The Gomorra Case: Partial Plagiarism, Citation of Sources, and Damages under Copyright Law
The lengthy legal case concerning the use, in Roberto Saviano’s book *Gomorra*, of certain articles published by *Corriere di Caserta* and *Cronache di Napoli* provides an opportunity to clarify a central issue in copyright law: the distinction between plagiarism of a work as a whole and the unauthorized use of individual parts of pre-existing works.
The controversy has often been summarized using opposing arguments. On the one hand, it has been claimed that Saviano was definitively convicted of plagiarism; on the other, that the Court of Cassation ruled that *Gomorra* does not constitute a work of plagiarism.
However, both statements require some clarification.
In fact, the dispute did not concern the overall originality of *Gomorra*, nor the question of whether the entire book could be classified as a reproduction of earlier newspaper articles. The dispute centered on certain specific passages, taken from news articles and used in the book without a complete citation of the source and, as established at various levels of the judicial process, in a manner that exceeded the limits of fair use.
Facts and Form of Expression
The first principle to consider is that facts, news, and information are not protected by copyright as such.
A murder, a legal case, or a criminal incident can be reported by multiple sources. No one can claim exclusive rights to the historical fact or the news story.
What is protected, however, is the form of expression through which the author selects, organizes, and presents such content. The choice of words, the structure of the text, the narrative construction, and the specific presentation of the information may constitute an expression of the author’s creativity and, as such, are entitled to protection.
It follows that it is permissible to freely use a news story that has already been published by others, but it is not necessarily permissible to reproduce the text in which that story was originally reported.
This distinction is particularly important in nonfiction works, narrative journalism, documentaries, and audiovisual productions based on journalistic, judicial, or archival materials.
Plagiarism can also be partial
In everyday language, plagiarism is often associated with the verbatim copying of a work. From a legal standpoint, however, the infringement may also involve a limited portion of the original work.
The Court of Cassation, which had already ruled on the matter in 2015, clarified that copyright protection may apply even when the appropriation involves individual parts of the work, provided that those parts possess creative character.
Therefore, the amount of text reproduced alone is not the decisive factor. A short passage may be considered significant if it incorporates an original form of expression; conversely, a longer passage may not constitute an infringement if it concerns facts, common phrases, or elements lacking creativity.
In the Gomorra case, the judges recognized the unlawful use of specific portions of articles, without, however, calling into question the book’s creative autonomy and overall originality.
This is the key point: a work can be original as a whole and, at the same time, contain individual elements that infringe on the rights of others.
Citing the source does not always solve the problem
Another important aspect concerns the citation of the source.
It is often believed that citing the author or the publication is sufficient to make the use of a text lawful. In reality, attribution of authorship and authorization to use the text are separate issues.
Citing the source is necessary to respect the author’s moral rights and to ensure transparency regarding the origin of the material. However, this does not automatically make reproduction lawful.
Article 70 of the Copyright Act permits the quotation or reproduction of excerpts for the purposes of criticism, discussion, teaching, or research, within the limits justified by the intended purpose and provided that such use does not compete with the economic exploitation of the work.
When these conditions are not met, authorization from the rights holder may be required, even if the source is properly cited.
Quantification of Damages
One particularly interesting aspect of this case concerns compensation.
Throughout the various levels of the judicial process, the amount awarded to the publisher of the articles was recalculated several times, until a final settlement of €10,000 was reached.
The central issue was to determine what portion of Gomorra’s economic success could be attributed to the illegally used footage.
It would not have been correct to attribute the entire economic value generated by the book to the articles. The judges, in fact, distinguished the contribution of the reproduced passages from Saviano’s creative contribution, the overall structure of the work, and Mondadori’s publishing, promotional, and distribution activities.
The limited quantitative and qualitative impact of the items on the total volume therefore played a decisive role in the assessment of damages.
The final stage of the proceedings did not overturn the finding of unlawful use, but it did make definitive the determination that the damages should be commensurate with the actual contribution of that content to the final work.
Guidelines for Authors and Publishers
The Gomorra case highlights the importance of properly managing sources as early as the writing and editing stages.
It is always advisable to distinguish between freely usable facts and protected works, to verify direct quotations, to accurately cite authors and sources, and to obtain the necessary permissions when use exceeds the limits permitted by law.
Publishers should also include in their contracts appropriate representations and warranties from the author regarding ownership of the materials used and conduct a specific review of articles, photographs, letters, documents, and archival content.
The same applies to the audiovisual sector, where films, series, and documentaries may incorporate pre-existing material, even to a limited extent. In such cases, a preliminary review of the chain of title helps reduce the risk of disputes and preserve the commercial value of the work.
Conclusions
The Gomorra case demonstrates that plagiarism is not an absolute category and that the assessment must be conducted with reference to the individual creative elements used.
It is incorrect to claim that the entire book is plagiarized. It is, however, correct to note that specific portions of news articles were used unlawfully, giving rise to a liability for damages.
The lesson for authors, publishers, and producers is clear: the overall originality of a work does not exempt its creators from respecting the rights to the individual materials incorporated into it. The proper handling of sources is therefore not merely a publishing formality, but an essential component of the work’s legal protection and economic value.