The Monetization of Products by Dead Artists

The Italian artist and scientist Leonardo da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man”, is a sketch dating back to the late 15th century which revealed the golden ratio of the human body. This drawing not only built a foundation for the modern-day study of human biology but also embodied harmony of proportion and humanism. Besides the significant scientific value of “Vitruvian Man,” the sketch itself is a piece of art that upholds important commercial values. 

For the past decade, the German puzzle company Ravensburger has sold popular puzzles featuring this famed drawing. However, in 2019, the Italian government and Gallarie dell’Accademia in Venice, which displayed the original of the iconic drawing, cited Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which allowed cultural institutions to request concession fees and payment for commercial reproduction of cultural properties. 

Although Ravensburger argued the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy and refused to pay Gallerie dell’Accademia 1500 euros per day after November 17, 2022, the Venice court rejected this argument. In March 2023, a court in Germany sided with Ravensburger and ruled that the company did not have to pay up to the Italian cultural heritage code outside of their territory.

Beyond the case itself and property rights, which practice provides a greater benefit to spreading art and culture? Which practice is most morally sound?

The perspective of museums preserving the original copy of art pieces could be understood. Each year, a significant amount of money is spent on creating a better environment for preserving these pieces. This includes hiring professional consultants to regularly check and advise on bettering the condition of fragile original copies or renovating infrastructures and display positions to better house these works. Thus, the request for a concession fee is justified as it does not eliminate the possibility for other companies to profit from the art but simply charges a certain amount of fees for preserving the actual copy, sustaining the existence of the art piece. Concession fees are a recognition and acknowledgement of the work done by museums.

However, reciprocal benefits to both parties could be achieved by looking at the issue collaboratively. Firstly, art pieces’ country of origin will be actively building a better image by making these artifacts share properties of humanity. For example, Italy, in the case of Vitruvian Man, will likely earn a reputation for being an inclusive, welcoming country with a rich cultural background if they let other companies recreate merchandise based on artworks housed in their country. More importantly, recreating merchandise based on certain artifacts could positively expand the popularity of such pieces. Reducing concession fees will show an attitude that encourages the spread of art. These products allow customers to connect with prestigious art pieces on a deeper level without having to travel across the world to see them. By doing this, companies are actively making famous artifacts more approachable and accessible to every day, reframing illustrious art pieces as created for the public to view and connect with.

Ultimately, this will foster an environment where more people will benefit and create a mutually inclusive benefit between museums from the country of origin and commercialized companies.

As one of the greatest and most influential authors of all time, Leo Tolstoy, once said: “Great works of art are only great because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone.”