By order No.12257 of 1 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued an important ruling on the copyright protection of fictional film characters, clarifying the threshold for copyright protection under the Italian Copyright Act (Law No. 633/1941, the “Copyright Act”), with particular regard to the relationship between a fictional character and the actor who portrayed it on screen, as well as the legal prerequisites for establishing plagiarism and unlawful reproduction.
The dispute
The proceedings originated from a claim brought by Unidis Jolly Film S.r.l. – the owner of the copyright in the film “A Fistful of Dollars” – against the film production and distribution company Paramount Pictures Corporation and other defendants (including composer Hans Florian Zimmer, directors Gregor John Verbinski and James Ward Byrkit, and screenwriter John David Logan), alleging unauthorised exploitation, in the animated feature film “Rango”, of the character known as “The Man with No Name”.
In support of its claims, the claimant argued that “The Man with No Name”, the protagonist of the well-known western trilogy directed by Sergio Leone and portrayed by Clint Eastwood, was eligible for independent copyright protection pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Copyright Act, and that this character had been reproduced, without licence or authorisation, in the character of the “Spirit of the West” in “Rango”, produced by Paramount.
On this basis, Unidis maintained that the character had been unlawfully used in “Rango” and sought a declaration that the defendants had infringed its copyright through plagiarism. It further sought a declaration of unfair competition and damages for the unauthorised exploitation of the character. In the alternative, it argued that the use did not fall within the statutory exception for lawful quotation under Article 70 of the Copyright Act and, in a further alternative plea, relied on unjust enrichment.
The decisions on the merits
The Court of Rome dismissed all of Unidis’ claims, finding no plagiarism in respect of “The Man with No Name”. According to the first-instance court, the reference in “Rango” was to the actor Clint Eastwood himself – whose physical features and personality traits were reproduced – rather than to the character claimed by the plaintiff.
By judgment of 31 August 2022, the Court of Appeal of Rome dismissed the appeal filed by Unidis, upholding the reasoning of the first-instance court. In particular, it observed that “Rango” did not evoke “The Man with No Name” as such, but rather the figure of Clint Eastwood, evoked by references to his physical features and to the characteristics that have shaped his image in the popular imagination.
The appellate court further held that it was not possible to draw a clear distinction between the character and the actor who portrayed him, since the very identity of “The Man with No Name” was inextricably bound to Eastwood’s screen presence and performance. It also considered that the character lacked the requisite level of originality for copyright protection, being no more than a reworking of narrative and visual archetypes deeply rooted in the western tradition, without having developed a distinct creative identity over time.
Finally, the Court of Appeal observed that, even leaving aside the issue of protectability, the reference contained in “Rango”could in any event be regarded as a lawful quotation under Article 70 of the Copyright Act, given the absence of any commercial exploitation competing with that of the copyright holder.
The appeal before the Supreme Court
Unidis filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision, raising six distinct grounds of appeal. The challenges were primarily focused on the finding that “The Man with No Name” was not eligible for copyright protection, and the consequent exclusion of plagiarism. The appellant also contested the interpretation of Article 1 of the Copyright Act upheld by the lower court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had implicitly introduced a requirement of separability between the character and the actor portraying it as a precondition for copyright protection.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that the grounds of appeal were partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.
Reaffirming its settled case law, the Court recalled that the protection of a character constitutes an autonomous form of protection, distinct from that afforded to the work in which the character appears. The decisive factor is not the fame of the work, but rather the degree of characterisation, which must display sufficiently original and recognisable traits to qualify as an independent intellectual creation.
On this basis, the Court upheld the lower courts’ assessment that “The Man with No Name” does not possess a degree of distinctiveness sufficient to distinguish it meaningfully from traditional western archetypes. The figure of the solitary, taciturn gunslinger was considered a reworking of narrative models already well established in the genre, lacking the requisite creative contribution necessary for copyright protection.
It is precisely this lack of sufficient characterisation that gives rise to the most significant aspect of the decision. According to the Supreme Court, the character’s identity has become inextricably associated with that of Clint Eastwood, who portrayed it across several films and played a decisive role in its public success. In such circumstances, a subsequent reference may ultimately evoke not the character as a protected intellectual creation, but rather the actor and the public image associated with him.
From this perspective, the Court excluded any finding of plagiarism. Any evocation in “Rango” was held to refer to Clint Eastwood, rather than to a character endowed with distinct creative identity.
As to the Court of Appeal’s reference to the lawful quotation exception, the related ground of appeal was declared inadmissible for lack of interest. According to the Supreme Court, that reasoning was merely ancillary to the principal ratio decidendi, namely the finding that the character was not entitled to copyright protection. In light of that conclusion, any further issue concerning Article 70 of the Copyright Act was irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute.
Concluding remarks
Italian Supreme Court case law has long recognised that a fictional film character may enjoy autonomous copyright protection, independently of the work in which it is embodied. Such protection, however, requires that the character display sufficiently original and distinctive characteristics to qualify it as an independent intellectual creation, rather than a mere reiteration of figures already belonging to the narrative tradition of a given genre.
The case of “The Man with No Name” highlights the limits of this principle. According to the Court, the character does not display a sufficient degree of characterisation to distinguish it meaningfully from traditional western archetypes. Moreover, its fame is closely linked to Clint Eastwood’s performance, to the extent that, in the public imagination, character and actor tend to overlap.
This is where the most interesting aspect of the decision lies. The Supreme Court clarified that the identification of the character with the performer does not constitute an additional requirement for copyright protection. Rather, it is the consequence of the absence of genuinely autonomous creative elements. When the public perceives a character primarily through the face, style and personality of the actor who portrays it, it becomes difficult to distinguish the fictional creation from the real-life performer.
In such circumstances, a subsequent reference may relate not to the character as such, but to the image of the actor who made it famous. The decision therefore draws a clear boundary: copyright law cannot be invoked to extend protection to characters that, rather than embodying an autonomous creative identity, are perceived by the public as inseparable from the actor who brought them to prominence.
