The copyright holders of a cinematographic work are those who have contributed creatively to its production: the authors of the story, the screenplay and the musical score, and the director. However, it is the producer to whom the Copyright Act (Law 633/1941) assigns the exercise of economic rights relating to the cinematic exploitation of the work.
Correctly identifying the producer of a cinematographic work is therefore of fundamental practical importance.
The Court of Bologna recently ruled on the criteria to be applied in this regard in a decision dated 8 April 2026, in which it dismissed the claims made by a film director seeking to assert his status as co-producer of a film.
In support of his claim, the director had cited the fact that he had been credited as a co-producer in the film’s closing credits. The director therefore invoked in his favour the provisions of Article 45 of the Copyright Act, under which a person is presumed to be the producer of a cinematographic work if they are listed as such in the credits.
The Court, however, applied Article 103 of the Copyright Act, according to which the persons listed as such in the Public Register of Cinematographic Works are deemed to be the authors and producers of the film, and this provision takes precedence over the presumption set out in Article 45 of the Copyright Act. In the present case, the director’s failure to be listed in the Public Register therefore precluded the possibility of recognising him as a co-producer on the basis of his name appearing in the credits alone.
The Court further clarified that, for the purposes of recognising the status of film producer, a mere financial contribution to the production of the work is not sufficient; rather, it is necessary to carry out actual activities involving the organisation, coordination and supervision of the production process. Such activities include, for example, the acquisition of rights relating to creative contributions, the conclusion of contracts with the cast and crew, the selection of locations, and the obtaining of the necessary filming permits.
In the case in question, the Court found that the director had not provided any evidence that the activities described above—which are necessary for the purpose of qualifying as a producer—had actually been carried out.
(Fabrizia Serpieri)
