Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025 amended Article 92 of the Italian Copyright Act, extending the term of protection for so-called “simple photographs” from twenty to seventy years.
The reform of Article 92 of the Copyright Act: scope and significance
Pursuant to Article 47(1) of Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025, the Italian legislature amended Article 92(1) of the Copyright Act by extending the duration of the rights granted to the author of simple photographs to seventy years from the date of production (previously twenty years). This legislative intervention affects a provision that had remained substantially unchanged for decades and introduces a reform with far-reaching systemic implications, particularly in light of the non-creative nature of the protected subject matter
The reform does not concern photographic works protected under Article 2(7) of the Copyright Act, but rather non-creative photographs, which fall within the scope of neighbouring rights. It is precisely this aspect that makes the extension of the term of protection particularly significant.
The previous legal framework and the rationale for twenty-year protection
Under the regime prior to the reform, simple photographs were protected for twenty years from their production. This shorter duration reflected a deliberate policy choice: to grant a minimum level of economic protection to images resulting from technical or documentary activity, without elevating them to the status of works of authorship.
Protection was justified not by originality, but by the activity performed and the organisational and technical investment made by the photographer. From this perspective, the twenty-year term was consistent with the function of neighbouring rights and with the objective of ensuring relatively swift access to the public domain.
Neighbouring rights and simple photographs: the nature of protection
The rights granted in respect of simple photographs fall within the category of neighbouring rights, which are intended to protect economic interests distinct from those of authors in the strict sense. No creative contribution is required by law; rather, protection is afforded to the material activity of producing the image.
Photographers enjoy exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution, the enforceability of which is subject to compliance with the formal requirements set out in Article 90 of the Copyright Act. Extending the duration of protection to seventy years results in a substantial strengthening of these rights, bringing them, in temporal terms, closer to the full protection afforded to works of authorship.
The persistent difficulty in distinguishing between photographic works and photographs
The distinction between photographic works and simple photographs has, for decades, been one of the most debated issues in Italian copyright law. Case law has often been inconsistent, characterised by divergent approaches and an unavoidable degree of arbitrariness.
Over time, courts have referred to criteria such as framing choices, use of light, composition and the ability of the image to express a personal vision. However, the application of these criteria has remained highly case-specific and often unpredictable.
Criticism raised during the legislative process
Concerns regarding the reform had already emerged during the legislative process of the so-called “Amorese bill”. Part of the academic community and industry stakeholders highlighted the risks associated with extending a form of protection originally conceived for artistic works to non-creative subject matter, with potentially distortive effects on the overall system.
The main concerns relate to the narrowing of the public domain, increased costs for image use, and the complexity of rights management in the digital environment, particularly with respect to documentary or informational photographs.
Practical consequences of the new term
The extension of protection to seventy years necessitates a review of existing operational practices and may impose additional burdens on publishers, businesses, public administrations and, more broadly, cultural operators.
The reform also affects contractual drafting, the management of photographic archives, and policies governing the online use of images, while increasing the risk of litigation in cases of incorrect classification of photographs.
Conclusions
The amendment of Article 92 of the Copyright Act represents a significant strengthening of the protection afforded to simple photographs, while leaving open important systemic questions in an area characterised by persistent doctrinal and jurisprudential tension within copyright law.