ITALY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Angela Saltarelli, Jacobacci Avvocati
archive can directly affect an artwork’s market value and liquidity. A negative opinion may significantly impair the owner’s ability to sell the work at an appro - priate price. Italian courts have consistently recognised that archives’ opinions are expressions of intellectual and scholarly judgment, protected under principles of free - dom of expression. As a result, courts cannot compel an archive to issue a certificate of authenticity or to include a work in a catalogue. The practical consequence is a recalibration of litiga - tion strategies where doubts arise as to the authentic - ity of a work in transactions governed by Italian law. Where a refusal of authentication is considered arbi - trary or professionally negligent, disputes are likely to focus on financial loss rather than on obtaining declaratory relief. Authenticity thus becomes a cen - tral factual element within broader claims concerning economic damage. Authenticity remains central in shaping an artwork’s market value, yet courts are reluctant to transform scholarly assessment into judicial certification – par - ticularly where such judicial recognition may not, in practice, translate into market acceptance by the rel - evant market actors. This development in case law reinforces several strategic considerations that shall be carried out concerning contractual clarity and enhanced due diligence at the transactional stage. Extension of protection for simple photographs Italian copyright law distinguishes between two cat - egories of photographs: creative photographs, which benefit from full copyright protection for the life of the author plus 70 years, and so-called “simple photo - graphs”, which are protected only by related rights. The key distinguishing criterion is creativity. A photo - graph qualifies as creative where it reflects the per - sonal imprint of its author through artistic choices in framing, lighting, composition or execution. By con - trast, simple photographs – typically documentary, archival or technical reproductions – traditionally ben - efited from a more limited form of protection.
In December 2025, Italian copyright law was amend - ed to extend the term of protection for simple pho - tographs from 20 to 70 years from the date of pro - duction. This represents a substantial expansion of protection, having effect particularly for photographic archives, museums and digitisation initiatives. Notably, the amending legislation did not include spe - cific transitional provisions. As a result, uncertainty remains regarding photographs taken between 2006 and 2025 which, under the previous regime, may have entered into the public domain. Institutions that dig - itised and made such images openly available may now face potential legal exposure, particularly since commercial reuse falls generally outside the scope of applicable copyright exceptions. For museums, archives and publishing platforms, the reform may require a reassessment of image rights management policies, licensing practices and digital access programs, particularly in relation to legacy dig - itisation programs. In practice, materials previously considered freely reusable material may now require renewed legal analysis and, in some cases, contrac - tual renegotiation. Artificial intelligence and Law No 132/2025 The regulatory landscape surrounding artificial intelli - gence in Italy has recently evolved following the adop - tion of Law No 132/2025, which complements and co-ordinates the implementation of the EU AI Act at national level. Although Law No 132/2025 is not specific to the art market, its effects extend to creative industries, digital platforms and cultural institutions. For art profession - als, the relevance of the reform lies in its interaction with copyright law, authorship principles and transpar - ency obligations. One of the core principles reaffirmed by Italian law is that copyright protection requires human intellectual creation. This means that fully autonomous AI-generated outputs remain outside the traditional scope of protection, unless meaning - ful human creative contribution can be demonstrated. For artists and collectors, this raises practical ques - tions regarding ownership and existence of copyright and, consequently, valuation of AI assisted works.
107 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook