A copyright infringement lawsuit in Israel is not decided solely by how similar two works look. The claimant must establish a copyright-protected work, ownership or other standing to enforce it, and an act performed by the defendant without the necessary permission. Where the allegation is copying, the claimant must also establish a link to the original work and the copying of a legally substantial part of its protected expression.
The Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007, defines economic and moral rights, distinguishes direct and indirect infringement and recognizes permitted uses. These distinctions determine which allegations must be proved, who can bring proceedings and which remedies are available.
When Does Copyright Infringement Occur Under Israeli Law?
Section 47 provides that performing an act listed in Section 11, or authorizing someone else to perform it, without the copyright owner’s permission constitutes infringement unless the act is permitted under Chapter D of the Law. Depending on the work, the reserved acts include reproduction, first publication, public performance, broadcasting, making the work available to the public, making a derivative work and rental.
Each alleged act must be identified and assessed. Playing music at a business is different from copying a sound recording; printing an illustration on packaging differs from uploading a photograph; adapting a book into a screenplay differs from reproducing text from the book. The analysis should ask what happened, who did it and which rights or authorizations governed that act.
What Must Be Proved in an Israeli Copyright Infringement Claim?
The core questions are whether the subject matter is protected by copyright, whether the claimant owns or may enforce that copyright, and whether the defendant carried out an unauthorized act concerning the protected work. For copying claims, the court must also determine whether the accused material was derived from the claimant’s work and whether protected expression was copied substantially.
This order of inquiry matters. Even striking similarities may not establish infringement if they concern ideas, facts or functional elements that copyright does not protect.
Existence of a Protected Work
Section 4 protects original literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works fixed in a tangible form, as well as sound recordings subject to the Act. Photographs, illustrations, books, original articles, films, musical works and software code may qualify. Copyright generally arises without registration in Israel, and the work need not be a masterpiece or commercial success.
Section 5 excludes ideas, processes, methods of operation, mathematical concepts, facts, data and news of the day from copyright protection, though their original expression may be protected. In an article, the underlying information must be distinguished from original wording and arrangement; in software, a functional idea is not the same as protected code; in photography, the protected contribution lies in the image rather than ownership of the subject photographed.
Originality does not demand unprecedented subject matter. A work discussing a familiar topic can still be original if independently created through the author’s choices. Drafts, sketches, correspondence and earlier versions may demonstrate that contribution.
In Petah Tikva Municipality v. Zissu, Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 2682/11 (20 May 2013), the municipality had been presented with a proposal involving a DNA database to identify dog owners. The Supreme Court rejected copyright protection for the idea itself where copying of the presentation or research proposal embodying it was not established. The case distinguishes implementation of an unprotected idea from reproduction of protected expression.
By contrast, in Gabbay v. State of Israel, Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 5792/09 (18 March 2012), professional presentations about retirement were found to contain original selection, arrangement, wording and examples even though they dealt with technical subject matter. Liability concerned copying protected expression rather than the factual professional information itself.
Ownership and Standing to Sue
Section 33 generally makes the author the first copyright owner. Sections 34–36 provide special arrangements for employee works, commissioned works and certain other categories. Under Section 34, the employer generally owns economic rights in a work made by an employee for the purposes of and during employment, absent an agreement to the contrary. Under Section 35, a commissioned work generally belongs initially to its creator unless otherwise agreed, subject to statutory exceptions for certain portraits and private-event photographs.
If the claimant is not the original author, the chain of title must be established. Section 37 governs copyright assignments and licences, requiring a written instrument for an assignment or exclusive licence. Under Section 54, the owner and, subject to the statute, an exclusive licensee may sue. Purchasing a copy, commissioning a work or paying an invoice does not automatically prove transfer of all copyright.
Employment agreements, commission and assignment contracts, licences, inheritance records and evidence of the creation process may be required. The distinction between owning copyright, being permitted to use it and having standing to sue is fundamental.
In Altalef v. Ministry of Education, Central District Court, Civil Case 1563-08-07 (26 June 2011), a dispute concerned teaching booklets developed during a teacher’s work for the Ministry of Education. The court concluded that the economic rights belonged to the Ministry and dismissed the teachers’ independent ownership claims. The case illustrates how employment circumstances can decide standing before any alleged copying is considered.
For the contractual rules see Copyright Assignment and Licensing in Israel.
Identifying the Infringing Act
The claimant must specify what the defendant did: copying a painting, distributing a file, printing a photograph on a product, performing a song in public, broadcasting a work or adapting it. Photographs of products, physical copies, recordings, online records, sales data, files and correspondence can establish the relevant facts. Section 11 also covers substantial parts of works, so copying need not reproduce an entire original.
In Azoulay v. Karni, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 71998-12-20 (28 August 2022), photographs created for an article and limited Instagram publication were later used commercially in additional ways. The court concluded that proven uses exceeded the authorization and awarded NIS 24,000 for economic and moral-right injuries against the defendants held responsible. The question was not only whether the images had been copied but what an existing licence permitted.
How Can Copying Be Proven?
Direct evidence of someone receiving an original file and selecting a “copy” command is not always available. Copying is often established through evidence of access to the original work together with substantial similarities in protected creative elements.
Access may arise through a sketch supplied in a quotation process, an employment relationship, a joint business venture or a prior publication demonstrably encountered by the defendant. Merely stating that the work was available somewhere online may not always be sufficient to prove the particular defendant’s access.
Independent creation remains a possible explanation for similarities. Earlier drafts, different source material, consistent development records and other evidence may demonstrate that the accused work was created separately.
Substantial Similarity Is Qualitative, Not a Percentage Formula
Israeli law contains no general permission to copy a fixed number of words, seconds or percentage of a work. The inquiry concerns whether the material taken constitutes a substantial part of the work in light of its original content and creative choices.
A short, distinctive passage may be more significant than a lengthy section of technical data. Copying a central feature of an illustration may matter even if much of the surrounding image was changed. Courts must distinguish unprotected facts, commonplace industry terms and functional arrangements from original expression.
In Motzafi v. Kabli, Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 10242/08 (10 October 2012), alleged copying from educational books had led to an award in the District Court, but the Supreme Court reversed the outcome. The material copied did not constitute a substantial part of the protected works when assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. Similar details alone were insufficient to prove infringement.
Direct and Indirect Copyright Infringement
Direct infringement under Section 47 occurs when the defendant performs, or authorizes another to perform, a reserved act without permission and without a permitted-use defense. In general, proving direct infringement does not require proof that the defendant knew copyright existed. Knowledge and good faith can instead affect certain monetary remedies.
Section 48 concerns specified indirect acts involving infringing copies, such as selling, renting, possessing for business purposes, commercially distributing and commercially exhibiting copies, subject to the statutory requirement that the defendant knew or should have known of the infringement.
Section 48A addresses certain forms of indirect infringement of the making-available right. It concerns a party acting in the course of business to extend or facilitate access to infringing material for profit, subject to the specific knowledge conditions in the law.
In Danel v. Sanfir, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 64303-01-15 (11 November 2023), the court found that additional marketed software products were based on software whose infringement had been established in earlier proceedings. It ordered permanent injunctive relief and awarded NIS 100,000 in statutory damages. The analysis was not based merely on similarity in software functionality, but on the relationship between the later software and the earlier infringing program.
Authorizing or Contributing to Someone Else’s Infringement
Copyright liability does not necessarily extend only to the person physically operating a machine or uploading a file. Section 47 expressly includes authorizing another to perform a protected act. Israeli case law has also recognized contributory liability in appropriate circumstances, involving an underlying direct infringement, awareness of it and a significant contribution to its commission.
In a project involving a client, supplier, subcontractor, distributor and marketer, the conduct and knowledge of each person should be examined. Receiving commercial benefits does not by itself prove that a party authorized infringement or materially contributed to it. Relevant evidence includes who provided the work, approved its use, directed publication and knew about the rights.
For a recent example concerning the role of an online forum operator and systematic copying of articles, see the Hebrew case analysis of Haaretz v. Rotter.net (2024). The precise legal basis of responsibility should be assessed separately from the acts of the direct copier.
Infringement of the Author’s Moral Rights
Economic copyright is distinct from moral rights for the categories of works protected by Sections 45–46. Moral rights include appropriate attribution and protection against specified prejudicial distortions or other treatment of a work. They may remain with the creator after economic ownership is transferred.
Publishing an unauthorized photograph without attribution may involve two causes of action: economic infringement through reproduction, and personal infringement through failure to credit. Where a harmful alteration is alleged, Section 50 provides additional requirements concerning the reasonableness of the act and the surrounding circumstances.
In Levy v. S.Y.–A.D. Communications, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 16297-08-15 (14 June 2016), the photographer had transferred economic rights in a commissioned portrait but retained the right of attribution. Publication in several newspaper issues without proper credit led to NIS 35,000 in moral-right damages and orders concerning credit and future use.
For the separate evidentiary requirements and remedies, see Moral Rights in Israeli Copyright Law.
When Is Use of a Copyrighted Work Not Infringement?
Chapter D of the Copyright Law provides statutory permitted uses. Section 19 governs fair use, taking account of purpose and character, nature of the work, amount and substantiality taken, and effects on the original’s potential market. A use presented as research, criticism or journalism must still satisfy the circumstances of the test.
Other provisions address particular uses. Therefore, absence of permission is not the end of the analysis: relevant statutory defenses must be examined. Section 27A may apply where the copyright owner cannot be identified or located under its conditions. Giving credit does not itself replace permission where an economic licence is needed.
In Danon Communications v. Yachimovich, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 57588-05-12 (3 July 2014), part of a local newspaper interview was reproduced on a politician’s website. The court recognized that the interview could be a protected work but rejected the infringement claim because the particular review use was fair, taking into account purpose, extent, duration and market effects.
For a detailed treatment see Fair Use Under Israeli Copyright Law and Orphan Works and Copyright in Israel.
What Evidence Is Needed in a Copyright Infringement Action?
The evidentiary record should document a sequence: when the original was created, its author, how the claimant obtained rights, the defendant’s access, the infringing act and its scope. Useful materials may include source files, drafts, sketches, correspondence, interim versions, contracts, work orders, earlier publications, photographs of infringing products and copies captured from distribution systems.
For physical copies, the product, packaging and distribution chain should be preserved. For digital material, the URL, publication date, uploaded file and account responsible may be important. A publication removed after a warning may become difficult to prove if it was not preserved in advance.
For financial claims, licensing agreements, historic rates, sales data, cancelled transactions and records of the defendant’s business can assist with valuation. Such evidence does not replace proof of infringement, but may affect the appropriate remedy.
What Remedies Are Available for Copyright Infringement?
Israeli law provides remedies designed both to stop infringement and to compensate for it. Unauthorized sale of a copied product, online publication, software distribution and reproduction of a single photograph may call for different enforcement measures.
Injunctions
Under Section 53, a copyright claimant is entitled to injunctive relief unless the court finds reasons not to grant it. A permanent injunction may prohibit continued manufacture, distribution, display or other infringing use.
Where protection is sought before trial, an application for a preliminary injunction requires consideration of prima facie evidence, urgency and balance of convenience under the civil procedure rules. See Preliminary Copyright Injunctions in Israel.
Actual Damages and Statutory Compensation
A claimant may seek proven economic loss or statutory damages without proof of loss under Section 56 when applicable. The statute allows up to NIS 100,000 per infringement at the court’s discretion, subject to the conditions and exceptions. Section 56(c) treats infringements committed in one series of acts as one infringement for statutory calculation.
The amount may reflect scope, duration, seriousness, estimated injury and gain, the character of the defendant’s activity, relations between the parties and good faith. Section 56A restricts statutory damages in specified cases, and Section 58 concerns innocent infringement where the defendant did not know and had no reason to know that copyright existed in the work. These rules affect relief, not whether an infringing act occurred.
In Forgas v. Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court, Small Civil Claim 49152-10-13 (5 September 2014), the school had posted an unauthorized photograph of Yehuda Amichai. The court awarded NIS 4,000 plus costs and legal fees after examining the duration and scope of use and the value of a possible licence.
For calculations, licences and case law, see Copyright Damages in Israel.
Accounts and Infringing Copies
Section 57 permits orders for an accounting or information concerning infringement. Such relief can matter where the defendant controls the figures for production, sales and distribution. Section 60 permits the court, subject to statutory conditions, to order measures concerning infringing copies, including destruction or transfer of ownership, with attention to the infringement and the interests of third parties.
In Atzmoni v. Ben Dor, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 1884/06 (31 January 2010), a jointly authored textbook gave rise to a dispute about the claimant’s share of rights and profits. The court recognized entitlement to half of the profits and required accounts of revenue. It illustrates the usefulness of an accounts remedy where financial information is held by the party exploiting the work.
Can a Claim Be Brought Without Proving a Financial Loss?
Yes, under Section 56 where its conditions are met. The claimant must still establish a valid copyright and infringement, but need not calculate exact lost revenue to seek statutory compensation. A claim for proven loss, by contrast, requires evidence of harm and causation.
Neither the number of publications nor the number of images automatically determines how many separate statutory infringements occurred. The series of acts, works and rights must be analyzed. Arbitrarily multiplying the statutory maximum by the number of files or social media posts may misstate the applicable legal framework.
Does Removing the Work After a Demand Letter Prevent a Lawsuit?
Stopping the use may prevent ongoing infringement but does not necessarily extinguish liability for earlier acts. Duration, dissemination, commercial purpose and conduct after notice may affect relief. Section 56A has special conditions concerning statutory damages for certain online uses of artistic works, so the effect of prompt removal must be examined under the precise provision applicable.
Even after removal, the rights holder may seek information about the duration of use, distribution and commercial activity during the infringement. Conversely, limited use and prompt removal can be relevant to the award and settlement strategy.
Preparing a Copyright Demand Letter and Litigation Strategy
An effective demand identifies the work, rights holder, right allegedly infringed and specific unauthorized act. Rather than simply asserting that a defendant “stole” creative material, it should explain what copyright the claimant holds, which protected expression was taken and what use is to cease.
For commercial copying, preservation of manufacturing, distribution and sales records may be requested. Before suing, counsel should map ownership and parties: Was the work created by an employee or external contractor? Was there a limited licence? Are there multiple owners or authors? Is a separate moral-right claim involved?
The answers may affect standing, evidence and the remedies sought. Drori Stav IP advises copyright owners, licensees and defendants in Israeli copyright proceedings, including copyright infringement and commercial licensing disputes.
Israeli Statutory Sources and Additional Cases
The principal legal framework is Sections 4–5, 11, 19, 33–37, 45–50 and 52–60 of the Israeli Copyright Law. For analysis of protection, infringement and remedies, see Yonatan Drori and Yotam Werzansky-Orland, Intellectual Property Law in Israel (2019), Chapter 4, pp. 348–359, 362–367 and 376–393.
The source article also refers to Haaretz v. Rotter.net (2024) regarding contributory liability of an online forum and Aviva Bashan v. Noga Agmon (2026) regarding proof of copying in academic research with expert evidence.
Further reading: Photography Copyright in Israel, Copyright Assignment and Licensing in Israel and Copyright Preliminary Injunctions in Israel. For advice contact office@dwo.co.il.
