Restrictions on the Use of Michelangelo’s David: Cultural Curation or Cultural Censorship?

By: Faith Magiera

Edited by: Jared Fischer and Angie Chung

Michelangelo’s David is an iconic part of the culture of not only Italy but the whole world. The Renaissance sculpture nicknamed “The Giant” which depicts David from the Bible’s David and Goliath story, quickly became a well-known piece of Italy’s history after its completion in 1504. [1] However, it has recently been the subject of censorship and national control debates in Italy, as museum curator Cecilie Hollberg has started to win suits on behalf of the David in order to limit its use as a merchandise item or promotional tool. [2] As the director of the Galleria Dell’Accademia Di Firenze, the main art museum in Florence, Hollberg has come under fire for likening Florentine tourism to a process that has made the city a “prostitute,” an ideology that is consistent with her lawsuits against the widespread use of David. [3] While restricting the use of the sculpture’s image may initially seem like a violation of intellectual property law, the Italian Cultural Heritage Code, made constitutional under article nine of the Italian Constitution “promotes the development of culture” and “safeguards…the historical and artistic heritage of the nation,” complicates the issue. [4]

Italy’s intellectual property law, and the specific implications it holds for museum artworks, is a complex issue that was changed by the advent of Italy’s Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, which was updated in 2004. [5] Yet before we dive into the legal implications of Italy’s newest cultural code, let us investigate what is unique about Michelangelo’s David. To understand why David is such an interesting case study, it is first important to delve into how it came to be. A piece commissioned during the Renaissance in Florence, it was meant to be exhibited in the Florence Cathedral but was moved for unknown reasons to the Palazzo Vecchio, which operated as the town hall of Florence at the time. [6] Significant to note here is the shift of David from its traditional religious significance into a nonreligious, political context. [7] During this time, there was also the shift of Florence from a Medici-led dictatorship to an attempted restoration of the Republic, so the sculpture became a “symbol of the Florentine Republic.” [8] Consequently, David came to hold a symbolic significance for the people of Florence, which considered it to represent their “strength and independence,” as explained by the Galleria Dell’Accademia, which now houses the sculpture. [9] This complicated historical, and political context is a reason why it is now considered as the cultural property of Italy, a categorization explained below.

The United States does not have a comparable Act that serves to protect its national heritage, so it is essential to dive into Italy’s Cultural Code to understand what is so different about this categorization of public works. As defined in Italy’s Cultural Code, cultural property is a category of “things which… present historical, archaeological, ethnoanthropological, archival and bibliographic interest” or act as “testifying to the values of civilization,” which includes museum artifacts. [10] As investigated above, David seems to fall into this unique classification because of its historical production and symbolism that allows the Italian government and other institutions, such as the Galleria, to have greater control over its image. Protection of cultural property is defined in this Act as “provisions aimed at conforming or regulating the rights and behavior inherent to cultural heritage” while also making room for “public enjoyment” of these artifacts. [11] This Act also created the Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities in order to ensure that the government had an institution ready to deal with the potential actions that would be taken on the act’s behalf, including whether or not the Act can be reproduced or used in merchandise. [12] Unlawful use of cultural property is defined as “a use that is incompatible with [its] historical or artistic nature or which is harmful to [its] conservation or integrity,” which does not necessarily consider reproductions, but certainly shows the commitment of the Italian government to preserving cultural artifacts from being used in contexts that it deems unseemly. [13] As seeking approval from the government is the only alternative in order to ensure that the use will not result in a suit, it is easy to see how Hollberg has been able to leverage this Act in order to stop the proliferation of the image of David on pieces of merchandise that are deemed to be demeaning to David’s image as a cultural icon. This is seen pointedly in one case that ruled that Conde Nast would have to pay fees back to the Galleria because of its unauthorized use of David in a magazine article. [14]

Italy’s Cultural Heritage Code, an unprecedented and extensive Act, clashes with ideas about intellectual property set by the Berne Convention, which Italy agreed to in 1886 and amended in 1979. [15] This treaty set the standard for works entering the public domain 50 years after the death of the author––or in David’s case, the artist––and was signed by 181 countries since its conception in 1886. [16] After a work enters the public domain, there are usually no protections regarding how the work can be used. Therefore, Italy’s Cultural Heritage Code has created a new category of work that can require protection not because of its status as being the copyrighted work of a particular author or artist, but because of its inherent worth or value to Italy’s cultural identity. This new, liminal category allows those interested in intellectual property a lens to see the interaction of cultural, and moral values with ideas of freedom of speech and expression inherent to public domain images. Additionally, it potentially clashes with an agreement in the European Union that puts all works that are no longer copyrighted under the Berne Convention into the public domain, another legal implication of this new type of law. [17]

As Cecilie Hollberg explained in a recent piece for The Guardian, she wants to take a more sustainable approach to tourism that prioritizes preserving not only knowledge of great works but also the character of Florence as a city. [18] She explains that, after her successful suits have stopped the proliferation of David’s likeness, “visitors also look at other objects and give them the dignity and respect they merit.” [19] The question then becomes: is it the power of the museum, or the government on the museum’s behalf, to regulate the use of an image in order to curate an educational or cultural environment? Hollberg’s repeated attacks on tourism and merchandise she sees as “in bad taste” raises legal questions about what the role of the museum is in building a national culture, and how that can be regulated by a national government that is focused on curating a specific image of itself. [20] Whether or not a sculpture, which has been in the public domain for centuries, can be regulated in its use is a question that has ethical and moral implications for what an artwork represents in today’s global, not just national, culture. Currently, the decision for Italy specifically seems to be leaning to the idea of cultural curation as opposed to the free proliferation of images, but the future of global legality is still an open question.

Notes:

1. Victoria and Albert Museum. 2018. “V&A · The Story of Michelangelo’s David.” Victoria and Albert Museum. V&A. 2018. https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/the-story-of-michelangelos-david. 

2. Barry, Colleen. “A Fight to Protect the Dignity of Michelangelo’s David Raises Questions about Freedom of Expression.” 2024. AP News. March 28, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/michelangelo-david-statue-italy-protection-heritage-3fa1b7185fea36003e064fa6e2c309fd.

3. Greenberger, Alex. 2024. “Florence Museum Director Says Tourism Has Turned the City into a ‘Prostitute,’ Drawing Pushback.” ARTnews.com. January 30, 2024. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/florence-prostitute-accademia-director-cecilie-hollberg-controversy-1234694564/. 

4. Constitution of the Italian Republic, Art. 9. and Cassady, Daniel. 2023. “Florence’s Gallerie Dell’Accademia Wins Image Rights to Michelangelo’s ‘David.’” ARTnews.com. May 31, 2023. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/michelangelos-image-rights-1234670119/. 

5. Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42, It. (2004). 

6. Dill, Vithória Konzen. 2022. “Masterpiece Story: David by Michelangelo.” DailyArt Magazine. September 8, 2022. https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/david-by-michelangelo/. 

7. Dill, Vithória Konzen. 2022. “Masterpiece Story: David by Michelangelo.”

8. Dill, Vithória Konzen. 2022. “Masterpiece Story: David by Michelangelo.”  

9. “Michelangelo’s David.” 2021. Galleria Dell’Accademia Di Firenze. November 17, 2021. https://www.galleriaaccademiafirenze.it/en/artworks/david-michelangelo/. 

10. Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42, Article 2, It. (2004). 

11. Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42, Article 3, It. (2004).

12. Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42, Article 4, It. (2004).

13.  Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42, Article 170, It. (2004).

14. Borgogni, Daniel. 2023. “The Court of Florence Finds against Condé Nast for Use of the Image of the David by Michelangelo, Recognizing Image Rights to the Work of Art.” Italy Intellectual Property Blog. June 13, 2023. https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-court-of-florence-finds-against-conde-nast-for-use-of-the-image-of-the-david-by-michelangelo-recognizing-image-rights-to-the-work-of-art/.

15. “Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.” n.d. Www.wipo.int. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/#:~:text=The%20Berne%20Convention%2C%20adopted%20in. 

16. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2019. “Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).” World Intellectual Property Organization. 2019. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html. 

17. Barry, Colleen. “A Fight to Protect the Dignity of Michelangelo’s David Raises Questions about Freedom of Expression.” 

18. Hollberg, Cecilie. 2024. “Hit-And-Run Tourism Is Tearing the Heart out of Florence – There Is a Better Way.” The Guardian, April 18, 2024, sec. Opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/18/tourism-florence-michelangelo-david-visitors-souvenirs. 

19. Hollberg, Cecilie. 2024. “Hit-And-Run Tourism Is Tearing the Heart out of Florence – There Is a Better Way.”  

20. ‌Barry, Colleen. “A Fight to Protect the Dignity of Michelangelo’s David Raises Questions about Freedom of Expression.” 

Bibliography:

Barry, Colleen. “A Fight to Protect the Dignity of Michelangelo’s David Raises Questions about Freedom of Expression.” 2024. AP News. March 28, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/michelangelo-david-statue-italy-protection-heritage-3fa1b7185fea36003e064fa6e2c309fd.

Borgogni, Daniel. 2023. “The Court of Florence Finds against Condé Nast for Use of the Image of the David by Michelangelo, Recognizing Image Rights to the Work of Art.” Italy Intellectual Property Blog. June 13, 2023. https://www.ipinitalia.com/copyright/the-court-of-florence-finds-against-conde-nast-for-use-of-the-image-of-the-david-by-michelangelo-recognizing-image-rights-to-the-work-of-art/. 

Cassady, Daniel. 2023. “Florence’s Gallerie Dell’Accademia Wins Image Rights to Michelangelo’s ‘David.’” ARTnews.com. May 31, 2023. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/michelangelos-image-rights-1234670119/.

Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage, 42 It. (2004)

Constitution of the Italian Republic, Article 9.

Dill, Vithória Konzen. 2022. “Masterpiece Story: David by Michelangelo.” DailyArt Magazine. September 8, 2022. https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/david-by-michelangelo/.

Greenberger, Alex. 2024. “Florence Museum Director Says Tourism Has Turned the City into a ‘Prostitute,’ Drawing Pushback.” ARTnews.com. January 30, 2024. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/florence-prostitute-accademia-director-cecilie-hollberg-controversy-1234694564/.

‌ Hollberg, Cecilie. 2024. “Hit-And-Run Tourism Is Tearing the Heart out of Florence – There Is a Better Way.” The Guardian, April 18, 2024, sec. Opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/18/tourism-florence-michelangelo-david-visitors-souvenirs. 

“Italy: New Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape.” n.d. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2016-05-20/italy-new-code-of-cultural-heritage-and-landscape/. 

“Michelangelo’s David.” 2021. Galleria Dell’Accademia Di Firenze. November 17, 2021. https://www.galleriaaccademiafirenze.it/en/artworks/david-michelangelo/. 

‌‌ Victoria and Albert Museum. 2018. “V&A · The Story of Michelangelo’s David.” Victoria and Albert Museum. V&A. 2018. https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/the-story-of-michelangelos-david. ‌

World Intellectual Property Organization. 2019. “Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).” World Intellectual Property Organization. 2019. https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html.