Italy looking ridiculous in copyright "claim"...

[carolina guy]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/us/italy-us-arms-ad/

Italians are bashing an American gun manufacturer's advertising campaign that uses the iconic statue of David holding an AR-50A1 rifle with the tagline, "A Work of Art." Italy's minister of culture took to Twitter on Saturday and threatened legal action against the Illinois-based weapon manufacturer Armalite for using the image of Michelangelo's masterpiece to boost sales of a weapon that retails for about $3,300.Dario Franceschini said that he wants ArmaLite to withdraw the image because it "offends and violates the law." Cristina Acidini, the superintendent of the State Museums of Florence, added that the image of David is copyrighted to Italy and can't be used without permission, according to Italy's state run ANSA news agency.

...

Looks like free advertising for Armalite to me.

 

[Cromaglious]

Isn't the statue over 500 years old? Isn't that out of copyright?

Sent from my Huawei Y301A1 using Tapatalk

 

[carolina guy]

(ding) (ding) (ding)...even counting 70 years from Michelangelo's death, the Bern Treaty and US Copyright laws don't apply by over 300 years.

 

[marshaul]

Imaginary property should not have the support of law.

Not only that, the practice creates bad incentives, with the result that the mere existence of IP law guarantees its rapid perversion.

If you doubt that, this case is a perfect example. If copyrightistas had their way, there would be no public domain. In their twisted minds it would be far preferable to allow government to claim the copyright for lapsed works than to permit the existence of a public domain.

Sorry, Italy, you don't – can't possibly – own the likeness of David. You own a piece of stone, but as you've discovered, that doesn't convey very far.

 

[carolina guy]

Imaginary property should not have the support of law.

Not only that, the practice creates bad incentives, with the result that the mere existence of IP law guarantees its rapid perversion.

If you doubt that, this case is a perfect example. If copyrightistas had their way, there would be no public domain. In their twisted minds it would be far preferable to allow government to claim the copyright for lapsed works than to permit the existence of a public domain.

Sorry, Italy, you don't – can't possibly – own the likeness of David. You own a piece of stone, but as you've discovered, that doesn't convey very far.

+100

 

[skidmark]

Italy has claimed (using the best phrase I can come up with) intellectual property rights over commercial use of images of the statue, apparently based on some issue(s) of national pride.

They seem to have some history of enforcing that claim, which if nothing else makes it valid - at least up until now. And having done so should have put the world on notice of the existence of their claim.

Someone comes along and in essence says "I don't care about the legality of your claim or that there was prior notice. I'm going to do what I want." They do that instead of applying for a license or challenging the claim through the legal process. And when they receive specific notice of the claim they decide that their pecuniary interests are more important than following the processes established for resolving the issue between adversaries in a civilized manner.

Jingoistic State vs. Robber Baron. Of the two, which one has the firmer stand?

stay safe.

 

[carolina guy]

Italy has claimed (using the best phrase I can come up with) intellectual property rights over commercial use of images of the statue, apparently based on some issue(s) of national pride.

They seem to have some history of enforcing that claim, which if nothing else makes it valid - at least up until now. And having done so should have put the world on notice of the existence of their claim.

Someone comes along and in essence says "I don't care about the legality of your claim or that there was prior notice. I'm going to do what I want." They do that instead of applying for a license or challenging the claim through the legal process. And when they receive specific notice of the claim they decide that their pecuniary interests are more important than following the processes established for resolving the issue between adversaries in a civilized manner.

Jingoistic State vs. Robber Baron. Of the two, which one has the firmer stand?

stay safe.

Do you have a good apples to apples example? The Bern convention and US law appear to say otherwise.

 

[Rusty Young Man]

I don't agree with the "a work of art" phrase. All-plastic makes it look too tacticool to be considered in the same category as that statue; maybe a lighter finish and some cocobolo or other wood accents would make it more palatable?.

Could you imagine if such a precedent were to be established? Could we then see Jewish people lay claim to the name "David"? Does the Roman Catholic church have a legitimate claim to the likeness of Jesus? Do the Stonecutters (Simpsons reference) have a claim to the chunk of stone from which Michelangelo made his statue?

Other than that, I think Armalite comes out the winner.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I don't agree with the "a work of art" phrase. All-plastic makes it look too tacticool to be considered in the same category as that statue; maybe a lighter finish and some cocobolo or other wood accents would make it more palatable?.

Could you imagine if such a precedent were to be established? Could we then see Jewish people lay claim to the name "David"? Does the Roman Catholic church have a legitimate claim to the likeness of Jesus? Do the Stonecutters (Simpsons reference) have a claim to the chunk of stone from which Michelangelo made his statue?

Other than that, I think Armalite comes out the winner.

Well, if you could claim such a piece, which one would you claim?

I'd claim the Jolly Green Giant .... Ho Ho Ho

 

[skidmark]

Do you have a good apples to apples example? The Bern convention and US law appear to say otherwise.

The best I can come up with before my morning coffee and meds is the prohibition against creating any image of Mohammed the Child Raper.

The prohibition exists. The reasons behind it are in many ways related to the reasons behind Italy claiming the ability to control the commercial use of an image of the statue - neither one wants to be made fun of (for their own definitions of being made fun of).

The difference is that up until now Italy has used the courts and public opinion to enforce its claim, while self-appointed (there being no central authority) arbiters of The Religion of Peace seems more inclined to seek termination of the offender rather than the offending act. Oh, yeah - add to that the fact that up until now Italy seems to have pretty much prevailed. That being the case the way to resolve the matter is to bring down Italy's claim. ArmaLite can do that in many ways that do not involve paying legal fees but they ought to acknowlege that in doing so they are purposely flying in the face of what appears, if only be repetition, to be an existing claim.

Understand full well that I do not support Italy's position - I think it is foolish for many values of that term. I believe there is jingoism behind the position and personally believe Italy has a great psychological need to resort to jingoism as a defense mechanism. <insert every Italian joke here>

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

The best I can come up with before my morning coffee and meds is ....

Well, Italy did send the Fiat 500 over here. It seems to be a preemptive strike against the American people.

 

[skidmark]

Well, Italy did send the Fiat 500 over here. It seems to be a preemptive strike against the American people.

But they did have the decency to tell their ad agency to use lots of good-looking models to try and distract us.

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

True. I'm conflicted on that score. The chick with the spider tattoo.....I hate spiders. Though, I guess I would not have to look at the back of her neck.....would I?

 

[carolina guy]

The best I can come up with before my morning coffee and meds is the prohibition against creating any image of Mohammed the Child Raper.

The prohibition exists. The reasons behind it are in many ways related to the reasons behind Italy claiming the ability to control the commercial use of an image of the statue - neither one wants to be made fun of (for their own definitions of being made fun of).

The difference is that up until now Italy has used the courts and public opinion to enforce its claim, while self-appointed (there being no central authority) arbiters of The Religion of Peace seems more inclined to seek termination of the offender rather than the offending act. Oh, yeah - add to that the fact that up until now Italy seems to have pretty much prevailed. That being the case the way to resolve the matter is to bring down Italy's claim. ArmaLite can do that in many ways that do not involve paying legal fees but they ought to acknowlege that in doing so they are purposely flying in the face of what appears, if only be repetition, to be an existing claim.

Understand full well that I do not support Italy's position - I think it is foolish for many values of that term. I believe there is jingoism behind the position and personally believe Italy has a great psychological need to resort to jingoism as a defense mechanism. <insert every Italian joke here>

stay safe.

IMO, where Italy fails (other than the obvious lack of a legal/treaty basis) is that they have not attempted to enforce their "claim" against all other commercial uses of David that did not seek prior "permission"...and my understanding is that if a commercial entity does not "vigorously" and "regularly" attempt to enforce the copyright they lose it.

But, I think that Armalite needs to just wait for them to file in federal court and then they can easily get a dismissal for lack of standing.

 

[mikeyb]

IMO, where Italy fails (other than the obvious lack of a legal/treaty basis) is that they have not attempted to enforce their "claim" against all other commercial uses of David that did not seek prior "permission"...and my understanding is that if a commercial entity does not "vigorously" and "regularly" attempt to enforce the copyright they lose it.

But, I think that Armalite needs to just wait for them to file in federal court and then they can easily get a dismissal for lack of standing.

Exactly. How many times have they sued for copyright infringement of the Mona Lisa? I betcha they're just pissed because it's not a Beretta.

 

[MAC702]

+1 for ArmaLite. Personally, I thought it was a dumb ad and never gave it a second thought. In other words, for me, it was a failed ad campaign.

Then Italy comes along and gives them a thousand times more recognition for it then the actual ad ever did.

ArmaLite really got their money's worth out of this ad, a year later!

 

[carolina guy]

+1 for ArmaLite. Personally, I thought it was a dumb ad and never gave it a second thought. In other words, for me, it was a failed ad campaign.

Then Italy comes along and gives them a thousand times more recognition for it then the actual ad ever did.

ArmaLite really got their money's worth out of this ad, a year later!

+1 Free publicity is almost always a good thing...