Freedom of Panorama in Italy: Photographing Architectural Works and Monuments Under Italian Copyright Law

Last updated: September 2026 — by Avv. Claudia Roggero, Rome Bar since 2003, entertainment and copyright law, DANDI.media. Originally contributed by Domenico Piero Muscillo.

Italy has no freedom of panorama exception. Germany, the UK and Spain have one; France has a narrow one. Italy does not, and that makes it an outlier in Europe — a fact most photographers, stock libraries and foreign productions discover only when something goes wrong.

What exists instead is a practice: non-commercial photography of buildings and monuments in public space is not pursued, and in most cases is defensible on other grounds. Commercial reproduction of a work still in copyright is a different matter — and a second, entirely separate regime applies on top, under which even a Roman ruin can require authorisation.

What is protected

Under Articles 1 and 2 LDA and Article 2575 of the Civil Code, copyright protects works of the intellect of a creative character in the figurative arts and architecture. That includes:

• architectural works — buildings and monuments — and their drawings;
• sculptures;
• works of figurative art — paintings, murals, installations;
• stage designs, sketches and other graphic works.

Every building or monument visible from the street — modern architecture, public sculpture, contemporary installation — is in principle protected. The author holds the exclusive right of reproduction in any form, including by photography, under Article 13 LDA, together with the moral rights of paternity and integrity at Articles 20–24.

Location does not affect protection. A building in copyright is protected whether photographed from a public street, from private property, or from the air.

The Italian position: no statutory exception

Italian law contains no provision equivalent to the German or British freedom of panorama. On a strict reading of the exclusive reproduction right, any photograph reproducing a protected architectural work or sculpture would require authorisation, whatever the vantage point.

Practice and case law have softened that, but through general principles rather than a dedicated exception:

Italian courts have confirmed that photographing a protected work is itself an act of economic exploitation engaging the author’s exclusive reproduction right, and that the right survives even where rights of use in the work have been transferred to someone else.

The practical consequence for anyone working across borders: a clearance position built on German or British freedom of panorama does not travel to Italy. This is the single most common error in pan-European photographic and production clearance.

Commercial versus non-commercial use

The distinction does most of the work in Italian practice, so it is worth being precise about where the line sits.

Non-commercial

Personal photography from public space — private enjoyment, non-commercial social sharing, education, discussion, criticism, review. Generally unproblematic, and where the purpose is genuinely critical or educational, defensible under Article 70.

Commercial

Authorisation from the rightsholder of the architectural work or sculpture — normally the architect, the sculptor, or their successors — is required for:

• publication in magazines, books and other commercial print;
• publication on commercial websites and platforms;
• sale of prints, postcards, calendars and posters;
• advertising;
• stock photography libraries — Getty, Shutterstock, Alamy and others;
• commercial film and television production.

The stock photography case deserves attention. Uploading to a library is itself a commercial act, and the licence you grant the library is broader than any single use you had in mind. Photographers routinely clear a specific publication and overlook the portfolio sitting on a stock platform.

The second regime: cultural heritage

Copyright is only half the analysis. The Cultural Heritage Code (D.Lgs. 42/2004) imposes a parallel and entirely independent restriction on reproduction of items classified as cultural heritage or held in state and certain other public collections.

It operates on the physical item held by the institution, not on the intellectual creation — which is precisely why it survives the expiry of copyright.

• Commercial reproduction may require authorisation from the competent authority, regardless of copyright status;
• Concession fees may be payable, even for works centuries old;
• Non-commercial use — study, research, free expression, creative activity — is generally permitted, subject to formal requirements.

So a photograph of the Colosseum, unquestionably in the public domain for copyright purposes, can still require authorisation before it appears on a product or in a campaign.

Where it bites

• Building exteriors — generally outside the regime, though modern artworks or sculptures on those exteriors may not be;
• Museum interiors and exhibitions — institution rules plus the Code;
• Archaeological sites — commercial reproduction normally requires authorisation;
• Private collections declared cultural heritage — the restriction follows the classification, not the location.

In practice the authority does not sell images: it processes a formal request specifying the intended use, and publications commonly carry an acknowledgment of the authorisation granted.

The framework is contested — its compatibility with EU law, and with the DSM provision on reproductions of public domain visual art, is argued in both directions. For a production, that debate is not a plan: Italian institutions do assert these rights, and the authorisation route is faster than the argument.

Main subject versus background

Italian practice distinguishes photographs where the protected work is the focal point from those where it appears incidentally.

• Main subject — a close-up or dominant framing. Authorisation generally required for commercial use.
• Background — incidental inclusion in a wider scene. Generally treated as de minimis.

A street scene in Rome that happens to include a contemporary sculpture in a corner of the frame is not in the same position as a focused photograph of that sculpture.

The line is contested, and the factors that move it are:

• the proportion of the frame the work occupies;
• whether it is identifiable as a specific protected work;
• whether the photograph’s commercial value derives from its inclusion;
• whether the work is used to evoke particular associations.

That third factor tends to be decisive in practice. A building included because it was there is a different case from a building included because it sells the image.

Works in the public domain

Copyright expires 70 years after the author’s death, after which no copyright authorisation is needed. For Italian architecture and sculpture:

But copyright expiry does not end the analysis. Two layers survive it: the cultural heritage regime above, and the author’s moral rights of paternity and integrity, which are perpetual in Italy and enforceable by heirs indefinitely. See our public domain guide.

For film and television production

The issue arrives in production as a location question and is often handled as one — a permit from the comune, and on to the next thing. That is not sufficient.

A location permission authorises filming in a place. It does not authorise reproducing a copyrighted architectural work that happens to be there. The two are separate clearances from separate parties, and E&O underwriters increasingly ask about the second.

The practical test for a production is the same main-subject analysis: a building used as a backdrop is normally fine; a building that is the subject of the shot, or that carries the identity of the film, is not. Where a distinctive modern building features prominently — in a poster, a title sequence, or a recurring establishing shot — the architect’s position should be checked before the shoot rather than at delivery.

See our chain of title checklist and clearance guide.

Practical checklist

1. Identify the protected works in frame — which buildings, sculptures or other protected creations appear.
2. Determine copyright status — when did the author die? Is the work within the 70-year term?
3. Determine cultural heritage status — is the item classified under D.Lgs. 42/2004, or held in a state collection, museum or archaeological site?
4. Classify the use — commercial or not, editorial or advertising, stock or limited distribution.
5. Assess the composition — main subject or incidental background, and whether the image’s value derives from the work.
6. Obtain the authorisations — from rightsholders, from the heritage authority, from venue management where applicable.
7. Document everything, and include the credits and acknowledgments required.

For commercial projects distributed outside Italy, or used in audiovisual production, a clearance review is worth the cost — precisely because the Italian position differs from the assumption most foreign advisers start from.

Frequently asked questions

Does Italy have freedom of panorama?

No. Italian law has no freedom of panorama exception comparable to those in Germany, the UK or Spain. Non-commercial photography of works in public space is generally unproblematic in practice, but commercial reproduction of a work still in copyright, where it is the main subject, requires authorisation from the rightsholder.

Can I photograph buildings and monuments in Italy?

For personal, non-commercial use, generally yes. For commercial reproduction — magazines, books, stock photography, advertising, commercial film — authorisation may be required if the architectural work is still in copyright and is the main subject of the image.

What if the architect died more than 70 years ago?

The work is in the copyright public domain and no copyright authorisation is needed. Cultural heritage restrictions under D.Lgs. 42/2004 may still apply, particularly for commercial reproduction of state-owned or classified items.

Do I need authorisation to photograph the Colosseum?

Not for copyright — ancient monuments are in the public domain. But the Cultural Heritage Code can require authorisation for commercial reproduction, because it regulates the physical item held by the institution independently of copyright. Personal photography is generally unrestricted.

What is the difference between main subject and background?

Where the protected work is the focal point of the image, authorisation for commercial use is generally required. Where it appears incidentally in a wider scene, the inclusion is typically treated as de minimis. The factor that usually decides borderline cases is whether the image’s commercial value derives from the work’s inclusion.

Can I sell prints or stock photos of Italian buildings?

For modern works still in copyright, normally only with the architect’s authorisation or that of their successors. For public domain works, no copyright authorisation is needed, but heritage authorisation may apply to commercial reproduction. Note that uploading to a stock library is itself a commercial act, and the licence granted to the library is broader than any single intended use.

Does a location permit cover filming a copyrighted building?

No. A location permission authorises filming in a place; it does not authorise reproducing a copyrighted architectural work situated there. They are separate clearances from separate parties, and E&O underwriters increasingly ask about the second.

Are there special rules for drone photography?

Drone operation is governed by Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and ENAC rules, in addition to copyright and cultural heritage. Aerial position does not create any exemption: a protected work photographed from the air is protected exactly as it is from the street.

What about photographing artworks in museums?

Institutions have their own rules, often prohibiting commercial photography without written permission. Beyond those, the Cultural Heritage Code applies to works in state collections. Personal non-commercial photography is often permitted, but varies by institution.

How DANDI supports photographers and producers

• Clearance analysis — identifying which copyright and heritage authorisations a specific image or project requires
• Heritage submissions — preparing and filing authorisation requests with the competent authorities
• Rightsholder negotiations — licensing reproduction rights from architects and their successors
• Cross-border projects — comparative analysis where a project spans jurisdictions with different panorama rules
• Stock photography compliance — portfolio review against Italian requirements before upload
• Production clearance — separating location permissions from architectural rights in the chain of title
• Disputes over unauthorised reproduction

We work in English, Italian and French.

Book an initial consultation with Avv. Claudia Roggero.

Related guides

This guide states the position at the date above. Confirm current provisions before relying on it for a commercial project.

Dandi Law Firm provides legal assistance in several Practice Areas. Check out our Services or contact Us!