Academic review or co-authorship? The Bologna Court of Appeal draws the line

The legal classification of the work: when can we speak of co-authorship?

At the heart of the dispute was the legal classification of the work under Italian copyright law (Law no. 633/1941 – LdA). The professor argued that the monograph was no longer a mere reworking of the researcher’s thesis, but a legally distinct work. In particular, she proposed three possible classifications: a derivative work (Art. 4 LdA), a collective work (Art. 3 LdA), or a joint work by multiple authors (Art. 10 LdA).

This classification would have been decisive: if any of these hypotheses had been accepted, the decision regarding publication would not have belonged exclusively to the thesis author.

However, the Court of Appeal rejected all three classifications.

Based on the evidence on record, the Court found that the structure of the volume substantially coincided with that of the doctoral thesis, and that the changes introduced were mainly editorial or stylistic in nature. There was no proof of an independent creative contribution capable of transforming the thesis into a new (derivative) work.

Nor were there elements to consider the work as the result of an autonomous and coordinated editorial project – required for a collective work – nor as the product of indistinguishable creative contributions by multiple authors, a prerequisite for joint authorship. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the core content – text, index, and graphic apparatus – had been independently created by the thesis author.

The judgment thus clarifies a point often misunderstood in academic collaborations: not every contribution to a work automatically entails (co-)authorship. In this case, the professor’s interventions were predominantly editorial and did not substantially affect the work. As the Court noted, the changes were “minimal, formal, stylistic and certainly not substantial, decisive, or such as to justify recognition of the role of author or co-author”.

The author decides whether to publish – and also whether not to publish – the work

Having established that the monograph essentially coincided with the researcher’s thesis, the Court applied one of the fundamental principles of copyright law: the decision to publish a work belongs exclusively to its author.

This principle is grounded in Article 12 of the Italia Copyright Law, which grants the author the exclusive right to publish the work and exploit it economically. Article 107 LdA provides that these rights may be transferred.

However, such transfer cannot be presumed. Article 110 LdA requires that the assignment of exploitation rights be proven in writing. Anyone claiming to have acquired the right to publish or use a work must therefore demonstrate the existence of a written agreement with the author.

In the case at hand, no such agreement existed: the scientific collaboration and revision activities had taken place informally, without any contractual regulation of rights. Consequently, ownership of the rights remained with the thesis author, who was therefore entitled to decide whether to proceed with publication.

The Court stated this clearly: the PhD candidate “was therefore the only party entitled to negotiate with the publisher regarding publication […] and, in particular, to transfer the commercial exploitation rights, powers for which Article 110 of the Copyright Act requires written form ad substantiam. It followed that […] her refusal to publish her contributions was fully legitimate and consistent with the copyright she had acquired over the work”.

In this way, the decision reaffirms a principle often overlooked: the right to publish a work also includes the right not to publish it. An editorial project, however advanced, cannot proceed without the consent of the original author. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the author retains full control over publication.

Creative collaborations require clear rules

The Bologna Court of Appeal’s decision offers a lesson that goes beyond the specific case: when multiple individuals work on an editorial project, rights must be clarified from the outset. This is particularly true in academia, where it is common for professors and researchers to collaborate on the revision and publication of theses or scientific works. From a legal standpoint, however, such collaboration does not automatically imply shared copyright ownership.

Copyright law primarily protects individual creativity. The author of the original work remains the holder of economic exploitation rights, unless those rights are transferred through a valid agreement. Moreover, as noted, Article 110 requires such transfer to be evidenced in writing. In the absence of a written agreement, even a significant scientific or organizational contribution does not automatically confer rights over the work.

This case demonstrates how risky it is to rely on informal arrangements, especially when projects involve multiple contributors or institutions. In practice, conflicts like this can be avoided through simple tools: agreements that define ownership of rights and roles within the editorial project. Establishing from the outset who will be the author, co-author, or editor of the work, who will decide on publication, and how the content may be used helps prevent future disputes.

In the absence of such rules, the basic principle of copyright law prevails: the work belongs to its creator. And the protection is strong: the author retains control over publication and may even oppose the dissemination of their work.