Abstract
In Italy, the main law regulating copyright is Law n. 633 of April 22, 1941 (Italian Copyright Law, hereinafter “ICL”) on the protection of copyright and other rights related to its exercise, which has been amended and supplemented by some subsequent legislative interventions. Other provisions are contained in the Italian Civil Code in Articles 2575–2853.
Special thanks go to Camí Garcia i Carreté, associate lawyer, and Maria Tusa, trainee, at Jacobacci Milan for their significant help and fruitful cooperation in the drafting of this publication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Article 68, para 6 ICL.
- 2.
See Article 70, para 1 ICL.
- 3.
Article 64sexies ICL.
- 4.
Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 65 of the ICL.
- 5.
Article 32 of the Constitution and Articles 71a and 71c of the ICL.
- 6.
Articles 9 and 33 of the Constitution and 71 and 68 of the ICL.
- 7.
Article 24 of the Constitution and 67 of the ICL.
- 8.
P. Caselli, Codice del Diritto di Autore – Commentario alla nuova legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633, Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1943, pp 453 ff.; 246; Court of Appeal of Milan, 24.11.2010; Corte di Cassazione, n. 11343 of 1996.
- 9.
Corte di Cassazione, Section I, 07 March 1997, no. 2089, Il Diritto Industriale 1997, p. 812; and Giurisprudenza Italiana 1998, p. 1191.
- 10.
See Article 65, para 1 ICL.
- 11.
See Article 66 ICL.
- 12.
Articles 65 to 71nonies “Exceptions and Limitations.”
- 13.
CJEU, case C-5/08, Infopaq International, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465, para 64: “In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that an act can be held to be ‘transient’ within the meaning of the second condition laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 only if its duration is limited to what is necessary for the proper completion of the technological process in question, it being understood that that process must be automated so that it deletes that act automatically, without human intervention, once its function of enabling the completion of such a process has come to an end.”
- 14.
In this sense, Tribunal of Milan, 13 December 2007 and Tribunal of Palermo, 9 May 2003.
- 15.
Tribunal of Milano, 13 July 2000; Court of Appeal of Milano, 26 March 2002.
- 16.
Supreme Court n. 2089/1987; Court of Appeal of Milano, 25 January 2002; Tribunal of Milano, 2 April 2003.
- 17.
Tribunal of Napoli, 21 March 1994; Pretura of Roma, 19 September 1998 and 3 October 1998.
- 18.
Court of Appeal of Milano, 26 March 2002; Tribunal of Roma, 22 April 2008; Tribunal of Milano 17 July 2009.
- 19.
Court of Appeal of Milan, 25 January 2002; Tribunal of Milan, 8 July 2009.
- 20.
Reply from the Legislative Office of the Ministry for the Cultural Activities, 5 February 2008.
- 21.
CJEU, case C-110/15, Microsoft Mobile Sales International Oy, ECLI:EU:C:2016:717, pt 56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Francetti, M. (2018). Italy. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Antitrust Analysis of Online Sales Platforms & Copyright Limitations and Exceptions. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71419-6_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71418-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71419-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)