Solo l’Italia? Gabry Ponte’s Eurovision song underlines striking limitations to Italy’s effective control over its cultural heritage imagery

The 2025 Eurovision Song Contest

The Eurovision Song Contest represents a celebration of cultural identity through joyful and creative artistic expression, as each spring representatives from 52 participating countries perform their original songs on stage. As one could expect, the competition is not insulated from political tensions and controversies: this year, in particular, Israel’s participation to Eurovision was the subject of harsh criticism, with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez explicitly calling for this state’s exclusion from the contest. At its chore, however, the competition remains a moment of international convergence around  traditionally over-the-top performances. This spirit was perfectly embodied by this year’s representative for San Marino, Italian DJ Gabry Ponte, who competed with a song titled “Tutta l’Italia” (All of Italy). While Mr Ponte acknowledged the peculiarity of representing another country, and with a song “dedicated” to Italy no less, the Eurovision rules do not prohibit such instances, and “Tutta l’Italia” made its way to the big final, on Saturday 17 May 2025.  

Previous controversies

To answer this question, we reached out to Gallerie dell'Accademia di Venezia and Galleria dell'Accademia di Firenze which hold, respectively, the first two images that appear on screen, Michelangelo’s David and Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. The museums replied that they never received any authorisation request. Mr Ponte’s artistic team’s choice to pick these two artworks is particularly striking in light of recent case law that specifically targeted their unauthorised use(s). In 2017 the Florence tribunal ordered a travel agency to stop using the David to promote its tours; in 2023, the same tribunal condemned Condé Nast (editor of GQ Italy) to pay damages for a cover of model Pietro Boselli posing as the David. In 2022, the Venice court of appeal ordered German toy manufacturer Ravensburger to stop selling puzzles depicting the Vitruvian Man. Perhaps inadvertently, “Tutta l’Italia” visuals thus brought to the stage two of the most litigated images from the Italian cultural heritage. 

Territoriality

The legislation in question is, in itself, rather controversial, and is often criticised by legal scholars, especially for its overlap with copyright law and the possible encroachment on the public domain. The issue has been discussed in several academic fora (most recently, at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore; we also refer you to an upcoming conference at University of Florence). According to the relevant case law, which goes well beyond the few cases mentioned here, Italian courts have adopted a progressively expansive approach to the application of Articles 107–109. This regime however took a hard hit in 2024, when Ravensburger decided to challenge the Italian judgment before a German court. The Venice Court of Appeal had in fact ordered the cessation of production and the withdrawal of all the existing puzzles from the market, both in Italy and abroad, basing these extraterritorial effects on the “universal vocation” of the Italian cultural heritage law. The German tribunal, on the contrary, excluded that Articles 107–109 could apply outside of the Italian territory. Not only did Italy’s immunity defence fail, but so did its legislation, falling under the principle of territoriality.

Limited protection

At the basis of the expansive interpretation of Articles 107–109 lies the concern for disrespectful and debasing uses of imagery that belongs to the Italian cultural heritage. Cultural goods are therefore given personality rights, which are exercised on their behalf by their institutional custodians. As noted elsewhere, in its current form this approach lends itself to unclear standards and unnecessarily protective legal stances. The  Ravensburger case highlighted the possible short circuits caused by this regime, which ended up banning a perfectly fine instructive puzzle from commerce. It also exposed the ineffectiveness of an overly restrictive system that cannot be enforced beyond State borders. 

Now, Gabry Ponte’s provocative use of that same imagery further reveals just how limited the reach of Articles 107–109 truly is. We might go as far as to presume that, if the Galleria dell'Accademia di Firenze had a problem with GQ’s choice to have a handsome model pose as the David, they might also object to an animation that makes him chew and explode pink gum all over his face (despite Reddit user autistic_girl_autumn’s comment that “the imagery of the statue chewing gum sold this performance for me”). Nevertheless, since the Eurovision was broadcasted from Switzerland (just across the Italian border), it remained beyond the Italian judge’s reach. Supreme irony: were Gabry Ponte to perform “Tutta l’Italia”  again in San Marino, he could  use the same visuals with impunity within the very heart of the Italian State.

Conclusions

It is a rare thing being able to see so clearly the limits of a piece of legislation. It is even more unique to have them broadcasted on a global stage, in between a French ballad and an Albanian banger. Perhaps such excentric display might provide a normative push to amend an overprotective regime that, most likely, can govern… solo l’Italia (only Italy).