Talk:Vitruvian Man

message: If I understand them correctly, the translation of da Vinci's text currently (15 October 2020) in the article was done as a place-holder version by Justlettersandnumbers, a Wikipedia editor (see above). As Justlettersandnumbers requested, the translation should be replaced by one from an external source. I propose to use this one:
(Because of the way  works, I can't give the URL of the exact page, only of the chapter, but the text is just a few pages on from the start of the chapter, bottom of p213.) Unless anyone disagrees in the next day or two, I will change it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for opting to discuss this rather than just charge ahead, . Certainly I wrote what I wrote in 2011, when I was a very new and inexperienced editor; I'm not sure that I agree with it now. I've two questions: are you quite sure that the text you propose to use is out of copyright? and are you sure that his translation is better than mine? I'm inclined to think that it is not, but perhaps I'm biased? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question! I had just jumped to the conclusion that its presence on an open access system made it ok. But sure enough, the rubric is there "The publication, and the images and texts within it, may be protected by copyright; use of such materials beyond fair use or other exceptions provided under applicable copyright law may violate the copyright laws of the United States and/or the laws of other countries. Permission from the appropriate copyright holder is required to publish or reproduce." So no, we can't use it. Your translation is safe for another 50 years. Fortunately I hadn't gotten around to doing it. Thanks for saving my donkey. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliably sourced translation 

message: It looks like Vitruvian Man is the center of controversy: The Italian Museum That Owns Leonardo’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ Has Successfully Sued to Stop Production of a 1,000-Piece Puzzle Based on the Work.
Maybe the articles should include a section on it?
-----
From the article:
An Italian court has blocked the German toy company Ravensburger from producing puzzles featuring Leonardo da Vinci’s iconic Vitruvian Man drawing.
Ravensburger was brought to court by the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, where the real Vitruvian Man lives. The museum claimed that it was owed financial compensation from the puzzle manufacturer, even though the 500-year-old artwork in question belongs to the public domain.
At the heart of the case is Italy’s Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, which grants public institutions in the country the ability to request concession fees for—or outright bar—commercial reproductions of important artworks, regardless of their copyright status.
Last fall, the Court of Venice sided with the Gallerie dell’Accademia in the case, ruling that Ravensburger must cease production on its puzzle and any other pieces of merchandise featuring Vitruvian Man.
The court rejected Ravensburger’s argument that the Cultural Heritage Code only applies in Italy, and has now ordered the toy company to pay the Gallerie dell’Accademia a fee of €1,500 ($1,626) for each day that the puzzle has been manufactured since November 17, 2022. Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on In Contemporary Culture or Controversies?