Museums, archives and libraries appeal to minister: decree on reproductions must be revised

The debate around the much-discussed decree on reproductions of cultural property, adopted last April by Culture Minister Gennaro Sangiuliano and immediately challenged for setting stakes deemed too rigid around the discipline, has not died down. As early as last April, associations such as AIB - Associazione Italiana Biblioteche, ANAI - Associazione Nazionale Archivistica Italiana and the Italian committee of ICOM - International Council of Museums, along with many other acronyms, companies, university councils and professionals in the sector had challenged Ministerial Decree 161/2023 (“Guidelines for the determination of the minimum amounts of fees and royalties for the concession of theuse of assets in consignment to state institutes and places of culture”) because it removed the gratuities hitherto guaranteed for the publication of images of state cultural assets and, consequently, because of the heavy economic repercussions that the decree would have caused on scientific research, cultural publishing as well as on the free manifestation of thought. The explanations that came later from the ministry, however, were not enough to dampen the discussion, which indeed is now being rekindled (and the issue will also be the subject of a panel with ten experts in the next issue of Finestre Sull’Arte paper).

The presidents of ICOM Italia, ANAI and AIB (Michele Lanzinger, Erika Vettone and Laura Ballestra, respectively), i.e., the main MAB (Museums, Archives and Libraries) associations operating in Italy, have once again made themselves heard with an open letter where they reiterate that “despite the dissent expressed, almost eight months later that decree has remained fully operational and a response is still awaited from the Ministry with respect to both the objections then made by the associations and the requests for a direct confrontation with the administration. In the meantime, a good number of ministerial institutes have progressively implemented the decree within their regulations on reproductions, bringing out upon application numerous contradictions that have been duly noted both in scientific discussion and in the generalist press. They stem mainly from the adoption of the coefficient system and the distinction between for-profit/non-profit reproduction in place of the - more functional - distinction between acquisition and mode of use of reproductions, as well as from the failure to regulate usage fees related to reproductions subject to downloading or self-performance by users.”

According to ICOM, ANAI and AIB, the critical issues could have been avoided “if the decree had remained consistent (despite the references in the text) with the ’Guidelines for the acquisition, circulation and reuse of reproductions of cultural property in the digital environment’ attached to the National Digitization Plan (PND), which should have been its necessary and most logical premise.” The three associations recall that “already last year the Court of Auditors had invited the Ministry to ’abandon the traditional ’proprietary’ paradigms in favor of a more democratic, inclusive and horizontal vision of cultural heritage’ also in view of the fact that generally ’the ratio between costs incurred for the management of the collection service and the actual revenues generated has a negative balance’ (Deliberation no. 50/2022/G)”.

Recently, the Court of Auditors again ruled on the subject, the associations point out, with Deliberation no. 76/2023/G, expressly rejecting the decree in question, which negatively affects, the deliberation says, “central issues related to the study and valorization of the national cultural heritage, as well as to a wider circulation of knowledge” as it appears “to take into account neither of the operational peculiarities of the web, nor of the potential harm to the community to be measured also in terms of renunciations and lost opportunities; thus placing itself in clear contrast also with the clear indications coming from the National Digitization Plan (PND) of the cultural heritage.” The resolution also recalls the need to follow up on Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on the reuse of public administration data and to promote Open Access licenses.

“In a significant reversal of perspective,” the letter by Lanzinger, Vettone and Ballestra continues, “the Court of Auditors seems to no longer find any fiscal damage in the use of free reuse licenses, which on the contrary can translate into a significant source of savings for the public administration as well as an incentive for cultural, social and economic development for society in a win-win logic. Add to this the fact that the recent amendments to the PNRR, which have been positively evaluated by the European Commission just these days, strategically provide for increased investment in support of digital transition, for PA efficiency and for the development of digital and technological skills. So can the cultural heritage sector, which took early advantage of the opportunities provided by the very PNRR to push towards innovation and accessibility of heritage, be held back by anachronistic and (according to the Court of Auditors) blatantly uneconomic regulations?”

“All this considered, for the reasons of expediency highlighted above,” ICOM, AIB and ANAI conclude, “the MAB associations ask the Minister of Culture to fully revise the decree DM 161/2023, well beyond of the announced tweaks regarding publication, to realign it with the content and structure of the NDP Guidelines (and all the gratuities provided therein) as well as to make these Guidelines binding. Finally, the MAB associations call, in line with the findings of the Court of Auditors, for the label ”Standard Cultural Heritage“ (BCS) to be accompanied by the possible adoption of open licenses (Open Access) for the release of images of state cultural property and declare their willingness to work with the Ministry in order to reach a shared solution in the interest of all.”

Museums, archives and libraries appeal to minister: decree on reproductions must be revised

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.