Abstract
Imitating an artist’s style is not, in itself, enough to constitute plagiarism: copyright protects the creative form of specific works, not ideas, techniques or artistic movements. The dividing line emerges from an overall comparison of the works and from the presence—or absence—of an independent artistic meaning.
The Vedova case also shows that the consequences can extend beyond the person who actually created the plagiarised works. A gallery may be held liable if it contributes to their dissemination without exercising the required professional care; a foundation may obtain redress not on behalf of the artist, but for harm to its own reputation.
What happened in the Vedova case?
In 2007, Galleria Arte Moderna Fratelli Orler organised an exhibition and sale in Venice devoted to works by the painter Pierluigi De Lutti, promoting their sale mainly through television shopping broadcasts.
The works were not presented as authentic paintings by Emilio Vedova, one of the leading figures of Italian Art Informel. The issue raised by the Fondazione Emilio e Annabianca Vedova was more subtle: according to the Foundation, those works did not merely evoke a style or an artistic movement, but reproduced creative elements from specific works by Vedova.
The comparison concerned, among other works, Oltre la tela, which the courts considered substantially superimposable on Ciclo ’62-BB9. The dispute also concerned a series of circular works, the so-called “discs”, which featured compositional patterns and expressive devices already found in the Venetian artist’s works.
The Foundation, Vedova’s universal heir, brought proceedings against the artist and the gallery that had promoted and marketed the paintings. The Milan Court found that plagiarism had occurred, prohibited the continuation of the challenged conduct and ordered the destruction of the promotional material. It also ordered the artist and the gallery, jointly and severally, to pay €300,000: €200,000 for pecuniary damage and €100,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
The Milan Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The gallery appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the works merely borrowed Vedova’s style, which was free to imitate. It also disputed its own liability for marketing the works and the Foundation’s entitlement to compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
In Judgment No. 2039 of 2018, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It is a textbook case because it requires a distinction between three issues: when borrowing a style becomes plagiarism; when a gallery may be held liable for works created by others; and what harm a foundation entrusted with protecting and promoting an artist’s work may itself suffer.
When does borrowing a style become plagiarism?
The gallery’s defence proceeded from a correct premise: no one can claim an exclusive right over an idea, a technique or an artistic movement. Style too, considered in the abstract, remains free for anyone to use. Copyright law instead protects the concrete form through which the artist has expressed an idea, provided that it contains a personal and recognisable creative contribution.
Similarity to a style is therefore not enough: what matters is the appropriation of the creative form of specific works. Another artist may work within the same artistic language, use similar techniques or start from the same inspiration. Plagiarism occurs when the later work takes the creative core of the earlier work without introducing a sufficient semantic departure—that is, a distinct artistic meaning of its own.
To establish plagiarism, similarities and differences are not counted mechanically. The comparison must consider the works as a whole, focusing on their essential elements and overall effect. Marginal differences may leave the same expressive identity intact; plagiarism, moreover, may be disguised through merely apparent variations. Nor is it necessary for the public to confuse the two works or attribute them to the same artist.
In the Vedova case, the lower courts held that Oltre la tela reproduced the expressive structure of Ciclo ’62-BB9: both works were constructed on two planes and featured the same red and yellow masses of colour, placed in the same positions. The reduction in size and the use of a palette knife instead of a brush were not considered sufficient to produce a different artistic meaning.
A similar conclusion was reached in relation to the “discs”. The comparison highlighted the repetition of the same light-and-shade effects, form, arrangement of elements, technique and support. Here too, according to the courts, the differences did not introduce an independent reworking of the artistic message.
The Court of Cassation therefore did not grant Vedova an exclusive right over the language of Art Informel. It held that the method followed by the lower courts, based on expert evidence and direct examination of the works, was correct. The distinction remains this: drawing on a shared inspiration is permissible; reproducing the same expressive identity, barely disguised by secondary variations, may constitute plagiarism.
When is a gallery liable for plagiarism?
Once plagiarism had been established, it remained to be determined whether only the creator of the works should be held liable. The gallery argued that holding it liable for marketing the paintings would effectively turn it into a kind of absolute guarantor of their lawfulness.
The Court of Cassation rejected that approach. Under the rules on joint and several liability, all those who have made a significant contribution to the commission of the wrongful act are liable for the damage. This may include those who, in the course of their business, exhibit, promote and sell plagiarised works. Joint and several liability allows the injured party to seek full compensation from any one of the parties jointly liable, subject to the subsequent apportionment of liability among them.
Marketing the works, however, does not automatically make the gallery liable. It is necessary to establish both its contribution to the dissemination of the works and conduct that was at least negligent. The gallery’s negligence must be assessed against the heightened standard of care required of a professional in the art market: not what an ordinary buyer might have recognised, but what an expert operator should have detected.
In the Vedova case, the gallery had not played a marginal role. It had promoted, exhibited and sold multiple works through an exhibition and sale and, above all, through television shopping broadcasts which, according to the courts, particularly broadened their dissemination. The courts also attached importance to how well known Vedova’s style was and to the blatant nature of the imitation. Liability was therefore based on the failure to exercise professional care, not on the mere presence of the works on the market.
The Court of Cassation also referred to Article 64 of the Italian Cultural Heritage Code, which requires anyone who professionally sells, exhibits or brokers works of art to provide the buyer with documentation concerning authenticity and provenance or, where this is unavailable, a declaration containing the information available. The provision does not directly resolve the issue of plagiarism, but it confirms the level of professionalism and reliability required of operators in the sector.
The gallery’s professed good faith was therefore insufficient. However, because this was a matter of non-contractual liability, it was for the Foundation to prove the gallery’s negligence: the courts found that negligence in the fact that an expert operator should have recognised an imitation regarded as blatant.
The gallery is not the absolute guarantor of every work it markets, but it may be held jointly and severally liable with the artist when it makes a significant contribution to the dissemination of the plagiarised works and, through professional negligence, fails to recognise an infringement that it should have detected.
What harm can an artist’s foundation suffer?
The final issue concerned the non-pecuniary damage awarded to the Fondazione Emilio e Annabianca Vedova. The gallery argued that the Foundation, as a legal entity, could neither invoke the artist’s moral right nor obtain compensation based on its infringement.
The objection would have been decisive if the Foundation had acted in Vedova’s place. Article 20 of the Italian Copyright Law protects the authorship and integrity of the work, while Article 23 identifies those who may enforce that right after the author’s death. The Foundation, however, was not exercising Vedova’s moral right: it was seeking protection for harm suffered directly.
Non-pecuniary damage does not necessarily consist in physical or emotional suffering. A legal entity may also suffer harm to its identity and reputation where another party’s conduct diminishes the esteem and trust it enjoys within its social and economic context. Such harm may be compensable.
The Court of Cassation also clarified the nature of the harm. The lower courts had referred to damage to the Foundation’s “image”; more accurately, according to the Court, it was harm to its reputation. The dissemination of the plagiarised works had harmed the Foundation’s reputation precisely in the role assigned to it by its governing document: preserving Vedova’s work and disseminating accurate knowledge of it. For that reason, the award of €100,000 already made at the earlier stages of the proceedings was upheld.
That recognition, however, does not automatically extend to every artist’s archive or foundation. The entity must prove that the challenged conduct affected the function actually entrusted to it and damaged its credibility. The foundation cannot merely invoke the harm suffered by the artist or the market: it must prove the infringement of an interest that belongs directly to it.
The Vedova case shows that the same plagiarised works may infringe rights in the work, engage the gallery’s liability and harm the Foundation’s reputation. The same conduct may affect several legal interests, but each party must identify and prove its own harm.
Reviewed by: Arlo Canella
Publication date: 10 August 2026
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - All rights reserved.
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.
