022, October 20, 2022, p.15. ↑
4. Stuttgart Regional Court, judgment of March 14, 2024, case no. 17 O 247/22, section 18. ↑
5. Ibid., sections 16-20. ↑
6. Ibid., sections 21-25. ↑
7. Ibid., sections 36-46. ↑
8. Ryngaert, Cedric, ‘The Territoriality Principle’, Jurisdiction in International Law, Oxford Monographs in International Law (Oxford, 2008; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2009), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544714.003.0003, accessed 2 Oct. 2024. ↑
9. Ibid., p. 42. ↑
10. Stuttgart Regional Court, judgment of March 14, 2024, case no. 17 O 247/22, see sections 50-59. ↑