The Moral Rights of Heirs: The Roald Dahl Case and the Question of Posthumous Modification of Literary Works

In February 2023, the news broke that the heirs of British writer Roald Dahl, in agreement with his longtime publisher Puffin (part of Penguin Books), had decided to modify the books of the famous children’s story author — replacing certain terms considered offensive by contemporary sensibilities (“dwarf,” “fat,” the witch-woman correlation, references to physical characteristics, gendered language, and other features) following consultation with so-called “sensitivity readers” from organisations specialising in inclusivity for children.

The controversy reverberated globally. Writer Salman Rushdie, recently the victim of a religiously motivated assault, spoke of censorship. Free speech organisations objected. Other publishers reportedly began considering similar modifications to their own back catalogues. Within weeks, Puffin announced that they would publish both modified versions and original “Roald Dahl Classic Collection” editions, allowing readers to choose.

The Dahl case raises fundamental questions about the moral rights of heirs: the right of inheritors to control modifications to a deceased author’s work; the nature of moral rights when exercised by people who did not create the work; and the increasingly common situation where literary estates are owned not by individual heirs but by commercial entities — in the Dahl case, the Roald Dahl Story Company, acquired by Netflix in 2021 for an estimated $1 billion.

This guide analyses the Dahl case in detail, examines the Italian moral rights framework for heirs under Article 23 of the Italian Copyright Act, compares with other significant cases of heir-controlled estates (Beckett, Joyce, Salinger, García Márquez, Hemingway, Tolkien), addresses the contemporary AI scenarios where AI generates content “in the style of” deceased authors, and provides practical implications for publishers, heirs, and rights holders. For the foundational Italian moral rights framework, see our moral rights hub. For comparative civil/common law analysis, see our moral rights comparative guide. For the broader copyright framework, see our master pillar guide to copyright law in Italy and Europe.

The Roald Dahl / Puffin case (February 2023)

Roald Dahl (1916-1990) is one of the most successful children’s writers of the twentieth century. His books — including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, The BFG, The Witches, Fantastic Mr Fox, and many others — have sold over 250 million copies worldwide and remain staple reading for children in the English-speaking world and beyond.

In February 2023, news outlets reported that Puffin Books (an imprint of Penguin Random House) had commissioned revisions to Dahl’s books to remove or modify language considered offensive by contemporary standards. The revisions reportedly included:

• changing “fat” to “enormous” in descriptions of characters;
• removing or modifying references to physical characteristics like “double chin,” “ugly,” and other body descriptions;
• changing gendered language: “mothers and fathers” became “parents” in some passages;
• removing references to “Aunts” by changing them to neutral relatives;
• modifying the witch-woman correlation in The Witches, where the witches’ bald heads were originally explained through their disguise;
• removing words like “crazy,” “mad,” and similar descriptions;
• adding new lines or text to provide context or soften original passages;
• removing references to specific authors (notably Rudyard Kipling and Joseph Conrad were removed from one passage).

The revisions were the product of consultation with “sensitivity readers” from the organisation Inclusive Minds, which works on inclusivity in children’s literature. The practice of consulting sensitivity readers — representatives of social groups or minorities — has become increasingly common in publishing to identify alleged discrimination suggested by literary works and make them more palatable to contemporary audiences.

The reaction

The reaction was swift and global:

• Salman Rushdie condemned the revisions as “absurd censorship,” noting Dahl was “no angel” but his publishers should be ashamed;
• Other authors and literary commentators raised concerns about retroactive modification of literary works;
• Critics questioned the principle of modifying canonical literary works to fit contemporary sensibilities;
• Defenders argued that the revisions were modest and proportionate, addressing language that would alienate contemporary child readers;
• Camilla, Queen Consort, publicly defended writers against “imposed limitations” in an apparent reference to the controversy;
• Politicians from multiple parties made statements, with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s spokesperson saying “we shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words” — a reference to Dahl’s invented language.

Within ten days of the initial controversy, Puffin announced that it would publish a “Roald Dahl Classic Collection” alongside the revised editions, preserving the original texts for readers who preferred them. This compromise — both versions available — did not fully resolve the underlying questions about who has the right to modify the works of deceased authors.

The publishing contract framework

From a legal perspective, the Dahl case invites reflection on a number of possible scenarios and, above all, on the issues of protecting the integrity of creative work and copyright.

Under Italian law: a writer, when publishing his or her work, enters into a contract with the publisher for the assignment of rights — the so-called publishing contract, governed by Articles 118 et seq. of the Italian Copyright Act (Law 633/1941). Through this contract, the author grants to a publisher the exercise of the right to publish for print, on behalf of and at the expense of the publisher, the work of authorship.

The publishing contract typically addresses:

• Rights granted: print rights, e-book rights, audiobook rights, translation rights, secondary publishing rights, sub-licensing rights;
• Territorial scope: worldwide, English language, Italian language, specific territories;
• Duration of the contract: typically the duration of copyright (life plus 70 years), with revocation provisions under DSM Article 22-ter LDA;
• Royalties and advances: typically percentages of cover price or net receipts with advance against royalties;
• Editorial control: standard provisions on copy editing, proofreading, and certain editorial modifications;
• Substantial modifications: typically requiring author consent (during lifetime) or heir consent (after death);
• Format adaptations: e-book formats, audio versions, illustrations.

As is always the case, what is assigned through the publishing contract are the so-called rights of economic use, including the right to modify the work under Article 18 of the Italian Copyright Act. In contrast, the moral rights of authorship are unsaleable and remain with the creator (and pass to specific heirs after the creator’s death).

Economic rights versus moral rights of modification

The Italian Copyright Act distinguishes carefully between:

The economic right of modification (Article 18 LDA)

Article 18 LDA grants the author (and through assignment, the publisher) the right to modify the work for commercial exploitation purposes. This includes routine editorial modifications: copy editing, proofreading, layout adjustments, format adaptations for new editions, abridged editions for specific markets.

The economic right of modification is transferable by contract. Publishers typically receive broad rights to make routine editorial modifications under the standard publishing contract.

The moral right of integrity (Article 20 LDA)

Article 20 LDA provides that:

“The author retains the right to claim authorship of the work and to oppose any deformation, mutilation or other modification and any act to the detriment of the work itself, which may be detrimental to his honor and reputation.”

Article 20 also speaks of modification of the work, but here the modification affects the moral sphere, not just the patrimonial sphere as in Article 18. Article 20 expresses the interest in the integrity of the work, understood as the author’s right to preserve the correct perception among the public of his own personality as expressed in the created work.

The Article 20 right is inalienable: it cannot be transferred by contract. Even where the publishing contract grants extensive economic modification rights, the author (or heirs) retains the moral right to object to modifications that prejudice the work’s integrity in ways that damage the author’s honour or reputation.

The distinction in practice

The distinction between Article 18 (economic) and Article 20 (moral) modification rights is the legal hinge of the Dahl controversy:

• Puffin, as publisher, has the Article 18 economic right to make routine modifications (within the scope granted by the contract);
• but Article 20 moral rights remain with Dahl (and now his heirs/the Roald Dahl Story Company);
• modifications that materially alter the work’s character — replacing words throughout the book, removing references, changing meanings — go beyond routine Article 18 modifications and engage Article 20 integrity rights.

Article 20 LDA: the integrity right

The integrity right under Article 20 protects the work from modifications that affect the author’s honour or reputation. The application to the Dahl case raises specific questions:

• What modifications affect honour or reputation? Substantial textual modifications — replacing characteristic language with neutralised alternatives, removing references, changing gendered descriptions — modify the work’s character. Whether they prejudice the author’s honour or reputation depends on the author’s known artistic intent and public profile;
• Dahl’s specific artistic identity was associated with sharp, irreverent, often unflattering language about characters, including children’s body characteristics, witches, parents, teachers, and authority figures. The modifications neutralise precisely those characteristics that made Dahl’s work distinctive. From Dahl’s perspective (had he been alive), the modifications arguably affect his artistic identity as expressed through his characteristic style;
• Disclosure of modifications: where modifications are presented as the “Roald Dahl” original work without disclosure, they may engage paternity rights (false attribution of modified text to the original author) as well as integrity rights;
• Compromise versions: Puffin’s decision to publish both modified and unmodified versions partly addresses paternity concerns — readers can choose which version they purchase — but does not address integrity concerns about the modified versions themselves.

It should be noted that the Article 20 integrity right is enforced in courts based on specific facts — the actual modifications, the specific work, the author’s known artistic identity, and the prejudice to honour or reputation. The Dahl revisions have not been litigated, partly because the heirs themselves authorised the changes.

Article 23 LDA: heirs and the perpetual moral right

But what happens when the author is no longer alive?

Article 23 of the Italian Copyright Act specifies that after the death of the author, the right provided for in Article 20 (the integrity right):

“may be asserted, without time limit, by spouses, children and, failing them, parents and other ascendants and direct descendants; failing ascendants and descendants, brothers and sisters and their descendants.”

The hierarchy under Article 23 paragraph 1:

1. First-level heirs: spouse and children;
2. Second-level heirs (if first level absent): parents and other direct ascendants and descendants;
3. Third-level heirs (if first and second levels absent): brothers and sisters and their descendants.

These heirs are entitled, with no time limit, to exercise the integrity right and the paternity right (and certain other moral rights) of the deceased author. The rights are perpetual: they survive across generations indefinitely.

It must be noted that not all moral rights pass to heirs. Specifically:

• the right of withdrawal under Articles 142-143 LDA does NOT pass to heirs. It is “personal and not transmissible” under Article 142, meaning that only the author during their lifetime can exercise it;
• the paternity and integrity rights under Article 20 LDA DO pass to heirs under Article 23.

The constitutive (non-derivative) nature of heirs’ rights

This is the first knot of the Roald Dahl affair: the heir does not receive the moral right mortis causa (as a derivative inheritance) but rather succeeds to the ownership of a right as if it were his own — a right whose object is the respect and social esteem of a family member no longer living.

This distinction matters significantly:

• If the heir’s right were merely derivative — inherited from the deceased author — the heir would be bound by the author’s known wishes;
• If the heir’s right is constitutive — a new right whose object is the deceased author’s social standing — the heir has independent decision-making capacity, even potentially contrary to what the deceased author would have decided.

The Italian doctrine has generally treated heirs’ moral rights as constitutive and non-derivative: the heir holds a right that is functionally similar to the deceased author’s right, but it is the heir’s own right, not a transferred right. This conception has consequences:

• The heir can act according to their own judgment about what protects (or fails to protect) the deceased author’s honour and reputation;
• The heir is not legally bound by what the deceased author would have decided (though it remains evidence of intent);
• The author’s known wishes are evidence, not constraint: where the deceased author left written documents expressing preferences, those documents are evidence of artistic intent but do not legally compel the heir;
• Conflicts between heirs and authorial intent can arise where the heir’s view of what serves the author’s reputation differs from what the author themselves articulated during life.

The constitutive and non-derivative nature of moral rights vis-à-vis heirs — provided for by law — by necessity is not reflected in the person of the deceased author, who, unless they have left written documents, can no longer manifest their will on any modifications of the work.

It then often happens that the heirs are completely outside the author’s areas of responsibility and find themselves administering the author’s rights and the fate of their production. What will then should prevail?

The norm seems to leave no room for doubt: the heirs embody the will of the writer — meaning that, in legal terms, the heirs’ decisions about what protects the author’s honour and reputation are the operative ones, regardless of what the author themselves might have decided.

The Netflix acquisition and commercial heir entities

A not insignificant detail of the Dahl case is that the heirs of the rights to Dahl’s works are no longer individuals but the Roald Dahl Story Company — a company that in 2021 was acquired by Netflix for an estimated $1 billion. The Roald Dahl Story Company had previously been controlled by Dahl’s heirs and managed the literary estate, but the Netflix acquisition means that decisions about Dahl’s literary legacy are now made by a streaming platform with substantial commercial interests in the content.

This shift raises fundamental questions:

• Doctrinal basis for heir protection: according to part of legal doctrine, the integrity protection finds justification in a collective interest in the work itself, recognised by the author, heirs, or community. The basis of this interest is found in many constitutional principles — Article 21 of the Italian Constitution on the freedom to express one’s thoughts, for example;
• Commercial control by a third-party entity: when the management of an author’s moral rights is affected by the interference of a legal entity with commercial purposes — in this case, the world’s leading distribution company — the doctrinal basis is strained. The assessment of the injurious scope or, at any rate, the degree to which a creative work adheres to the values of the community that enjoys it, should not come from a “moralising” entity that chases ever-changing trends and behaviours as society itself is;
• Conflict of interest: a commercial entity that has acquired a literary estate has business incentives that may not align with the author’s artistic identity. Modifications that “modernise” a work for new audiences may serve commercial interests but conflict with the author’s known artistic principles;
• The right to be exercised by heirs is functionally equivalent to one held by a corporation: when transmitted to a commercial entity through corporate acquisition, the moral right loses its character as a personality-based right and becomes a commercial asset.

Italian doctrine has not yet definitively addressed the situation where literary moral rights are exercised by acquired commercial entities. The Dahl/Netflix case is novel and may produce significant case law as more literary estates are commercialised.

What happened after the Dahl controversy: 2023-2026

The Dahl/Puffin controversy continued to develop after the initial February 2023 news:

• February 24, 2023: Puffin announced the dual publication strategy — both modified versions and unmodified “Roald Dahl Classic Collection” editions;
• March-April 2023: continued debate in the publishing industry, with other publishers (including the publishers of Ian Fleming, Agatha Christie, and P.G. Wodehouse) facing similar discussions;
• 2023-2024: similar “sensitivity reader” modifications were applied to other authors’ back catalogues, with mixed reactions and varying public scrutiny;
• 2024-2025: the broader debate evolved with the emergence of AI-generated content “in the style of” deceased authors (see below), raising new questions about literary integrity that go beyond traditional editorial modifications;
• 2025-2026: continued evolution of the legal framework with the EU AI Act and Italian Law 132/2025 adding transparency obligations on AI-generated content imitating deceased authors.

The Dahl case has not been litigated under Italian moral rights frameworks (since the heirs themselves authorised the modifications), but it has shaped the international debate about heir-controlled literary estates and the boundaries of acceptable modification.

Comparative: the Beckett estate

The estate of Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) provides a striking contrast to the Dahl situation. Beckett’s literary executors — first Edward Beckett (Samuel’s nephew) and the Beckett estate trust — have been notoriously strict in enforcing the integrity of Beckett’s works, particularly his theatrical works.

The Beckett estate has:

• refused permission for productions that depart from Beckett’s specific stage directions;
• successfully litigated against productions that modified gender, race, or staging in ways the estate considers contrary to Beckett’s intent (the leading Waiting for Godot case, France 1992, where female actors were cast in roles Beckett specified as male);
• maintained Beckett’s vision against contemporary directorial interpretations;
• declined opportunities for adaptations and modifications even when commercially attractive.

The Beckett estate’s approach illustrates the opposite response to the Dahl situation: where the Dahl heirs authorised modifications, the Beckett heirs have consistently refused them. Both responses are within the heirs’ moral rights authority under Article 23 LDA (and equivalent French and other civil law provisions).

For analysis of the Waiting for Godot case, see our moral rights comparative guide.

Comparative: the Joyce estate

The estate of James Joyce (1882-1941) was managed by Stephen Joyce (Joyce’s grandson) until Stephen’s death in 2020. Stephen Joyce was known as one of the most restrictive literary executors in history, refusing permission for scholarly publications, denying access to manuscripts, and discouraging academic interpretation of Joyce’s works that he considered inadequate.

The Joyce estate’s restrictive approach generated significant academic and literary controversy. Some scholars argued that Stephen Joyce’s restrictions harmed Joyce’s reputation by preventing legitimate scholarly engagement; others defended his right to control the estate.

The Joyce situation illustrates a paradox: the perpetual heir framework can be exercised either too permissively (Dahl) or too restrictively (Joyce), with neither approach necessarily serving the deceased author’s interests well. The legal framework gives heirs the authority; the wisdom of exercising it is a separate question.

With James Joyce’s economic rights now in the public domain (Joyce died in 1941, so 70 years post-mortem expired in 2011 under Irish and most other EU frameworks), Joyce’s works can be freely reproduced commercially. But the moral rights remain — heirs can still object to modifications that prejudice Joyce’s honour or reputation, perpetually under Article 23 LDA and equivalent provisions.

Comparative: the Salinger estate

The estate of J.D. Salinger (1919-2010) has maintained the famously restrictive position that Salinger himself adopted during his lifetime: no film adaptations of The Catcher in the Rye, no authorised biographies, no modifications, no use of Salinger characters in derivative works.

Salinger’s specific instructions — both during his lifetime and through testamentary provisions — have largely been respected by his estate. The Salinger case illustrates a scenario different from Dahl or Beckett: where the deceased author left clear written documentation of their wishes, the heirs implementing those documented wishes operate with stronger legal and moral authority.

Salinger’s estate has also litigated against unauthorised derivative works: most notably, the 2009 case Salinger v. Colting, where the estate successfully challenged the publication of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, an unauthorised sequel to The Catcher in the Rye.

Comparative: García Márquez and posthumous publication

A different question arises regarding posthumous publication — releasing unpublished works after the author’s death, even where the deceased author expressed wishes not to publish them.

The case of Gabriel García Márquez (1927-2014) is illustrative. In March 2024, his sons Rodrigo and Gonzalo published En agosto nos vemos (Until August), a novel that García Márquez had explicitly asked not to be published. García Márquez, during his life, considered the work incomplete and asked his family to destroy it. After his death, his sons reviewed the manuscripts and decided that the work was, in fact, ready for publication.

Under Italian Article 24 LDA, the right to publish unpublished works after the author’s death belongs to heirs:

“Unless the author has expressly forbidden publication or has entrusted it to other persons, the right to publish unpublished works belongs to the heirs of the author or to the legatees of the work.”

The Italian framework distinguishes:

• Where the author expressly forbade publication: heirs cannot publish (or at least, face higher legal and moral obstacles);
• Where the author was ambiguous or silent: heirs have the right to decide;
• Where multiple heirs disagree: judicial authority can decide.

The García Márquez case illustrates a familiar pattern: heirs operate on their own judgment about what serves the deceased author’s reputation. Whether Until August enhanced or diminished García Márquez’s literary standing was debated by readers and critics, but the legal authority of the heirs to make the decision was not seriously contested.

Comparative: Hemingway, Tolkien, and other estates

Other literary estates illustrate variations on the heir control theme:

Hemingway estate

The estate of Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961) has authorised numerous posthumous publications, including A Moveable Feast, Islands in the Stream, and True at First Light — works that Hemingway had not completed or published during his lifetime. The Hemingway estate has generally been permissive, supporting the publication of works that Hemingway himself might have considered unfinished.

Tolkien estate

The estate of J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973) has been managed primarily by his son Christopher Tolkien (1924-2020) and now by Christopher’s heirs and the Tolkien Estate. Christopher Tolkien devoted decades to editing and publishing his father’s posthumous works (The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the History of Middle-Earth series, and others) with careful editorial commitment to his father’s intent.

The Tolkien estate has also been more restrictive about film and television adaptations — the 2022 Amazon series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power generated controversy among Tolkien purists, though the estate’s economic rights to certain Middle-Earth materials had been previously licensed under terms set during Christopher Tolkien’s tenure.

Other notable estates

The estates of Ian Fleming, Agatha Christie, P.G. Wodehouse, Enid Blyton, and other beloved authors have faced similar questions about modifications to their canonical works. The general pattern: where heirs/estate controllers prioritise contemporary palatability, modifications proceed; where they prioritise authorial integrity, modifications are resisted.

AI generating “in the style of” deceased authors

The 2023-2026 emergence of AI-generated content “in the style of” deceased authors adds a new dimension to the moral rights of heirs framework. Examples include:

• AI-generated continuations of incomplete novels by deceased authors;
• AI-generated new short stories or chapters “in the style of” famous deceased authors;
• AI-generated translations or adaptations of works using the author’s distinctive voice;
• AI training models on the works of deceased authors to generate new content that mimics their style.

The legal analysis under Italian and EU frameworks is multi-layered:

Copyright analysis

AI-generated content “in the style of” a deceased author does not directly infringe copyright unless it reproduces specific copyrighted expression from the original works. Style itself is not protected by copyright under the idea/expression dichotomy (see our idea/expression dichotomy guide).

Moral rights analysis

However, AI-generated content “in the style of” an identifiable author may engage:

• Paternity rights of heirs (Article 23 LDA): where the AI-generated content is presented as the author’s work or implies authorial connection, paternity rights may apply (false attribution);
• Integrity rights of heirs (Article 23 LDA): where the AI-generated content distorts or misrepresents the author’s distinctive voice, integrity rights may apply, particularly if the AI output prejudices the author’s reputation;
• Personality rights (Article 10 Italian Civil Code): where the AI generates content imitating a still-identifiable author, personality rights may apply alongside moral rights.

AI Act and Italian Law 132/2025 transparency

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) and Italian Law 132/2025 on artificial intelligence impose transparency obligations on commercial AI-generated content. AI content imitating deceased authors must be labelled and disclosed; failure to comply with these transparency obligations is a separate regulatory violation independent of moral rights claims.

Training data and source materials

AI training on copyrighted works is subject to the DSM Directive text and data mining framework (Articles 3 and 4), with rights holders’ opt-out for commercial uses. Where heirs of deceased authors have opted out of AI training for their authors’ works, training violates the DSM framework regardless of the output.

Practical implications for heirs and estates

Modern literary estates increasingly include:

• AI opt-out provisions: formal declarations that the deceased author’s works should not be used for AI training;
• AI content monitoring: systematic monitoring of AI-generated content imitating the deceased author;
• Cease-and-desist programmes: enforcement against unauthorised AI-generated content;
• Cross-jurisdictional enforcement: coordination across territories where AI content is generated, distributed, or consumed.

DSM Directive and posthumous moral rights

The EU Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790, transposed into Italian law by D.Lgs. 177/2021) introduced new author-protective rights that, for deceased authors, are exercised by heirs alongside traditional moral rights:

• Article 18 DSM: appropriate and proportionate remuneration: applies to existing publishing contracts, with heirs potentially entitled to renegotiation;
• Article 19 DSM: transparency obligation: heirs entitled to regular information on the exploitation of the deceased author’s works;
• Article 22 DSM (Article 22-bis LDA): contract adjustment: where compensation proves disproportionately low compared to actual revenues, heirs can seek adjustment. For posthumously published works (like García Márquez’s Until August) or for works that achieved unexpected commercial success, this can be significant;
• Article 22 DSM (Article 22-ter LDA): revocation for non-exploitation: heirs can revoke publishing contracts where the publisher fails to actively exploit the deceased author’s works.

These DSM rights are inalienable and apply retroactively to existing publishing contracts. Italian literary estates of deceased authors with commercially significant works should regularly assess DSM compliance and potential remedies.

Government enforcement under Article 23 paragraph 2

An important and often overlooked feature of Italian moral rights: under Article 23 paragraph 2 LDA:

“Where public interest is involved, the rights may be exercised by the Prime Minister, in accordance with the law and following the opinions of the relevant agencies.”

This provision allows state intervention in moral rights matters where:

• the deceased author’s heirs are unable or unwilling to enforce moral rights;
• the heirs have themselves contributed to violations of moral rights;
• the public interest in cultural heritage protection requires intervention;
• significant cultural works face modifications affecting their integrity.

The Italian government’s enforcement role under Article 23 paragraph 2 has been used rarely but represents a backstop where commercial heir entities (like the Roald Dahl Story Company) might be perceived to act contrary to cultural heritage interests. If Italian commentators or cultural institutions argued that the Dahl modifications affected Italian cultural heritage in matters of public interest, theoretical state intervention would be available — though political and procedural obstacles make this practically rare.

Practical implications for publishers, heirs, and rights holders

For publishers contemplating modifications to deceased authors’ works

• Obtain explicit heir consent: substantive modifications require heir authorisation under Article 22 paragraph 2 LDA acquiescence framework;
• Document the rationale: editorial rationale for modifications, including sensitivity reader consultations, helps support the lawfulness of modifications;
• Consider dual publication: publishing both modified and unmodified versions (as Puffin did) addresses paternity concerns and gives readers choice;
• Disclose modifications: where modifications are made, clear disclosure (in copyright pages, introductions, or other publications) helps avoid paternity rights claims;
• Assess cross-jurisdictional implications: Italian distribution engages Italian moral rights; multi-territorial distribution may face multiple moral rights regimes;
• Consider DSM compliance: modifications to existing publishing contracts may engage DSM transparency and contract adjustment obligations.

For heirs of deceased authors

• Document the author’s wishes: where the author left written documents on artistic preferences, publication wishes, or other matters, these are powerful evidence of authorial intent;
• Coordinate among heirs: under Article 23 LDA hierarchies, multiple heirs may share enforcement rights; coordination prevents fragmented enforcement;
• Maintain monitoring: regular monitoring of distributions, modifications, and AI-generated content for compliance with moral rights;
• Plan succession: as heirs themselves age, succession planning ensures continued enforcement of the deceased author’s moral rights;
• Consider commercial vs. personal control: where literary estates are acquired by commercial entities, consider implications for the perception of the author’s literary heritage.

For rights buyers (commercial entities acquiring literary estates)

• Due diligence on existing modifications: assess history of modifications, including any disputed changes that could face moral rights challenges;
• Italian and EU moral rights compliance: ensure decisions about modifications, AI use, and other matters comply with civil law moral rights frameworks;
• Public perception considerations: commercial control of literary estates can attract public scrutiny that affects commercial value;
• AI integration planning: planning for AI use of estate works requires careful attention to Article 22 paragraph 2 acquiescence frameworks and EU AI Act compliance.

For authors planning their own legacy

• Document artistic preferences clearly: written documents on modifications, adaptations, AI use, and posthumous publication provide guidance for heirs;
• Consider literary trustees: appointment of literary trustees with specific expertise in the author’s field can be more effective than family-only heir control;
• Address commercial acquisition: estate planning can include provisions on whether and how literary rights may be transferred to commercial entities;
• Cross-jurisdictional planning: where the author has works distributed across multiple jurisdictions, estate planning should address how moral rights operate in each.

Frequently asked questions

Can heirs modify a deceased author’s work in Italy?

Heirs cannot unilaterally modify the work — they exercise the integrity right under Article 23 LDA, but the protection is for the work’s integrity, not for changing it. However, heirs (and publishers with heir consent) can authorise editorial modifications. The Dahl/Puffin case illustrates heir authorisation of substantive modifications. The Article 22 paragraph 2 LDA acquiescence framework permits specific approved modifications.

What was the Roald Dahl/Puffin controversy?

In February 2023, Puffin Books announced revisions to Roald Dahl’s children’s books following consultation with sensitivity readers. Changes included replacing “fat” with “enormous,” modifying gendered language, removing references to physical characteristics. The revisions sparked global controversy. Puffin compromised by publishing both modified versions and original “Roald Dahl Classic Collection” editions. The Dahl heirs had authorised the modifications.

Who are heirs under Italian moral rights law?

Under Article 23 LDA, the hierarchy: (1) spouse and children; (2) failing them, parents and direct ascendants/descendants; (3) failing them, brothers and sisters and their descendants. These heirs can exercise paternity and integrity rights perpetually, with no time limit. The right of withdrawal under Article 142 does NOT pass to heirs.

Is heir moral right derivative or constitutive?

Italian doctrine generally treats heirs’ moral rights as constitutive and non-derivative: the heir holds a right functionally similar to the deceased author’s right, but it is the heir’s own right, not a transferred right. This means heirs can act on their own judgment about what protects the deceased author’s reputation, not necessarily bound by what the author themselves would have decided.

What if a commercial entity acquires a literary estate?

The legal framework continues to apply — heir entities (including corporate entities) exercise moral rights under Article 23. However, there are growing concerns about commercial entities exercising rights that have a personality basis. The Netflix acquisition of the Roald Dahl Story Company illustrates this situation. Italian doctrine has not yet definitively addressed commercial heir entities.

What about AI generating content “in the style of” deceased authors?

AI content “in the style of” a deceased author may engage paternity rights (where presented as authorial), integrity rights (where the AI output prejudices the author’s reputation), and personality rights (Article 10 Italian Civil Code). The EU AI Act and Italian Law 132/2025 impose transparency obligations. AI training on copyrighted works is subject to DSM text and data mining framework with rights holders’ opt-out.

Can the Italian government enforce moral rights of deceased authors?

Yes, under Article 23 paragraph 2 LDA, where public interest is involved, the government can exercise moral rights of deceased authors. This is rarely invoked but represents a backstop where commercial heir entities might act contrary to cultural heritage interests. The Italian Prime Minister exercises the right in accordance with law and relevant agency consultations.

What is the difference between Article 18 (modification) and Article 20 (integrity)?

Article 18 LDA: economic right of modification, transferable by contract, addresses commercial exploitation modifications. Article 20 LDA: moral right of integrity, inalienable, addresses modifications that prejudice the author’s honour or reputation. Routine editorial modifications fall under Article 18; substantial modifications affecting the work’s character may engage Article 20.

Can heirs publish unpublished works after the author’s death?

Yes, under Article 24 LDA, unless the author expressly forbade publication or entrusted it to specific persons. If multiple heirs disagree, judicial authority can decide. The author’s written wishes are respected where documented. The García Márquez posthumous publication of Until August in 2024 illustrates this scenario — where the author had expressed reluctance but the heirs decided to publish.

What about Beckett’s estate refusing modifications?

Beckett’s literary executors have been notoriously strict, refusing productions that depart from Beckett’s specific stage directions and successfully litigating against unauthorised modifications. This illustrates the opposite response to the Dahl situation — where Dahl heirs authorised modifications, Beckett heirs refuse them. Both responses are within heirs’ Article 23 LDA authority.

How DANDI supports clients on heir moral rights matters

DANDI.media supports heirs, literary estates, publishers, authors, and other clients on the complex matters of heir moral rights:

• Estate planning for living authors: structuring of literary estates with attention to moral rights succession, written documentation of artistic preferences, appointment of literary trustees, cross-jurisdictional considerations;
• Heir representation: representation of heirs in moral rights matters, including enforcement against unauthorised modifications, AI-generated content imitating deceased authors, and posthumous publication disputes;
• Publisher consultation: advisory for publishers contemplating modifications to deceased authors’ works, with attention to Article 22 paragraph 2 acquiescence frameworks, dual publication strategies, disclosure obligations;
• Posthumous publication advisory: legal structuring of posthumous publications, with attention to Article 24 LDA framework, author’s wishes documentation, and heir agreement procedures;
• Commercial estate transactions: representation of heirs in transactions transferring literary estates to commercial entities (publishers, streaming platforms, agencies);
• AI compliance: integration of EU AI Act and Italian Law 132/2025 with moral rights for deceased authors, including AI opt-out frameworks for literary estates;
• Cross-jurisdictional enforcement: coordination of moral rights enforcement across multiple territories where the deceased author’s works are distributed;
• DSM rights advisory: contract adjustment claims under Article 22-bis, revocation under Article 22-ter, transparency obligations under DSM Article 19, all applied to literary estates of deceased authors;
• Cultural heritage frameworks: where deceased authors’ works engage cultural heritage protection under D.Lgs. 42/2004 or EU orphan works frameworks;
• Litigation and disputes: representation in Italian specialised IP chambers for moral rights disputes involving heir-controlled literary estates.

For an initial consultation on heir moral rights matters — whether you are an heir managing a literary estate, a publisher contemplating modifications, an author planning your literary legacy, or a commercial entity acquiring literary rights — book a consultation directly with Avv. Claudia Roggero or Avv. Donato Di Pelino via the booking links on this page.

Resources and useful links

Related guides in the moral rights mini-cluster

Related copyright system guides

Primary legal sources

Dandi Law Firm provides legal assistance in several Practice Areas. Check out our Services or contact Us!