Employment and copyright: is an employee entitled to royalties?

Royalties, “economic rights” and industry practice

The Italian Copyright Act (Law No. 633/1941) distinguishes between moral rights and economic rights (for more, see: Copyright in Italy: scope and mechanism of protection by C. Martinez Di Leo, for Canella Camaiora).

• Moral rights always belong to the author, are inalienable and cannot be assigned. These include the right of attribution, which ensures recognition of the author, and the right of integrity, which prevents unauthorised changes that could alter the meaning of the work. Accordingly, no one may remove the author’s name or alter a work without the author’s consent.
• Economic rights, by contrast, concern the commercial exploitation of the work and may be assigned, for example, to a publisher or an employer. This is where the central question arises: when does a work created by an employee become the property of the company?

According to case law, if a work is created within an employment relationship, the economic rights belong to the employer, unless otherwise agreed.

If, however, the work is created outside the employment relationship, the situation changes. In that case, Article 118 of the Copyright Act comes into play. It governs the publishing agreement: the author grants the publisher the right to publish in exchange for payment, usually calculated as royalties on copies sold.

And what if there is no clear agreement? Article 130 of the Copyright Act provides that compensation must be determined according to industry practice. But in the case of the publishing-house employee, was that practice followed?

What happens if you “write texts” outside working hours?

According to the Court of Florence (21 January 2025), there are two key elements to consider:

• the nature of the works created by the former editor; and
• their connection with the duties set out in the employment contract.

The Court also highlighted the absence of evidence showing the existence of a publishing agreement or contract for services separate from the employment relationship between the parties.

According to the Court, it was for the employee to prove that the works in question were the result of an activity autonomous and independent from her role as an editor. However, the judge found that this evidence had not been provided.

But is writing texts outside working hours, at home or in one’s spare time, enough to prove independence? The Court clarified that the place or time at which a project is worked on is not decisive.

What matters is the connection between the content of the works and the skills required by the professional role. In this case, the texts were fully aligned with the employee’s editorial duties, as set out in her employment contract.

A further element also weighed on the decision: the former editor had previously signed statements waiving economic copyright rights in respect of some of the works at issue. In those documents, she had expressly stated that she had no further financial claims against the publishing house.

Although these statements did not concern all the disputed works, they played a decisive role: for the Court, they confirmed the existence of an implied agreement between the parties, reinforcing the view that the creative work fell within the employment relationship. A conclusion that leaves important questions open for those working in the publishing sector…

Do the employee's statements make a difference?

One of the key elements of the judgment concerns the statements signed by the former employee during the employment relationship and when it ended. In those documents, the employee had clearly acknowledged that some of the disputed works had been created as part of her duties. This amounted to an express acknowledgement that the economic copyright rights in those works belonged to the publishing house.

According to the Court, even though these statements concerned only some of the works, they nevertheless represented a strong indication of the parties’ intentions: the employee’s creative activity was regarded as a natural continuation of her editorial work. As a result, the salary provided for under the employment contract also covered the creation of those texts.

This judgment offers an important lesson for both employers and employees, especially in the publishing and creative sectors.

If there are no specific agreements, the economic copyright rights in works created within an employment relationship belong to the employer. It does not matter whether the work was created at home or outside office hours: what matters is whether it is connected with the employee’s professional duties.

To avoid ambiguity and potential disputes, it is essential to:

• enter into clear and detailed agreements, expressly regulating ownership of copyright;
• include specific clauses in employment contracts, especially for roles involving creative activities.

These measures protect both the company and the employee, reducing the risk of future disputes.

Employees, too, need to understand their rights. Signing a statement without understanding its implications can have significant consequences, even many years later. The judgment also highlights another crucial point: the importance of documentary evidence. Without written contracts or clear agreements, proving ownership of the works becomes difficult.

For this reason, seeking legal advice in advance can make all the difference. Clarity today prevents problems tomorrow.