Copyright and Public Venues: The Court of Cassation on Profit Motive (Judgment No. 30279/2025)

In the Italian legal landscape, copyright protection is a fundamental pillar for safeguarding intellectual works. However, applying these principles in practical contexts, especially in commercial settings like public venues, can generate considerable uncertainty. The Court of Cassation, with Judgment No. 30279 of June 27, 2025 (filed on September 4, 2025), intervenes with a particularly relevant ruling, offering essential clarifications on the configurability of the copyright infringement offense in cases of broadcasting subscription-based sporting events in public establishments. This decision, which quashes and remands the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria of February 13, 2025, focuses specifically on the concept of "profit motive," a crucial element for qualifying the crime.

The Case Before the Supreme Court: Domestic Subscription in a Public Venue

The case examined by the Supreme Court concerned the defendant A. D., accused of broadcasting a sporting event transmitted by a pay-per-view digital terrestrial platform in a public venue, using a domestic-type subscription. The central issue was whether such conduct constituted the offense provided for by Article 171-ter, paragraph 1, letter e), of Law of April 22, 1941, No. 633, the so-called Copyright Law. This provision penalizes anyone who, for profit, communicates to the public or makes available to the public protected works without authorization. The complexity often lies in defining what exactly is meant by "profit motive" in situations where there is no direct payment for viewing the event.

Jurisprudence, as highlighted by the "Conflicting Previous Maxims" cited in the judgment (No. 13812 of 2008, No. 8073 of 2007, No. 31579 of 2002), has not always had a consistent orientation on this point, making the Cassation's ruling even more significant for legal professionals and business owners.

In matters of copyright protection, the configurability of the offense under art. 171-ter, paragraph 1, letter e), of Law of April 22, 1941, No. 633, for the case of broadcasting, in a public venue, of a sporting event transmitted by a pay-per-view digital terrestrial platform using a domestic-type subscription, requires proof of profit motive, which is evident in the intent to attract a larger number of customers to the venue due to the free use of the service.

The maxim of Judgment No. 30279/2025, presided over by Dr. A. A. and with Dr. U. M. as rapporteur and author, unequivocally clarifies that "profit motive" is not necessarily identified with direct revenue from viewing the event. On the contrary, it is evident in the intent to attract a greater number of customers to one's establishment by offering them the free use of the service. This means that a business owner who uses a subscription intended for private use to broadcast a match or other sporting event in their bar or restaurant, with the aim of increasing customer traffic and, consequently, their sales (e.g., of food and drinks), acts with "profit motive." It is not required for the customer to pay a ticket to watch the event; it is sufficient that the broadcast serves as a commercial draw.

Practical Implications for Business Owners and Intellectual Property Protection

This ruling has significant practical implications for all managers of public venues who intend to offer their customers the viewing of sporting events or other copyrighted content. It is crucial to understand that using a "domestic" or "private" subscription in a commercial context is illegal and can constitute a criminal offense, with severe consequences. The distinction between a private use subscription and a commercial use subscription is not a mere technicality but reflects the different usage license granted by the copyright holder.

To avoid penalties, business owners must ensure they have specific subscriptions for commercial activities, which have different terms and costs precisely because of the "public broadcast" of the content. The burden of proof for "profit motive" lies with the prosecution, but jurisprudence, with this judgment, provides clear guidance on how this element can be proven, namely through the mere intention to increase clientele by offering the service.

• Subscription Type: Always verify that the subscription purchased is specifically intended for commercial or public use, not domestic use.
• Nature of the Venue: Be aware that any venue accessible to the public (bars, restaurants, pubs, etc.) is considered a context of "public broadcast."
• Commercial Intent: Even if no direct charge is applied for viewing, the objective of attracting more customers falls under "profit motive."
• Legal Consequences: Violation can lead to criminal penalties under art. 171-ter of Law 633/1941, as well as civil damages for harm suffered by the rights holder.

Conclusions: A Call for Compliance and Prevention

Judgment No. 30279/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for all economic operators and an essential clarification within the scope of copyright law. It underscores the importance of respecting usage licenses and understanding the legal implications of using copyrighted content in commercial contexts. "Profit motive" is interpreted broadly, including any indirect commercial advantage derived from making protected content available for free.

For business owners, prevention is the best strategy: obtaining correct information and subscribing to licenses appropriate for public use is the only way to avoid legal disputes and criminal penalties. For legal professionals, this judgment offers a valuable interpretative tool to guide their clients through the complexities of intellectual property protection, a field that is constantly evolving and of growing importance in the digital economy.