Abstract
An editorial format, understood as an organisational framework for content, does not satisfy the requirement of expressive form under Law No. 633/1941 and therefore falls outside copyright protection. This means that even original and recognisable editorial formats may be replicated without infringing copyright. The Italian Supreme Court (Order of 10 February 2025, No. 3393) reaffirmed the distinction between an idea and a protected work, excluding protection for even innovative narrative methodologies. Protection arises only when an idea is given concrete expression. This shifts the focus towards alternative forms of protection, such as unfair competition (Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code) and design rights.
Is an editorial format protected by copyright?
In publishing practice, a format is what makes a series recognisable: a set of recurring choices – layout, content structure and the relationship between text and images – that allows the public to identify the product immediately.
The problem arises when an attempt is made to protect this “mechanism” through copyright alone.
It is a common mistake to assume that a creative and innovative structure can automatically qualify as a work of authorship under Article 2 of the Italian Copyright Act (Law No. 633/1941). In reality, copyright does not protect the underlying organisational idea or editorial method as such, but only its concrete expression.
This is precisely where the limitation of an editorial format becomes apparent: it lacks the essential requirement of “expressive form”. As long as it remains a repeatable framework or a narrative methodology, the format does not become a perceptible and identifiable work. In other words, it remains an idea and, as such, is not protected.
This principle was clearly reaffirmed by the Italian Supreme Court in its Order of 10 February 2025, No. 3393, in a dispute concerning the “Carte in tavola” series. The case concerned a series of boxed sets containing illustrated cards whose sequence reconstructed a fairy tale.
Both the Florence Court, in its judgment of 6 May 2022, and the Florence Court of Appeal had recognised authorship of the graphic project and awarded damages.
The Supreme Court, however, overturned that approach, explaining that: “creativity does not lie in the idea underlying the work, but in the form in which that idea is expressed, that is, in its subjective character, so that the same idea may underlie different copyright works […] which may nevertheless differ because of the subjective creativity contributed by each author, and it is that creativity which is relevant for the purpose of obtaining protection.”
On that basis, the Florence Court of Appeal, deciding the case on remand (judgment of 9 February 2026), followed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and excluded protection for the format as such. The practical point is therefore clear: a series built around a recurring structure may be recognisable on the market, but that alone is not enough to make it automatically protected by copyright.
This raises the real question for those developing publishing projects: if a competitor replicates the same structure, can I actually stop them?
When is a work protected by copyright?
As noted above, copyright protects only what is manifested in a concrete expressive form. An idea, even if original or innovative, is not enough: the idea must be translated into a perceptible work in which the author’s creative choices can be identified.
This is the fundamental dividing line: abstract solutions, methods and operational schemes remain outside the scope of protection, even when they appear novel or particularly creative.
This is the classic distinction between idea and form, which courts consistently apply when determining whether copyright protection exists.
The principle is not merely theoretical. It is also reflected in legislation. Article 2 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty specifies that protection extends to expressions and not to “ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such”.
Similarly, Article 6 of the Italian Copyright Act provides that copyright arises upon creation of the work, that is, when the idea takes form.
In practical terms, this means that authorship cannot be claimed merely because someone conceived a work. The work must actually be realised. There is, however, an important qualification: “form” does not necessarily mean that the work must be written down. Article 14 of the Italian Copyright Act governs “the exclusive right of transcription, [which] consists in the use of means capable of transforming an oral work into a written work”. A typical example is a performance or speech. Under Italian law, protection may therefore arise at the moment of performance, even before the work is fixed on a medium, and the author is also granted the right to transcribe it.
A comparison with US copyright law helps clarify the point further. In the United States, the principle of fixation is central: in order to qualify for protection, a work must be fixed in a tangible medium (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)).
Under Italian law, by contrast, protection may arise even without material fixation, but the essential requirement remains the same: the work must be expressed, rather than merely conceived.
This is the basis for understanding the Supreme Court’s position: as long as an editorial format remains a framework or methodology, it does not cross the threshold of expressive form and therefore cannot be protected by copyright.
Why is an editorial format not considered a protected work?
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court clarified a decisive point: the innovative nature of a format is not enough to obtain protection.
In the case under discussion, the first-instance court had placed particular emphasis on the novelty of the narrative methodology and had recognised authorship of the project. According to the Supreme Court, however, that approach was incorrect: copyright does not arise from an innovative idea, but from its translation into a concrete expressive form.
An editorial format is, by its nature, a set of rules: layout, structure and sequencing of content. It is a narrative methodology that can be described and replicated, but which does not yet coincide with a protected work.
As long as it remains at this level, the format does not meet the threshold required for copyright protection. It remains an organisational idea and is therefore excluded from protection, including in light of international principles limiting copyright to expressions.
In practical terms, even an original and recognisable format may be replicated by third parties without infringing copyright, provided that what is copied is the underlying structure rather than the individual works themselves.
This does not mean that a format can never be protected. It means that protection cannot be sought – or at least cannot be adequately secured – through copyright alone.
How can an editorial format be protected?
When protection is extended beyond the work already created – the individual book or the series itself – to the editorial format as a whole, meaning the way in which the various elements are combined to make the product recognisable, copyright reaches the boundary between idea and form.
It is precisely at this point that the real protection of the format becomes relevant.
In practice, it is often advisable to supplement – and sometimes to favour – other forms of protection that are better suited to preventing imitation of the product’s overall appearance.
One possible avenue is unfair competition based on likelihood of confusion (Article 2598(1)(1) of the Italian Civil Code). This form of protection applies where a competitor adopts solutions capable of creating confusion on the market, for example by replicating the graphic presentation, structure or distinctive elements of a series in such a way that the public may believe that it is dealing with the same product or with a commercially connected product.
Alongside this, design protection may prove decisive. Where the value of the format lies in its visual appearance – as with boxed sets, illustrated cards, recurring layouts or recognisable visual combinations – design rights make it possible to protect the appearance of the product and take action against reproductions that produce the same “overall impression”.
In practical terms, anyone developing an editorial format cannot rely on copyright alone, but should build a protection strategy capable of addressing imitation in terms of its overall effect.
Revisionato da: Margherita Manca
Data di pubblicazione: 1 Settembre 2026
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - Tutti i diritti riservati.
È consentita la riproduzione testuale dell’articolo, anche a fini commerciali, nei limiti del 15% della sua totalità a condizione che venga indicata chiaramente la fonte. In caso di riproduzione online, deve essere inserito un link all’articolo originale. La riproduzione o la parafrasi non autorizzata e senza indicazione della fonte sarà perseguita legalmente.
Gabriele Rossi
Laureato in giurisprudenza, con esperienza nella consulenza legale a imprese, enti e pubbliche amministrazioni.