How much compensation can a copyright owner recover in Israel? The answer depends on the type of work, the infringing act, the extent of its commercial use and the compensation route pursued. The Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007, permits claims based on proven damage and, in appropriate cases, statutory damages without proof of loss under Section 56 of up to NIS 100,000 per infringement. The statutory maximum is not a fixed tariff, and the number of files, publications or copies does not necessarily equal the number of legally distinct infringements.
The choice of compensation route affects which evidence should be collected, how the statement of claim is drafted and what a court may award. Where lost profits or licence royalties can be substantiated, an economic calculation may be suitable. Where the amount of loss is difficult to prove, the statutory route may be appropriate. In either case, the claimant must first establish the protected right, the infringement and standing to seek relief.
What Types of Damages Are Available for Copyright Infringement in Israel?
Section 52 treats copyright infringement as a civil wrong. The two principal approaches to monetary relief are compensation for loss caused to the rights holder and statutory compensation under Section 56 where the law permits an award without proof of the loss’s precise amount.
Actual damage may include lost sales, foregone royalties or reduced value of commercial exploitation of a work. Statutory compensation is assessed against the legally relevant circumstances of the infringement rather than an exact monetary loss calculation.
Choosing a route is not simply choosing a higher figure. It determines whether the evidentiary dispute focuses on revenue and margins, a reasonable licence fee, the factors in Section 56 or whether several acts form one course of infringement. Alternative legal bases may be argued where appropriate, but they should not yield duplicate recovery for the same injury.
Statutory Damages Without Proof of Actual Loss Under Section 56
Section 56(a) authorizes a court, at the claimant’s request, to award damages without proof of loss for infringement of copyright or moral rights, up to NIS 100,000 for each infringement. There is no statutory minimum award. Proving the infringement does not automatically entitle the claimant to any particular sum.
The mechanism responds to difficulties in measuring copyright loss. A rights holder may not know how many people viewed an infringing copy, how many licences would otherwise have been purchased or what income the defendant generated. Alongside compensation, the statutory award can serve a deterrent function, so it may exceed the price of a single hypothetical licence while still depending on the facts.
In Forgas v. Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court, Small Civil Claim 49152-10-13 (5 September 2014), the school published an unauthorized photograph of the poet Yehuda Amichai on its website. The claimant sought NIS 20,000 in statutory damages, but the court awarded NIS 4,000 plus legal expenses. The scope and duration of use and evidence concerning licensing value were relevant to the lower award.
Which Factors Determine the Amount of Statutory Compensation?
Section 56(b) identifies eight considerations the court may weigh: the scope of infringement; its duration; its seriousness; estimated actual harm to the claimant; estimated gain to the defendant; the characteristics of the defendant’s activity; the relationship between the parties; and the defendant’s good faith. This is not an exhaustive list or an arithmetic formula.
Scope may involve copies sold, reach of publication, broadcasts, viewers or exploitation of a central creative element. A publication removed quickly may differ from one used over several years. A limited accidental use may differ from systematic commercial exploitation, particularly after a warning.
Although a statutory claimant need not prove the exact sum of actual loss, market evidence remains useful. Previously licensed works, comparable transactions, the defendant’s sales, existing licence fees and earlier correspondence may assist the court in choosing an appropriate figure.
In Avidan v. Keshet Broadcasting, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 43278-03-11 (19 May 2013), a song by Assaf Avidan was used without authorization in a trailer for the television program Big Brother. The broadcaster argued that the use was an honest mistake and stopped it relatively quickly after receiving a complaint. The court nevertheless awarded NIS 60,000 for economic copyright infringement and NIS 25,000 for infringement of moral rights, as well as a permanent injunction. Short duration alone did not make the infringement insignificant in the context of the broadcast and rights concerned.
How Many Infringements Count for a Statutory Award?
Section 56(c) provides that infringements committed as part of one series of acts will be treated as one infringement for statutory-damages purposes. This matters where one photograph is uploaded to a website and social network, ten photographs appear in a single advertising campaign or a television trailer is repeatedly aired.
The relationship among acts in time, place, purpose and character, and the identity of the works and rights affected, must be assessed. Separate and independent uses may form different series; connected acts arising from the same activity may be treated as one series even if they involved several publications.
In Danel v. Sanfir, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 64303-01-15 (11 November 2023), additional software products were found to be based on software already held to infringe copyright. The court granted a permanent injunction and awarded NIS 100,000 in statutory damages. Although the conduct involved different customers, the evidence did not justify treating each customer as a separate infringement under Section 56.
In Azoulay v. Karni, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 71998-12-20 (28 August 2022), photographs were commercially used beyond a limited permission. The court examined the publications as a course of conduct rather than multiplying damages by every appearance. It awarded NIS 24,000 for economic and moral-right infringements, plus NIS 12,000 in costs and legal fees.
Another example is Sun Shine Melisa v. Ben Basat, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 5473-12-17 (5 February 2025), where the court awarded NIS 25,000 for copying each of three separate protected jewelry designs, totaling NIS 75,000. Distinct protected works may raise issues different from repeated publication of the same work.
Proven Economic Loss: Sales, Profits and Reduction in Value
Where a rights holder can quantify economic harm, the claim may rely on actual loss. A publisher might demonstrate reduced book sales caused by infringing copies, a software company may document lost licence agreements, and a photographer may prove a lost commercial commission or impaired exclusivity.
Revenue is not identical to profit. If sales were lost, multiplying the retail price by the number of copies may overstate recoverable loss unless the claimant establishes how many sales would actually have occurred, the relevant profit margin and expenses saved. Similarly, a defendant’s sales revenue from a product containing infringing material does not necessarily represent profit attributable to the copyright violation.
The damage may include dilution of licensing value, damage to the commercial market for the work or a proven lost opportunity. The claimant should establish a causal connection between infringement and loss, distinguishing other business factors that may affect sales.
Hypothetical Licence Fees: What Would Permission Have Cost?
One approach to valuing unauthorized use is to calculate what a suitable licence would reasonably have cost. The proper reference is not simply the price of a photograph or music file but the rights that would have been required: commercial or personal use, duration, territory, number of broadcasts, audience, exclusivity and modification rights.
Evidence may include the owner’s prior licence agreements, transactions involving comparable works, prices actually used in the industry and expert economic analysis. A hypothetical licence can support a proven-loss claim or help contextualize a statutory-damages award.
A nationwide advertising campaign using a song may command very different terms from limited publication of a photograph on a small website. Even within the same category of works, value can vary substantially. In Forgas v. Sam Spiegel, the defendant argued that lawful permission would have cost relatively little; this was relevant to the award but did not excuse infringement.
The Infringer’s Profits, Restitution and Accounts
A claimant may seek monetary relief taking account of profits derived from infringement, subject to identifying the legal basis for recovery and establishing how much gain is attributable to the unauthorized act. Total business revenue is not automatically profit arising from copyright infringement. Manufacturing, distribution, marketing and other valuable components may also contribute to the defendant’s earnings.
Invoices, sales records, production costs, distribution expenses, customer agreements and financial statements may be necessary. Section 57 provides an accounts-related remedy concerning information about infringement. An order to provide accounts does not itself decide that every profit disclosed belongs to the claimant; the substantive monetary entitlement requires further analysis.
In Atzmoni v. Ben Dor, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 1884/06 (31 January 2010), rights in a jointly created textbook were considered in light of the parties’ relationship, and entitlement to half of the profits was recognized. The court ordered accounts to establish revenue from the book. The case illustrates why the legal basis of a profit claim and the supporting commercial records must be identified.
Estimated Actual Damages Versus Statutory Damages
Judicial estimation of proven harm and statutory damages without proof of loss are distinct. Estimation may be appropriate where there is evidence of damage but practical difficulty measuring it precisely, such as proof of commercial distribution with incomplete sales records.
By contrast, Section 56 allows a court to award statutory damages without establishing an exact amount of loss, based on infringement and the legislative considerations. Market evidence can still assist the court in exercising discretion without becoming a prerequisite to the statutory route.
For a discussion of actual loss, estimation, hypothetical licence fees, statutory damages and the unit of infringement, see Yonatan Drori, Monetary Remedies in Intellectual Property Proceedings (Hebrew, 2015), Chapter 6, pp. 73–94.
Damages for Infringement of Moral Rights
Moral rights are separate from economic copyright. Subject to Section 46 and the applicable category of work, they protect appropriate attribution and against specified prejudicial alterations or treatment of a work. Unauthorized reproduction accompanied by missing credit may therefore give rise to distinct causes of action.
However, identifying two rights does not mean damages are automatically doubled. The court must examine the persons entitled to relief, the actual injuries and the legally relevant course of infringement.
In Levy v. S.Y.–A.D. Communications, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 16297-08-15 (14 June 2016), a photographer had transferred economic rights in a commissioned portrait but retained moral rights. Repeated publication without proper credit led to an award of NIS 35,000 and orders relating to attribution and continued use. In Avidan v. Keshet, the court distinguished the economic and moral-right injury arising from unauthorized use of a song; neither judgment establishes a fixed ratio between awards.
See Moral Rights in Israeli Copyright Law.
Does Section 56A Exclude Statutory Damages?
Section 56A, added in 2019, limits the statutory-damages mechanism in specified cases. One arrangement concerns making an artistic work available online after it has already been made available to the public, where the user ceases the infringement within a reasonable time after notice, the work was not copied from an online catalogue intended for selling works or licences, and additional statutory requirements concerning the commercial nature of the act or the infringer’s status and turnover are satisfied.
The section distinguishes between different entities. State institutions, municipalities, statutory corporations and government companies do not automatically qualify for the arrangement in Section 56A(a) merely because they are public bodies. Section 56A(c) contains a separate arrangement for specified educational institutions, libraries, archives, museums and other entities in relation to their ordinary, non-commercial activities, subject to the statutory conditions.
These provisions limit eligibility for statutory damages under Section 56; they do not make otherwise infringing copying lawful and do not by themselves eliminate other available remedies. Liability, the exception and the appropriate relief must be considered separately.
Innocent Infringement Under Section 58
Section 58 provides that where copyright or moral rights were infringed but the defendant did not know, and had no reason to know, that copyright subsisted in the work at the time of infringement, damages will not be imposed under that provision.
It is not a general exemption for anyone who says they were unaware that permission was required, misunderstood copyright law or acted by mistake. The statutory test concerns knowledge, or reason to know, of the existence of copyright in the particular work.
The rule affects monetary liability and does not retrospectively authorize a prohibited act. It should be distinguished from Section 56A, particularly in disputes involving photographs and other online material.
Does Removing Infringing Content or Paying for a Licence Later Eliminate Liability?
Removing an image after a demand, ending a broadcast or deleting a file can reduce the duration and extent of infringement. These actions do not necessarily extinguish liability for past use. A later commercial agreement can resolve the dispute or authorize future use, but is not retroactive unless the parties agree that it is.
In Forgas v. Sam Spiegel, the photograph was removed following a complaint, yet damages were still awarded. In Avidan v. Keshet, the song was withdrawn relatively promptly, but the earlier unauthorized broadcast still led to compensation.
Ending infringement is a relevant fact, not an erasure of the preceding conduct.
Evidence Needed to Calculate Copyright Damages
For a proven-loss claim, relevant materials include sales figures before and after infringement, past licences and price lists actually charged, invoices, customer records, profitability data, documents showing the scope of infringing distribution and exclusivity arrangements.
For Section 56, other evidence can matter even without a precise financial calculation: the period of infringement, platform, available viewership data, broadcasts, infringing products, earlier complaints and continued use after a warning.
Proof of ownership and infringement must be distinguished from proof of damages. Section 56 cannot substitute for establishing that the claimant has a protected right and that the defendant performed an infringing act. See Copyright Infringement in Israel: Proof and Remedies.
Choosing a Damages Route and Drafting the Monetary Claim
First identify the rights allegedly infringed, who owns them, the series of acts and the commercial exploitation that can be established. Then evaluate proven loss, a reasonable licence calculation, judicial estimation and the statutory route. A claim for restitution or infringement profits must have a legal and factual foundation of its own.
A Section 56 claim should explain why the requested amount is justified by the scope, duration and seriousness of the infringement, rather than assert that NIS 100,000 is the normal award. Where several works or defendants are involved, the claimant should explain the relationship among the acts and the alleged number of distinct infringements.
In Center for Educational Technology v. Mohammad Dafer Jabarin, Haifa District Court, Civil Case 14791-05-19 (26 July 2020), the court awarded NIS 277,500 for infringement involving 37 distinct textbooks. The analysis concerned separate protected works, rather than simply multiplying the number of copies found in a shop.
Another illustration is Haaretz v. Rotter.net (2024), involving contributory infringement by a forum operator in connection with copying of numerous news articles. The source guide reports a total award of NIS 800,000 in the circumstances of the infringements.
When seeking an injunction or accounts as well, the evidentiary basis and purpose of each remedy should be separately identified. A demand letter explaining rights, exploitation and the calculation basis gives both parties a foundation for settlement discussions or litigation.
Israeli Statutes and Professional Sources
The central provisions are Sections 52, 56, 56A, 57 and 58 of the Israeli Copyright Law. For damages methodologies and remedial purposes, see Yonatan Drori, Monetary Remedies in Intellectual Property Proceedings (Hebrew, 2015), Chapter 6, pp. 69–94.
Related guidance: Fair Use in Israel, Photography Copyright in Israel, Moral Rights in Israel and Drori Stav IP’s Copyright Practice. Contact office@dwo.co.il for advice on damages or litigation.
