THE PRICE OF CONSENT.

Recently the Court of Turin ruled on the issue of the publication of photographs on a website internet without the prior authorization of the author and recognizing the quantification of compensation based on the principle of the "price of consent".

The author of some photographs, having noticed that they appeared on a web platform, asked, firstly, to be recognized as the owner of the economic exploitation rights over them and, secondly, to be recognized and, above all, to quantify the economic exploitation rights to which he was entitled.

The owner of the photographs also requested that the acts of unfair competition, in the form of parasitic competition, be recognized and sanctioned. These acts were committed by the illegitimate user of the photographs, who, contrary to the rules of professional correctness, systematically exploited the work of the owner of the photographs and carried out activities potentially capable of depriving the competitor of market share.

In resolving the dispute, the Court of Turin ruled not only that the unlawful publication of other people's photographs on a website by unauthorized third parties constitutes a violation of economic exploitation rights, but also that such violation must be sanctioned by applying the "price of consent" principle.

More precisely, according to this criterion, the penalty for unlawful exploitation of copyright must be quantified based on the amount the rights holder would have received as compensation following an agreement with the user. And the quantification of the "consent price" must be based on the fee previously requested by the owner for the transfer of each individual photograph to third parties.

Regarding the claim for damages related to alleged acts of unfair competition in the form of parasitic competition, the Turin judges ruled that, although the case in question may contain multiple acts contrary to the principles of professional correctness, as well as aimed at the systematic exploitation of the work of the owner of the exploitation rights to the photographs, no pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages could be awarded to the owner since they were not adequately proven.