One of the most critical aspects of image protection concerns the distinction between creative photographs protected by copyright and so-called “simple” photographs protected by related rights.
In the case decided by the Court of Naples in its ruling of June 3, 2025, the owner of a company operating in the online trade of Vietri ceramics complained about the unauthorized use of two digital images from his catalog as a backdrop in a television program.
In the plaintiff's opinion, the photographs, which depicted handcrafted majolica tile panels and compositions, were creative and protectable as intellectual works. He therefore required compensation for damages resulting from the infringement of his economic and moral rights as an author.
However, the judges did not accept these requests, noting the lack of creativity in the photographs in question. In fact, the images appeared to be primarily intended to faithfully document the appearance of the ceramic artifacts for the purpose of online sales. The professionalism, technical expertise, and care taken in composing the shots were not considered sufficient elements to demonstrate the author's personal imprint capable of transcending the documentary and commercial function.
The ruling also incidentally clarified that the creativity of a work of art does not automatically extend to the photograph that reproduces it. This statement is in line with the jurisprudential orientation that has considered photographs of works of art to be ‘simple’ because of their tendency to be faithful to the creation photographed.
