With Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025, the legislature has intervened decisively, and in many respects unexpectedly, in the field of copyright, amending a provision that had remained substantially unchanged for decades.
The subject of the intervention is Article 92 of the Italian Copyright Law (LdA), which governs the protection of so-called “simple photographs”, that is, images lacking creative character.
The reform, included within the broader package of measures for the simplification and digitalization of economic activities, has extended the duration of protection from twenty to seventy years from the production of the photograph.
A significant extension that has immediately sparked debate among industry operators, legal scholars, publishers, and companies.
The (still problematic) distinction between photographic works and simple photographs
For decades, one of the most controversial issues in Italian copyright law has concerned the distinction between a photographic work and a simple photograph. The law continues to maintain this difference, distinguishing between works protected pursuant to Article 2, no. 7, LdA and photographs governed by Articles 87 et seq., but the boundary between the two categories is not always easy to draw.
This is also confirmed by the very recent judgment No. 8613/2025 of the Court of Milan of 11 December 2025, which refers to the consolidated case law of the Court of Cassation. According to the judges, the distinguishing element lies in the creative capacity of the photographer, understood as a recognizable personal imprint in the shot, manifested in the choice of subject, the study of framing, the use of light, the timing of execution, and any subsequent reworking of the image. These elements allow the photograph to express an individual vision and to evoke impressions that transcend the mere reproduction of reality.
Conversely, simple photographs, as also reiterated by the Court of Cassation, Section I, order No. 33599 of 20 December 2024, although capable of reaching a high qualitative level, are limited to faithfully reproducing external reality, without any personal and substantial reworking by the author.
This results in an application framework that is not always straightforward, characterized by case law orientations that are sometimes inconsistent and by an inevitable margin of unpredictability, especially in borderline cases where the line between creativity and mere technical reproduction is blurred.
What the new legislation provides
It is precisely on this already delicate ground that Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025 intervenes. The legislative amendment is contained in Article 47, which modifies Article 92, paragraph 1, LdA, establishing that the rights granted to photographers of simple photographs now last seventy years from the production of the image, and no longer twenty.
The reform does not alter the conceptual framework of the Copyright Law, which continues to distinguish between photographic works and simple photographs, and to place the latter within the scope of related rights. Simple photographs fall within a category designed to protect economic interests different from those of the author in the strict sense.
Historically, such images have been protected not for their originality, but for the material activity of the photographer and for the organizational investment underlying the production of the image. What is protected is the activity of taking photographs as such, without requiring any creative contribution.
In the system prior to the reform, the twenty-year duration reflected this approach, granting limited economic protection to those who produced images of a technical, documentary, or reproductive nature, without equating them to works of intellect. Within this balance, the limited duration appeared consistent with the function of related rights and with the need to ensure, within a reasonable time, the entry of images into the public domain.
With the extension to seventy years, the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution granted to the photographer—whose enforceability against third parties remains subject to compliance with the formalities set out in Article 90 LdA (indication of the photographer’s name, the year of production and, where applicable, the rights holder)—are significantly strengthened and come closer, at least in temporal terms, to the protection granted to creative works.
In fact, creative photographs and simple photographs now share the same duration of protection, while remaining anchored to different legal regimes. The difference, however, continues to concern the starting point of the term, which for photographic works is calculated from the death of the author, whereas for simple photographs it runs from the production of the photograph.
Public domain and cultural heritage at risk
While the reform has been welcomed by the professional photography community, which sees the economic protection of its images significantly strengthened, critical positions have also emerged.
Cultural associations, historical archives, libraries, and heritage institutions have highlighted the risk of a progressive contraction of the public domain, with effects that could impact the free circulation of knowledge and the enhancement of photographic heritage.
The issue takes on even more delicate contours in the digital context, where images circulate pervasively and often detached from information about their origin. Reconstructing the chain of rights, especially for documentary or historical photographs lacking complete information on ownership, is already a complex and costly operation; extending the duration of protection risks amplifying these difficulties, slowing down projects of digitization, research, and cultural reuse.
Moreover, the impact on the daily practices of publishers, companies, and cultural operators should not be underestimated. The extension of the protection term increases the pool of images potentially still covered by rights and, consequently, the risk of inadvertently unlawful uses, especially with reference to stock photographs or images circulated for decades, perceived as “free” due to the previous twenty-year term. In this scenario, the correct classification of the shot, whether creative or simple, is no longer merely a theoretical issue, but a strategic step in legal risk management.
A further critical aspect is represented by the absence of transitional provisions. The law does not expressly clarify which regime should apply to photographs taken before the entry into force of the reform, leaving open questions regarding the status of images that, under the previous twenty-year term, would already have entered or be close to entering the public domain. The silence of the legislature exposes operators to non-uniform and potentially conflicting interpretative scenarios, precisely in a sector that would require greater stability and predictability.
In conclusion, the amendment to Article 92 LdA marks a decisive strengthening of the protection of simple photographs, and a clear political choice in favor of protecting the economic interests of photographers, but at the price of a more fragile systemic balance. In a field already marked by interpretative difficulties, the temporal extension risks amplifying tensions between the protection of rights and the need for the circulation of images.
It will now be up to practice and case law to find a point of synthesis, so that protection conceived to simplify and enhance does not paradoxically end up rigidifying the system and excessively restricting the legitimate dissemination of images and knowledge.
Teresa Franza