Abstract
Imagine walking through Piazza del Duomo in Milan and taking a beautiful photograph: perfect lighting, balanced framing. Some time later, someone uses that same photo on their website, assuming that if it’s on the Internet, it’s free to use.
This is exactly what happened in a case handled by the Court of Rome on October 8, 2025 (Judgment No. 13802/2025).
The photograph had been taken by a photographer, licensed to a company, and then published by another company without authorization. The Court condemned the latter, even though the photograph was not considered an “artistic” work.
It can rightly be seen as a textbook case – one that helps answer the questions everyone asks when they take or use images.
Is a photo always protected by copyright?
When it comes to photographs and rights, the question that arises most often is surprisingly simple: is this photo actually protected? Even if it’s not a work of art?
The judgment of the Court of Rome provides a valuable answer, because it deals with a very common case: a thoughtful, well-composed photograph, but not necessarily “creative” in the artistic sense.
Excluding so-called “documentary” photographs – shots that, due to their total lack of creativity or planning – might be akin to photocopies made using photographic equipment (or similar tools) Italian copyright law (Law 633/1941, “LdA”) distinguishes between two major categories of photographs:
- on one side, there are photographic works of authorship (art. 2, no. 7 LdA), those in which a personal imprint is recognizable – an inventive composition, a subjective interpretation of reality. These are photographs in which the author expresses themselves, and for this reason enjoy full protection as intellectual works;
- on the other side, there are simple photographs, i.e., images that faithfully reproduce reality – perhaps with high professionalism – but without the creative input necessary to reveal a personal vision of the photographer (art. 87 LdA). In this latter case, to obtain copyright protection, the author’s name and the date of the shot must be indicated.
Even the most straightforward photograph – one taken solely to document a place or event – automatically creates rights for the author or for whoever, as in this case, has acquired economic usage rights through a contract.
Whether an established artist, a diligent professional, or a casual hobbyist, anyone who takes a photograph leaves a legal trace of their work. And whoever uses that image must always ask themselves whether it is truly as “free” as it seems.
Can I use a photo found online if I credit the author or the site?
This is a question everyone asks sooner or later: if a photograph is already online, perhaps for years, visible to everyone and shared without apparent restrictions, is it really necessary to ask for permission to use it? The Court of Rome clarifies this, starting from a widespread misconception: if I found it on the Internet, then I can reuse it.
In the case examined, the defendant company had taken the photo directly from a publicly accessible website, convinced that prior publication legitimized its use, but the Court (correctly) overturned this common belief. The fact that an image is available online does not strip it of its legal protection. The Internet is not a vast archive of “free” materials; rather, it is a space where publication is only the first step of a legally regulated process. Moreover, in this case, the photograph – although a simple one – was still protected because the rights holder had fulfilled the “crediting” requirements under art. 90 LdA.
European case law, which the Court explicitly refers to, is very clear: the publication of a photograph on a website different from the one on which it was previously published requires the copyright holder’s consent, because it reaches a different audience – namely, the users who access the new website where the photograph is made available. (art. 16 LdA).
Another myth to dispel is the idea that simply mentioning the source or the photographer is enough to avoid infringement. Correct attribution, while ethically sound (and potentially relevant for calculating damages), does not transform unauthorized use into lawful use.
For this reason, in the case decided by the Court of Rome, the defendant’s argument – claiming the photo was already circulating online – was dismissed. The photograph was protected, it had been published without permission, and the reproduction had not been authorized by the rights holders. Consequently, the conduct was deemed unlawful and resulted in liability for damages.
What should photographers know?
For those who create photographs, the Court’s decision is a reminder of the value of their work. Every image, even one lacking the originality required to be considered a work of art, is still the result of intellectual and technical effort that the law has chosen to protect.
However, this protection is not always automatic. For so-called “simple photographs,” the law imposes a specific condition: the photograph must bear at least the photographer’s name (or the agency’s name) and the year it was taken. Many underestimate this detail, but it can mean the difference between an image that is legally defensible and one that, lacking these elements, risks slipping into a kind of anonymity (see: Photos without credit: the Court denies compensation if used in good faith – Canella Camaiora).
This means that a photographer must not only take the picture but also “declare” it. It is a simple gesture, but necessary and sufficient to ensure that the image can be defended if someone uses it without permission.
Keeping evidence of publication, licensing agreements, and the photograph’s chain of use becomes an act of professional care, because a photo can be the subject of transactions, transfers, investments, and—as this case shows—of infringements.
Legal protection is not only a safeguard against abuse but also a way to give continuity and recognizability to the photographer’s work. A photograph circulates in the digital world at incredible speed and in potentially uncontrolled ways; the photographer’s name and the date, however, anchor it to its author and allow it to serve – when needed – as evidence, a resource, or simply a valuable asset.
What should those who use photos found online know?
Anyone who uses photographs – or wants to – must start from a simple but often ignored premise: the presence of an image on the Internet guarantees absolutely nothing about its free use.
A photograph previously published online does not automatically become free to reuse, and mentioning the source is not enough to transform unauthorized use into lawful behavior.
The Court of Rome, echoing European case law, clarifies that each new publication of a photograph – even when simply uploading it to a different website – constitutes a new act of communication to the public. Such an act always requires permission from the rights holder because it addresses a new and different audience than the original publication.
The most common mistake, therefore, is confusing ease of access with freedom of use. In reality, anyone who uses a photograph without the right to do so risks facing claims and compensation demands.
To avoid problems, the only safe approach is to verify the image’s origin, check its terms of use, and – when necessary – request authorization from the proper rights holder. This minimal precaution can prevent far more serious consequences.
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - All rights reserved.
Publication date: 10 December 2025
Textual reproduction of the article is permitted, even for commercial purposes, within the limit of 15% of its entirety, provided that the source is clearly indicated. In the case of online reproduction, a link to the original article must be included. Unauthorised reproduction or paraphrasing without indication of source will be prosecuted.
Margherita Manca
Avvocato presso lo Studio Legale Canella Camaiora, iscritta all’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano, si occupa di diritto industriale.