ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Angela Saltarelli, Jacobacci Avvocati
among foreign investors and institutions acquiring Italian-provenance works, as the legal basis for export once granted become less susceptible to unpredict - able reversal. Law No 40 of 17 March 2026 has recently increased the value threshold for permanent export of artworks to EUR50,000, with the only exception being books and library materials for which the threshold remains set at EUR13,500. Reproduction of cultural property and image exploitation Another central feature of Italian art law concerns the reproduction and commercial exploitation of cultural property. Even where an artwork has entered the pub - lic domain from a copyright perspective, the commer - cial reproduction of its image may require prior author - isation from the competent public authority holding the work, as well as the payment of a concession fee, where the work qualifies as cultural property under the Italian Cultural Heritage Code. This framework cre - ates a distinctive Italian model in which public law controls may survive long after copyright protection has expired. For commercial users, the implications are substan - tial. The publication of catalogues, merchandising initiatives, advertising campaigns or digital products involving cultural property may trigger authorisation requirements and negotiations over concession fees with the relevant public institution. In practice, image clearance in Italy often involves both copyright and administrative law evaluations. At the same time, the boundary between commercial and non-commercial use remains sensitive. Italian cul - tural heritage law permits free reproduction in certain circumstances, particularly for study, research or non- profit purposes. However, the qualification of a use as “commercial” is not always straightforward, especially in the digital environment where visibility, sponsorship and indirect economic benefits may coexist. In disputes concerning the use of images of Leonardo da Vinci’s works and Botticelli’s Venus for commercial and advertising purposes, courts recognised that the cultural institution’s authorisation was required under
Italian Cultural Heritage Code and that unauthorised exploitation could give rise to damages. These deci - sions reinforced the principle that public ownership of cultural heritage entails an autonomous right of control over image exploitation. The courts have also addressed the reputational dimension of image use. Where artworks were reproduced in association with products or campaigns considered inconsistent with their cultural significance, courts have emphasised the need to safeguard the integrity and dignity of the cultural asset. The territorial reach of these rules has also been test - ed internationally. In a recent decision, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court held that Italian image-control provisions could not be enforced outside Italy on the basis of the principle of territoriality, thereby limiting their cross-border effect. This ruling underscore the complexity of managing image rights in international digital markets. Digitalisation policies have further intensified this debate. Many institutions are investing in large-scale digitisation of collections, both to preserve herit - age and to increase accessibility to their collection or archive. The tension lies between open access initiatives – often encouraged at EU level – and the legitimate interest of institutions in monetising high- resolution images to support financial sustainability. Authenticity disputes Authenticity disputes have undergone a significant development following the recent Italian Supreme Court’s decision of 9 February 2025 (No 3231). The Court clarified that a standalone lawsuit aimed solely at obtaining a judicial declaration that an artwork is authentic is not admissible. In practical terms, this means that an owner cannot ask a court to simply “certify” authenticity in the abstract. Judicial assessment of authenticity is permissible only within the framework of a broader dispute, eg, in con - nection with a claim for damages, contractual breach or other economically relevant harm. This ruling is particularly relevant in a market where artist archives and foundations operate as key gate - keepers. Inclusion in, or exclusion from, an official
106 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook