Tuscan mayor orders destruction of cannabis-made art installation

Is there anything more reinvigourating than flying back to one's own native hometown to catch up with family and friends and realise - once again - that copyright is all around us? 

This is what happened to me last weekend when, arrived in my native Tuscany or - to be more specific - the town of Arezzo [also hometown to Piero della Francesca, Petrarch, Vasari, and popular contemporary musicians, to name just a few], I asked my non-copyright parents the usual question: "Any news from Arezzo?". 

Having started with their usual list of major and minor occurrences, they also casually mentioned that a few days ago something happened in the context of major contemporary art public initiative Icastica. 

Icastica outdoors

Now on its second edition, Icastica is a cultural festival that includes indoors and outdoors exhibitions and art installations, as well as performances, recitals, and lectures. 

A few days ago, not only did some representatives of an animal protection league protest against a black sheep by Damien Hirst and urge actress Anna Falchi not to visit the offensive display, but the mayor ordered the destruction of an art installation named Promenade.

Back in May it was announced that artists Valentino Carrai, Luca Mauceri and Carlo Trucchi would have started working together with art critic Danilo Sensi on an art installation that would consist of a labyrinth made of cannabis sativa. 

The idea was to re-discover old traditions - notably that a couple of centuries ago cannabis sativa was grown in Tuscany also for use in clothing and paper - and convey the message that any material may become art. The labyrinth would have been ready by mid-July, when plants would have reached a height of 2 meters and could be thus given an artistic shape.

The 3 artists who tried to realise Promenade
(disclaimer: background *not* cannabis)

Sadly none of the above will happen, as the mayor of Arezzo ordered the destruction of Promenade, on fear that - despite previous authorisation and the results of chemical analyses - the plants might be dangerous for the health of visitors. 

The mayor stated: "It was not possible to exclude the toxicity of those plants, even if chemical analyses excluded it; however, lacking absolute certainty, I could not allow them to grow in our town."

As soon as I heard this piece of news, of course I thought: but what about the moral rights of the artists?

Promenade before ...

Among other things, Article 20 of the Italian Copyright Act (Legge 633/1941) states that independently from the economic rights, and also after these have been waived, the author has the right to object to any deformation, mutilation or any other modification of or any act that is meant to damage his/her work, and which may prejudice his/her honour or reputation.

It is not difficult to imagine that destruction of their work of art would likely infringe the three artists' right of integrity, especially if it is true (as the lab analyses suggested) that the installation would not be dangerous for the health of visitors.

However, subsequent Article 22 states that the author who has known about and accepted the modifications to his/her work cannot prevent their execution or seek removal. 

Is this what happened with regard to Promenade?

From the report of local newspaper La Nazione, the response would appear in the negative. Art critic Danilo Sensi stated: "I was requested a certificate that would attest the non-toxicity of the seeds used, which I asked Assocanapa to produce ... Without waiting [for the certificate], the work has been demolished. It's all very depressing, but this story is not over."

... and after its destruction

What does this mean, that the artists are planning to sue Arezzo municipality for copyright infringement, notably infringement of their right of integrity?

Stay tuned for further updates from Tuscany - Copyright Chapter. 

Meanwhile, another pressing question arises: what has happened to all that cannabis? Has it been destroyed or not? If not, who has it?

Fifty Shades translated: moral (rights) concerns?

Original language Fifty Shades trilogy

After finishing reading the entire Fifty Shades trilogy while sunbathing (and getting sunburnt) at the seaside, this blogger was left wondering the same questions which have made many other readers of EL James's books in non-English speaking countries sleepless. 

One of them is: if a work has not been translated accurately, and the meaning is therefore altered, have the author's moral rights been infringed? This issue may be particularly relevant when the original text is meant as a pun or to have a meaning which can be understood just by those who possess some background information. The latter is the case of the titles of EL James' books.

As most of you will know, the hero of the Trilogy is absolutely realistic character Christian Grey, a clearly hot and fashionable 27-year-old self-made man who makes $100,000 per hour, and is also a skilled piano player and keen sailor. 

The title of the first book (Fifty Shades of Grey) is word-game between Christian's surname and his nickname, which is "Fifty Shades" (it is Ana Steele, the 22-year-old heroine, who calls him this way, after he has tried to send her away because he thinks it is too problematic to have a relationship with her. He indeed admits to being "fifty shades of f****d up". 

The titles of the other two books do not require much explanation. They are Fifty Shades Darker (as this is the book in which some of Christian's dark secrets are revealed) and Fifty Shades Freed (as this is the book in which Christian manages to overcome his traumas).

This blogger's fellow nationals who live in the lovely boot-shaped country in the Mediterranean Sea can buy the translated versions of EL James' works if they want to. However, the manner in which the titles of the books have been translated is rather perplexing. 

Italian-translated Fifty Shades trilogy

They are Cinquanta Sfumature di Grigio (this is a plain literal translation of the title of the first book, and "Grey" is intended to be the colour grey); Cinquanta Sfumature di Nero ( "fifty shades of black"), and Cinquanta Sfumature di Rosso ("fifty shades of red"). Does this translation make any sense? Probably not, if one knows what the actual meaning of the titles is and is aware that the books are not about a painter.

Although no criticisms have yet been made to how EL James's books have been translated into Italian, it may be interesting to discuss whether EL James could object to inaccurate translations of her works. 

The writer (real name: Erika Leonard) is British, so the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) is likely to apply.

Section 80 CDPA 1988 provides that, among the other things, the author of a literary work has the right not to have his work subjected to derogatory treatment. 

What EL James's books
are not about

The treatment of a literary work is defined as any addition to, deletion from or alteration or adaptation of the work, other than a translation. According to well-known commentary by Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, "the exclusion of translations from the definition should be confined to true and accurate translations, as it is difficult to see why an author should not be able to object to a translation which murders his work or distorts its meaning" (4th edn, 2011, Vol I, 664, referring to 1987 French case of Zorine (Leonide) v Le Lucernaire, in which an author successfully prevented the public performance of his play in a translation and in a production which seriously distorted the original meaning). 

This said, the treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.

As is well-known, under UK law moral rights can be waived. However, the waiver may be conditional and may be made revocable, pursuant to Section 87(3) CDPA 1988. It would be interesting to see how EL James's publishing contracts were drafted and what kind of control the writer has retained over her books. What do you think? In any case, it is unlikely that control-freak Christian Grey would be pleased with all the changes which have contributed to rendering the meaning of the titles "lost in translation". 

Derivative works are important!
So: who do you think should play Christian Grey?

Because of its success, the Fifty Shades trilogy is indeed a great source of inspiration for all IP lovers. 

Trademark lawyers can speculate about all the possible Fifty Shades merchandising - the latest example of which being the Fifty Shades soundtrack which has just been released. 

Copyright enthusiasts may engage in endless discussions as to the legal implications of fan fiction (the Trilogy actually originated as a fan fiction based on the Twilight saga, as you can read here), moral rights and translations, and now also derivative works. The film version of Fifty Shades of Grey has already been announced, although the cast has not been released yet. Since derivative works are of paramount importance to copyright (and are relevant to the topic of moral rights, too), the 1709 Blog has carefully reviewed the actors rumoured to be in the run for the role as Christian Grey and decided to ask its readers: who do you think should play Christian Grey? You can cast your vote until midnight next Tuesday, 18 September and choose among sensitive and most likely to play Christian Ryan Gosling; blue-eyed White Collar star Matt Bomer, no-longer 27-year-old but still much admired Bruce Wayne/Christian Bale; successful and intriguing Shame's Michael Fassbender; and UK-born and forthcoming new Superman Henry Cavill.  The poll can be found at the top of the 1709 Blog's side bar.

A moral conundrum

Above: Training Ground in the course of installation

Last Wednesday the US First Circuit issued this judgment over an intriguing moral rights question. It concerns Training Ground for Democracy, an elaborate installation piece by Christoph Büchel at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art. The work was being constructed by a team who were following instructions emailed by the artist. Museum and artist fell out but the Museum continued work on the piece and went ahead with exhibiting it. The First Circuit, reversing a district court's summary judgment, held that it was open to a jury to find that:

1. continuing to work on the piece in a manner that was contrary to instructions infringed the artist's moral rights.
2. the Museum had violated the artist's right to publicly display.

The moral right in question is the right of integrity (right to prevent intentional modification of the work that would damage the artist's reputation). Somewhat discomfortingly, those who were hired to modify the work are now being sued for modifying the work...