Illustrations used without consent: the IKEA tortellino case – Bologna Court, judgment of 17 March 2026

Does a drawing used to decorate a store require authorisation?

IKEA argued that the drawing had not been used for commercial or promotional purposes, but merely as a decorative element in the kitchen department. According to the company, the work was intended to provide context for the products on display and evoke the preparation of tortellini. For that reason, there had been no commercial exploitation of the work within the meaning of Articles 12 et seq. of the Italian Copyright Act.

The Bologna Court rejected this argument. The judgment notes that the work was displayed “inside a retail outlet of a major commercial chain […] in a context with a clear promotional character”.

This passage matters because it clarifies an often-overlooked point: copyright is not limited to advertising in the strict sense. It can also apply to the use of a drawing inside a retail space when that drawing contributes to the store display and the presentation of products.

The Court further adds that “it is not known […] what legal basis would allow the free use of third-party works in the fitting-out of retail departments”.

This principle is connected with Articles 12 et seq. of the Italian Copyright Act, which grant the author the exclusive right to exploit the work economically. The fact that a drawing is used “only” to decorate or furnish a department does not automatically make it free to use.

For companies, retailers and creative agencies, the practical consequence is clear: visual merchandising, signage and interior displays require verification of usage rights. Even when the use appears ancillary or marginal, the question of the author’s permission remains.

What happens when a work is stripped of the author’s name?

The Italian Copyright Act protects more than the economic value of a work. Alongside economic rights, there are the author’s moral rights, governed by Articles 20 et seq. of the Italian Copyright Act.

These include the right to be identified as the author of the work, the right to the integrity of the work, and the right to object to alterations that may change its meaning or harm the author’s reputation.

In the IKEA case, the issue was not limited to the unauthorised use of the drawing. The original title had been altered, unauthorised wording had been added and the author’s name had been omitted.

According to the Court, these interventions ultimately trivialised the original work, effectively turning it into a mere label. The drawing was no longer perceived as a creative work attributable to its author, but as a simple graphic element serving the department display.

This passage also speaks to creatives who work online. In the everyday use of graphic content, social media, generative AI and digital remixes, the issue is not only the complete copying of a work. Infringement often arises from an unauthorised alteration, the loss of context or the removal of the author’s name.

This is precisely the purpose of moral rights: to protect not only the economic exploitation of a work, but also the author’s artistic identity. And when that identity is removed, the next question is how much that harm may be worth in economic terms.

How much compensation can be awarded for copyright infringement?

The most delicate aspect of the judgment concerns the assessment of damages.

The Bologna Court awarded EUR 3,000 for economic damage and EUR 2,000 for non-economic damage, for a total of EUR 5,000. Taken in isolation, the amount may appear modest, especially when compared with the duration of ordinary litigation and the defendant’s economic strength.

However, the scope of the proven facts must be considered. The proceedings did not establish nationwide use of the work, an extensive advertising campaign, or reproduction of the drawing on products offered for sale. The Court found only a limited use to have been proven: two reproductions inside the IKEA store in Bologna-Casalecchio di Reno, as part of the kitchen department display.

This aspect affected the assessment of damages. The judge ruled out any measurable increase in IKEA’s profits resulting from that use, finding that the drawing primarily served to visually identify the area dedicated to kitchen utensils and the function of certain products.

For economic damage, the Court therefore applied the hypothetical licence fee criterion, provided for by Article 158 of the Italian Copyright Act: in other words, the fee the author could have requested if IKEA had sought permission before using the drawing. The amount was set at EUR 3,000, also taking into account that the user was a major commercial group and that, in the specific case, the author had not even received the visibility benefit associated with having her name credited.

In addition, the Court awarded non-economic damage in the amount of EUR 2,000, because the work had been displayed without attribution and with unauthorised alterations. According to the Court, those alterations had affected the author’s artistic identity, even though the infringement was isolated and geographically limited.

This does not mean that creativity is “worth” EUR 5,000. It means that, in those proceedings, the judge awarded EUR 5,000 for that specific infringement, given its duration, reach and the evidence available.

The distinction matters. For an author, compensation does not depend only on whether the right was infringed. It also depends on what can actually be proved: the extent of the use, the commercial context, the customary value of licences, any benefit obtained by the user, and the harm caused by the failure to attribute the work.

The judgment should therefore not discourage creators. If anything, it shows something different: those who document their work carefully are in a stronger position when challenging an infringement.

The IKEA tortellino case therefore leaves a less bitter conclusion than it may first appear. Copyright law protected a drawing that was only apparently simple, found the use to be unauthorised, prohibited further use and awarded damages. The key point for creators is not to wait for litigation to reconstruct everything from scratch.

Protecting creativity begins beforehand, but becomes especially important afterwards: when someone uses a work without consent and the author must be able to prove precisely what was created, by whom, when, how it was used, and what a licence for that use would have been worth.