An Emblematic Victory in Copyright and Cultural Heritage Disputes. The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, with order no. 12956 filed on May 14, 2025, has definitively rejected the appeal filed by Sony Music Entertainment Italy (SMEI) against the heirs of the celebrated singer-songwriter Lucio Battisti, as well as against the companies holding the music publishing rights to the artist’s works. This decision fully upholds the Milan Court of Appeal’s judgment no. 2597/2023.
The outcome of the judgment reiterates fundamental principles concerning the management of rights related to musical works, drawing a clear line between the ownership of phonograms and the rights of economic exploitation of musical works in the digital sphere.
The Heart of the Dispute: Copyright, Licenses, and Streaming
The case originated from the revocation, in 2007, of the mandate granted to SIAE by the companies holding the music publishing rights to Battisti’s works. This revocation, limited to telematic and digital channels, prevented Sony from continuing to distribute and synchronize the artist’s phonographic recordings online. Sony had carried out these operations until 2006 without the necessary agreements with the composer’s heirs.
According to SMEI, the heirs and the defendant companies thus hindered the economic exploitation of the recordings, declining any collaboration with an “attitude of contemptuous refusal” and making it impossible to negotiate new digital licenses. The record company quantified the damages suffered at over 6.9 million euros, invoking both contractual liability and social contact liability of the heirs for allegedly abusing their rights.
The Position of the Heirs and Publishing Companies
For their part, the heirs have always asserted the right to fully and consciously exercise artistic and economic choices regarding Battisti’s work. After the revocation of the mandate to SIAE, the companies simply requested that any use of the works be preceded by a specific authorization agreement, in line with legal provisions and the heirs’ desire to protect the coherence and integrity of the singer-songwriter’s musical legacy.
In rejecting SMEI’s appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that there was no illicit or defaulting conduct on the part of the heirs or the companies they represented. In particular, the Court ruled out the existence of an automatic obligation to negotiate, much less to grant authorization, without a concrete proposal from Sony Music.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed by the Supreme Court
The decision of the Court of Cassation constitutes a significant moment in copyright jurisprudence and, more generally, in civil law applied to cultural production. The Supreme College reiterated that the exercise of exclusive rights to the economic exploitation of musical works – even if it appears conservative or selective – cannot be qualified as illicit, unless specific contractual obligations have been clearly violated.
Therefore, any form of liability of the heirs for breach or for social contact was excluded, emphasizing that, to generate legally binding obligations, the existence of a previous commercial relationship or the mere expectation of future collaboration is not sufficient. The Court also highlighted the non-existence of a legal duty to negotiate or conclude new agreements for digital distribution, recalling the need for a concrete manifestation of negotiating will by the right holder, and not just unilateral claims by the user.
Another key aspect is the rigorous application of the burden of proof. Anyone who brings a lawsuit claiming damages must not only allege the existence of a right but also specifically demonstrate the unlawful conduct of the defendant and the causal link. In this case, the appellant’s evidentiary gaps were deemed decisive, confirming a jurisprudential line that defends contractual autonomy and imposes high evidentiary standards on those who wish to challenge the actions of others, especially when the managerial freedom over intangible assets of cultural value is at stake.
Conclusion: Battisti’s Legacy as an Artistic and Cultural Asset
The Battisti-Sony case highlights the complex relationship between copyright, contractual freedom, and the valorization of musical heritage. Lucio Battisti’s heirs have always maintained a firm and consistent stance, aimed at protecting the artistic integrity of the singer-songwriter’s work, even at the cost of slowing down or limiting economic exploitation on digital channels.
Since 2019, part of the repertoire has become available online again, but under specific and targeted agreements. This demonstrates a conscious, non-obstructive, but selective management, aimed at protecting artistic identity. The matter, now definitively closed, serves as an emblematic example of how justice can guarantee not only patrimonial interests but also cultural and moral ones related to artistic memory.
Well beyond economic or legal data, Lucio Battisti’s heirs, by choosing not to passively yield to the logic of indiscriminate exploitation, have asserted the right to selective management, consistent with the artist’s creative identity. Their victory, recognized at the highest levels of civil justice, is not just a matter of rights but of cultural vision.
The Court of Cassation, in rejecting Sony Music’s claims, indirectly affirmed that the autonomy of the author and their successors cannot be compressed by mere market interests, and that the freedom to say “no” to certain forms of dissemination – even when economically disadvantageous – falls fully within the scope of legal permissibility. In an era where the dematerialization of works often leads to a disavowal of cultural content, this judgment reaffirms the centrality of the human, creative, and moral element in the management of intellectual works.
Ultimately, this is not just the end of a long dispute. It is a precedent that marks a definitive point: respect for artistic heritage is not an obstacle to the development of the digital market but a condition for its ethical sustainability.
Teresa Franza