A company purchases a collection of photographs, a designer delivers editable source files, an author signs a publishing contract, or a startup licenses software. Each arrangement raises a different legal question: was copyright ownership transferred, was an exclusive licence granted, did the recipient receive a non-exclusive licence, or was only a limited use authorized?
Under Israeli copyright law, those distinctions determine what a recipient may do with a work, who may license it to others and who has standing to sue for infringement. The principal framework is Section 37 of the Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007, read with Sections 11–17, 33–36, 45–47, 54 and 78.
What Is the Difference Between a Copyright Assignment and a Licence?
A copyright assignment transfers ownership of the economic copyright, in whole or within an agreed scope. A copyright licence authorizes the licensee to carry out specified acts that would otherwise be reserved to the copyright owner, without necessarily transferring ownership.
Section 37(a) permits copyright to be assigned by contract or operation of law and permits both exclusive and non-exclusive licences. A photographer may transfer the rights to reproduce and distribute a collection of photographs, or may retain ownership and authorize a company to display them on a particular website for one year.
Delivery of the original files, payment for production or purchase of a copy does not, by itself, establish that the copyright has been assigned. The transaction documents and precise grant of rights must be examined.
Can Only Part of the Copyright Be Assigned in Israel?
Yes. Section 37(b) provides that a transfer or licence may cover all or part of the copyright and may be limited by territory, period or a particular act in relation to the work.
Section 11 identifies the protected acts, depending on the category of work, including reproduction, first publication, public performance, broadcasting, making available to the public, adaptation and rental.
A publisher, for example, may acquire the right to print a Hebrew-language book in Israel while the author retains translation, film adaptation and digital distribution rights. A photographic licence may permit social media use but exclude printing on merchandise.
A well-drafted agreement specifies the relevant acts, countries, platforms, duration, new editions, advertising, derivative works and the ability to grant further licences.
What Constitutes an Exclusive Copyright Licence Under Section 37(d)?
An exclusive licence gives the licensee an exclusive right to perform one or more acts listed in Section 11 within its agreed scope, while restricting the copyright owner from carrying out those acts or licensing others to do so. It is a substantive legal arrangement, not merely the use of the commercial label “exclusive”.
A distributor may obtain an exclusive right to screen a film in Israel during a defined period without securing exclusivity over streaming distribution or foreign territories. Commercial priority granted to one distributor does not necessarily constitute an exclusive copyright licence if the rights holder remains free to authorize another party to perform the same act.
The scope of exclusivity should therefore be identified with particular care, including the relevant act, work, period, territory and any rights reserved to the licensor.
What Is a Non-Exclusive Licence?
A non-exclusive licence authorizes use within the agreed scope without generally preventing the owner from using the work or granting comparable rights to others, subject to contractual restrictions. Stock photography services, content platforms, design agreements and commissioned photography frequently use this model.
A customer holding a non-exclusive photographic licence cannot necessarily pass the file to affiliates, subcontractors or other advertisers. Those possibilities depend on the contractual conditions, the identity of the licensee and the authorized use. A non-exclusive licence is not the same as a public-domain dedication or unrestricted permission to everyone.
When Is a Written Copyright Assignment or Licence Required?
Under Section 37(c) of the Israeli Copyright Law, a contract assigning copyright or granting an exclusive licence requires a written instrument. The statutory requirement does not apply in the same form to a non-exclusive licence.
An invoice, short email or generic purchase-order provision may not be sufficient to establish precisely which works and economic rights were assigned or made exclusive. The contractual documents should identify the parties, the works, the grant, territory, period and authorized acts.
Even where a particular licence does not have to be in writing, lack of clear documentation can make the scope and duration of permission difficult to prove. For a business purchasing copyright or exclusivity in Israel, a specific written agreement is the prudent starting point.
Can a Non-Exclusive Licence Be Granted Orally or by Conduct?
In the case of a non-exclusive licence, the absence of a formal written contract does not necessarily mean that no authorization was granted. Permission may arise from oral agreement or the parties’ conduct, subject to the evidence and circumstances. The question is not only whether some permission existed but exactly what it covered.
In Sharir v. Upper Galilee Regional Council, Afula Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 33900-10-20 (18 May 2023), a dispute concerned publication of photographs by a regional council. The court explained that a non-exclusive licence did not require a written instrument and that consent could, in appropriate circumstances, be inferred from conduct. Both the principal claim and counterclaim were dismissed.
This is distinct from the statutory written-instrument requirement for assignments and exclusive licences.
Does Paying for a Work Transfer Its Copyright?
Not automatically. Payment may compensate the creator for services, the transfer of specified economic rights or a licence to use the work.
For commissioned works, Section 35 must first be considered. The creator is generally the first owner unless otherwise expressly or impliedly agreed, subject to the statutory exception involving certain commissioned portraits and private-event photographs. A subsequent assignment of an existing right is governed by Section 37.
In Tzarfati v. Orot 2000, Hadera Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 29517-09-20 (10 September 2022), the court held that commissioning a photographer to document an architectural project did not automatically confer copyright ownership on the commissioning client. Permission given to the client did not authorize a separate third party to upload the photographs to its website.
Defining the Scope of a Licence: Media, Duration, Territory and Commercial Use
Licensing agreements should identify the works, the rights granted and the audience and channels in which the works may be exploited. Permission to publish a photograph in an editorial article is not necessarily permission to include it in sponsored advertising. Authorization to display a video on a website does not necessarily permit selling it to third parties.
In Azoulay v. Karni, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 71998-12-20 (28 August 2022), the dispute concerned photographs created without payment. The claimant had authorized limited uses, while the defendants subsequently used the photographs for additional commercial purposes. The court found that the uses proved exceeded the permission granted and awarded compensation.
A commercial agreement should spell out intended use across advertising, social media, print, distribution and other channels, and address adaptation or derivative works where relevant.
Can a Licensee Assign Rights or Grant Sublicences?
A licence does not automatically permit sublicensing, assignment or pledging of the licensed rights. The contract, type of grant and applicable legal principles determine whether the licensee may allow others to use the work.
Commercial agreements frequently address use by employees, affiliates, distributors, subcontractors and cloud providers separately. They may also specify whether a licence can be transferred following a merger or sale of business assets.
Technical use by a contractor acting for the licensee, where covered by the agreement, should be distinguished from granting that contractor independent permission to exploit the work. Engaging a printer or marketing agency does not automatically give it a continuing right to reuse the content for its own purposes.
Future Works and Long-Term Copyright Agreements
Long-term arrangements should specify whether the grant covers only works already created or also works produced during the contractual term. It should also identify when rights in future works take effect and how the relevant works will be identified.
A statement that “all copyright is transferred” may leave uncertainty about associated works, revisions, raw files or deliverables outside the original order.
In Gispan v. Cameri Theatre, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 58145-04-19 (13 June 2023), the court examined, among other matters, assignment documents and musical licensing arrangements through ACUM, alongside moral-right allegations. It held that the licence through ACUM permitted inclusion of songs in the musical, but did not authorize using a song’s title as the title of the musical.
Licensing Photographs, Software and Music
The legal rules for transferring and licensing copyright apply to many kinds of works, but the relevant exploitation rights differ.
For photographs, the agreement may address advertising, adaptation, publication, distribution and attribution. For software, it should specify copying, installation, modification, distribution and any permission needed for source-code access. Music licensing may require separate consideration of the composition, lyrics, sound recording, public performance and adaptations.
Software products can combine components governed by different licences. Permission for one component does not automatically authorize all others or remove third-party restrictions. See Software Copyright in Israel for related legal issues.
Creative Commons and Online Content: Is Commercial Use Permitted?
A work’s public availability online does not mean that anyone may use it for any purpose. A public licence may grant broad permissions subject to attribution, non-commercial conditions, share-alike requirements or other restrictions, depending on its type and version.
It is also important to establish that the person purporting to license the work had authority to do so. Records of the licence version, source URL, licensor and download date should be preserved.
Stock material may contain third-party photographs, trademarks, musical works and identifiable individuals whose separate rights are not automatically covered. Copyright permission does not by itself remove privacy or likeness restrictions.
Does an Assignment Also Transfer the Author’s Moral Rights?
No. Under Section 45(b), the moral right is personal and non-transferable, and can remain with the author even after economic copyright is assigned. Depending on the work and statutory conditions, it includes attribution and protection against certain prejudicial alterations.
An agreement may address expectations concerning credit, edits and the author’s relevant consents, but those provisions should not be confused with transfer of the moral right itself. Section 45 excludes computer programs from the statutory moral-right regime.
Who May Sue for Infringement of an Exclusive Licence?
Section 54(a) allows a copyright owner to bring infringement proceedings and also gives standing, subject to the statute, to the holder of an exclusive licence as defined in Section 37(d). Under Section 54(b), other persons entitled to sue under the section generally must be joined as parties unless the court orders otherwise on the claimant’s request.
A non-exclusive licensee does not obtain the same independent statutory standing merely by virtue of the licence.
In Charlton v. Sahar Abu Sah, Hadera Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 18812-01-13 (22 December 2013), a claim was struck out where sufficient documentary evidence of the asserted exclusive licence and entitlement to sue had not been presented and the copyright owner had not been properly joined. The court emphasized evidence establishing exclusivity within the relevant time, territory and language scope.
Licence Breach: Contractual Breach or Copyright Infringement?
A breach of a contractual undertaking must be distinguished from use beyond the permission granted for an act reserved to the copyright owner.
Late payment or failure to report royalties may support a contract claim without automatically converting all uses under an otherwise effective licence into copyright infringement. By contrast, reproducing, publishing or making a work available beyond the authorized scope may also infringe copyright under Section 47, unless another permitted-use provision applies.
The analysis requires examination of the precise contractual term: does it delimit the licence or create a collateral obligation? Was the authorization to carry out the act itself exceeded? Was the agreement validly terminated, and what uses continued afterward?
Can a Copyright Licence Be Terminated in Israel?
Termination, renewal, material breach, notice periods and opportunities to remedy default depend on the agreement and applicable contract law. There is no universal rule allowing every licence to be cancelled immediately in all circumstances, nor should it be assumed that every expired licence continues indefinitely.
Contracts should address works already published, distributed copies, existing stock, continuing services and properly granted sublicences. In software and digital-content agreements, the parties may also need terms concerning deletion, backups, legally required retention, support, transition periods and discontinuation of advertising materials.
Where infringement is alleged following termination, the claimant must establish both that the relevant authorization ended and which protected acts were undertaken afterward.
Essential Terms in an Israeli Copyright Assignment or Licence
A properly drafted agreement first identifies the work, the grantor and the chain of title. It then states whether copyright ownership transfers, or whether the recipient obtains an exclusive or non-exclusive licence.
The grant should address permitted acts, territories, duration, channels, adaptation, translation, sublicensing and assignment; payments and royalties; audit and reporting; pre-existing and third-party materials; ownership warranties; indemnities and limitations; moral rights; and breach and termination mechanisms.
Clear documentation is not merely good commercial practice. It may determine whether a party had authority to grant the disputed rights and whether later exploitation was within the agreed scope. For content production issues see Commissioned Creative Content Agreements in Israel.
Resolving Disputes Over the Scope of a Licence
A dispute often turns on several versions of the agreement, quotations, correspondence, invoices, actual patterns of use and earlier licensing records. Counsel should establish ownership when the permission was granted, whether an exclusive licence was supported by a written instrument and what was agreed concerning commercial exploitation, adaptations, third-party transfers and publication after expiry.
Where unauthorized exploitation is established, the parties may consider an injunction, contractual remedies and copyright damages under Israeli law. Section 56 permits statutory damages without proof of loss in appropriate circumstances, but it does not provide a fixed automatic payment for every act of use.
Where urgent intervention is needed before the underlying action can be heard, see Preliminary Injunctions for Copyright Infringement in Israel.
Do Pre-2007 Copyright Assignments and Licences Follow Today’s Rules?
Section 78 of the Copyright Law includes transitional rules. Specifically, Section 78(f) provides that Section 37 does not apply to transfers made, or licences granted, before the statute came into force; the earlier law continues to apply for those matters.
For historical agreements, it is therefore incorrect to assess the validity or form of an old assignment solely by applying today’s Section 37 rules retrospectively. Other transitional provisions may also affect initial ownership and later transfers. The date of creation should be distinguished from the date of the relevant assignment or licence.
Israeli Legal Sources and Further Reading
The principal statutory framework is the Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007, especially Sections 11–17, 33–37, 45–47, 54, 56 and 78. See Yonatan Drori and Yotam Werzansky-Orland, Intellectual Property Law in Israel (2019), Chapter 4, pp. 346–348.
Related guidance: Copyright Due Diligence in Israeli Acquisitions and Drori Stav IP’s Copyright Practice in Israel. For assistance with a licensing agreement, chain of title or dispute over use of creative content, contact office@dwo.co.il.
