Who owns the copyright when an employee writes software code, a photographer is commissioned for an advertising campaign, a company hires an outside designer, or two authors collaborate on a book? Under Israeli law, ownership does not necessarily follow payment, possession of source files or the name under which a work is published. The Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007 distinguishes authorship, initial ownership, contractual transfers and licences.
For foreign companies acquiring content, engaging Israeli developers or commissioning creative work in Israel, these distinctions determine who may authorize further use, enforce rights and prevent unauthorized copying. The central provisions are Sections 33-37 of the Israeli Copyright Law.
Who Is the First Copyright Owner Under Israeli Law?
Section 33 establishes the general rule that the author of a work is its first copyright owner. A separate rule applies to sound recordings: the producer is the first owner of copyright in the recording. Both rules are subject to the exceptions in Chapter Five of the Law, including works created by employees, commissioned works and works owned by the State.
Ownership presupposes a copyright-protected work. Israeli copyright protects original expression in qualifying literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works, among other categories, where the applicable legal requirements are met. Ideas, methods, facts and data as such do not become copyright property. The copyright in a software program, photograph or video is therefore distinct from any underlying commercial concept.
Authorship, Economic Ownership, File Possession and Payment Are Different Questions
The author is the person who contributes protected original expression. The holder of economic copyright controls the applicable exclusive acts, including reproduction, making available to the public and adaptation. The author and owner may be the same person, but need not be. Purchasing a painting does not by itself authorize printing it on merchandise. A company may hold the editable files for a video without acquiring every right to exploit it.
Payment records, delivery of files, invoices and the commissioning company’s branding are relevant evidence of the relationship, not automatic proof of copyright ownership. A licence to use a completed project for an agreed purpose must be distinguished from an assignment of economic rights. This becomes particularly significant when a business expands use internationally, supplies the work to another customer or asks a new contractor to modify it.
Copyright in Works Created by Employees: Section 34
Under Section 34, an employer is the first owner of copyright in a work created by an employee for the purposes of and in the course of employment, unless otherwise agreed. If the statutory conditions are met, the employer acquires initial ownership by operation of law rather than through a later assignment from the employee.
Examples may include code written by a developer as part of assigned duties, original presentations prepared for the employer’s customers, graphics produced by an in-house designer or a work manual written as part of an employee’s role. The inquiry concerns whether the material qualifies for copyright, whether an employment relationship existed and whether the work was made for the purposes of and during that employment.
Does Work Created at Home or Outside Office Hours Belong to the Employer?
The time and place of creation are not conclusive. An employee may finish an assigned task at home, while an independently written book does not necessarily belong to the employer simply because its author is employed. Relevant considerations include the employee’s duties, who initiated the project, its purpose, the parties’ agreement and the work’s connection to employment tasks. Company equipment or information can provide evidence but does not alone decide ownership.
In HaMerkaz LeHora’ah v. Oppenheim, Central District Court, Civil Case 1563-08-07 (26 June 2011), the dispute concerned educational booklets prepared by a Ministry of Education employee. The court found that the works were created within her employment and for its purposes, so the economic rights belonged to the Ministry. The case concerned older works governed by pre-2007 copyright law. It illustrates the importance of the substantive employment connection, but its historic statutory rules should not be mistaken for today’s Section 34.
Employee, Freelancer or Independent Contractor?
Commissioning a work from an independent contractor is not equivalent to employing its author. The substance of the relationship matters more than contractual labels or payment methods. Section 34 is relevant to employees; Section 35 generally governs commissioned work by outside creators. An independent photographer, designer or copywriter does not automatically relinquish ownership by issuing an invoice.
Employment and services agreements should address ownership of deliverables, pre-existing materials, third-party content, source code, source files and the parties’ ability to use and modify materials after the relationship ends.
Commissioned Works in Israel: Does the Client Own the Copyright?
Section 35(a) provides that the author is the first copyright owner of a commissioned work, in whole or in part, unless the author and commissioning party expressly or impliedly agree otherwise. This differs from the employment rule. Payment for a logo, photograph, promotional film, artwork or advertising copy does not, without more, transfer all economic rights to the client.
The parties may agree to different ownership, and the circumstances can establish an implied agreement. The legal question is what they agreed: full ownership, ownership of specified rights, a limited licence or permission to achieve the commission’s intended purpose. Contracts, correspondence, proposals, the fee and the parties’ subsequent conduct can all be relevant.
In Tzarfati v. Orot 2000, Hadera Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 29517-09-20 (10 September 2022), a photographer had been commissioned to photograph an architectural project. The court held that the commission did not extinguish the photographer’s ownership, and permission granted to the commissioning designer did not authorize a separate third party to publish the photographs on its website.
In Sivan In House v. Wave All Digital, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 64177-05-23 (12 February 2025), the court held that commissioning branding and website work did not itself transfer copyright in the graphic materials. The customer had a licence to use them for its brands, but a later service provider was not entitled to present the designs on its own website as projects it had created. The court awarded NIS 50,000 in damages without proof of actual loss.
Can an Implied Agreement Establish Ownership of a Commissioned Work?
Section 35(a) expressly permits the parties’ implied agreement to determine initial ownership of commissioned work. But permission to use a work for its expected purpose is not necessarily a transfer of all rights. Commissioning illustrations for a company brochure, for example, does not necessarily authorize resale of the illustrations to an unrelated business.
It is also necessary to distinguish an agreement determining initial ownership under Section 35 from a later assignment or exclusive licence under Section 37(c), which requires a written instrument. Properly classifying the agreement is a prerequisite to identifying the applicable formal requirement.
The Exception for Commissioned Portraits and Private-Event Photographs
Section 35(b) sets a different default rule for a commissioned portrait or a photograph of a family event or another private event: the commissioning party is the first owner, unless otherwise agreed. The exception does not extend automatically to every commercial photograph commissioned by a client. Product photography, architectural photography and ordinary advertising or press photography generally require separate analysis.
Even where this exception applies, the contract should clarify portfolio use, publication, onward distribution and any permissions reserved to the photographer. Privacy, consent of identifiable subjects and moral rights remain separate questions. See our guide to copyright in photographs and images in Israel.
Copyright Owned by the State of Israel
Section 36 provides that the State is the first owner of copyright in a work created or commissioned by it, or created by a State employee in consequence of and during employment, unless otherwise agreed. For these purposes, the statutory definition also includes members of the armed forces, police officers and certain statutory officeholders. The rule should not automatically be extended to every municipality, nonprofit organization or government-owned company without examining the legal identity of the entity.
Section 42 also provides a special protection period for relevant State-owned works. Contracts with public bodies should identify the commissioning entity, pre-existing supplier materials, deliverables and the intended scope of use.
Joint Works and Joint Authorship Under Israeli Copyright Law
Section 1 defines a joint work as a work created jointly by several authors where the part contributed by each cannot be distinguished. Two people working on the same project, sharing expenses or dividing tasks do not necessarily become joint authors. The essential questions are who contributed protected original expression and how the contributions relate to one another.
A book whose text is written collaboratively and inseparably may raise joint-authorship questions. A project containing separately written text, independently created illustrations and an independently composed score may instead involve several distinct works and licences. Giving ideas, budgetary support, comments or financing does not itself make someone a joint author.
Joint Creation Is Not the Same as a Contractual Profit-Sharing Arrangement
A royalty-sharing agreement is not conclusive evidence of joint authorship, just as omission of a contributor’s name from the published work does not conclusively establish that the person made no protected contribution. Authorship, economic ownership and contractual entitlement to income require distinct analysis.
In Atzmoni v. Ben Dor, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 1884/06 (31 January 2010), the parties collaborated on an educational publication. The court gave effect to their agreement for equal division of rights and income but rejected the request to declare the claimant a joint author and add her name to the book. A later judgment dated 6 February 2011 addressed damages and remedies. The decisions should not be conflated.
Can Software, Logos, Films and Music Have Multiple Rights Holders?
Different rights may coexist in different elements of a commercial product. A logo can incorporate copyright-protected artwork while also functioning as a trademark. Software can combine employee-written code, licensed third-party components, open-source libraries and interfaces developed by contractors. Owning the overall product does not establish ownership of all its constituent materials.
A film may involve separately protected screenplay, music, photographs and audiovisual expression. Music requires distinctions between lyrics, composition, sound recording and other rights. Not everyone involved in production is necessarily a joint author. Exploitation depends on the works involved and the rights cleared under the relevant contracts.
Assignment Versus Licensing: Section 37
Section 37 allows copyright to be transferred by agreement or operation of law and permits exclusive or non-exclusive licences. Transfers and licences can cover all or part of the economic rights and be limited by territory, duration or particular acts. An assignment or exclusive licence requires a written instrument; the same statutory writing requirement does not apply to a non-exclusive licence.
Permission to display a film on a company’s website does not necessarily permit unrestricted distribution to business partners. A licence for one photographic publication may not cover later advertising campaigns. Agreements should identify permitted uses, adaptations, sublicensing, territorial limits and rights in subsequent deliverables. For further analysis, see Copyright Assignment and Licensing in Israel.
Does Economic Copyright Ownership Include Moral Rights?
Not necessarily. Sections 45-46 provide for the author’s personal moral rights, including attribution and protection against prejudicial distortion or alteration. Transfer or initial ownership of economic rights by an employer or client does not automatically make that entity the owner of moral rights. The statutory protection depends on the category of work; computer programs are excluded from moral rights under Section 45.
In Levy v. S.Y.-A.D. Communications, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 16297-08-15 (14 June 2016), the court recognized that transferring economic rights in a photograph did not eliminate the photographer’s personal entitlement to appropriate attribution. See also Moral Rights Under Israeli Copyright Law.
How Is Copyright Ownership Proven in Israeli Litigation?
A party claiming ownership should establish the protected work, the relevant author and the chain through which economic rights arose or were transferred. Drafts, source files, creation metadata, employment agreements, purchase orders, correspondence, payment records and evidence of delivery may be important. An employer relying on Section 34 must address the connection to employment. A client relying on a commissioned-work agreement must establish its terms and scope, including relevant conduct.
An invoice or a file stored on a company server is not conclusive proof of copyright title. Equally, a creator pursuing infringement must account for assignments and licences previously granted. When rights have passed between multiple entities, the chain of title and the scope of each grant require examination. These issues commonly arise in cross-border acquisitions and disputes involving international groups.
What Remedies Are Available for Unauthorized Use?
Use beyond the scope of authorization may constitute infringement where it involves an act reserved to the copyright owner. An entitled claimant may seek injunctive relief and monetary remedies under the applicable rules. Section 56 provides for statutory damages in qualifying cases without proof of actual loss, but the statutory ceiling is not an automatic award for every file or publication. Infringement of economic copyright should also be distinguished from infringement of moral rights.
A disagreement over title does not establish infringement by itself. The defendant may own certain rights, hold a valid licence or have used material outside copyright protection. Establishing title and the licence chain is therefore essential before evaluating the acts complained of and available remedies. See Copyright Infringement in Israel and Copyright Infringement Damages in Israel.
Older Works and Transitional Provisions
Section 78 includes transitional provisions that may affect works created before the current Copyright Law came into force in 2008 and rights arising under earlier legislation. Historic commissioned photographs and other older works cannot automatically be assessed using today’s Section 35. The law applicable at the relevant time and the transitional rules must be examined.
Older Israeli judgments may apply the Copyright Act of 1911. They can illuminate evidential or contractual questions without necessarily establishing the present statutory ownership rule.
Contracting for Copyright Ownership in Israel
A useful employment or commissioning agreement identifies the expected deliverables, pre-existing material, the timing and scope of ownership, the permitted exploitation of underlying components, rights to modifications, sublicensing, source-file delivery and portfolio uses. Where several creators contribute, it should also address revenue participation and decision-making regarding exploitation.
No agreement can convey rights that the contracting party does not possess. Third-party materials, open-source software and moral rights need separate attention. Even a clause saying that “all rights belong to the client” may leave uncertainty about what works were covered and what happens to pre-existing components. Precise allocation is especially important in international technology and content transactions.
Legal Framework and Related Guidance
The principal statutory provisions are Sections 1, 4-5, 11, 33-39, 42, 45-46, 52-56 and 78 of the Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007. Additional issues arise in software development, AI-generated material and multi-party production arrangements. The firm’s copyright practice addresses representation and advice concerning copyright rights and disputes in Israel.
For additional discussion of authorship, economic ownership, moral rights and joint works, see Yonatan Drori and Yotam Werzansky-Orland, Intellectual Property Law in Israel (2020), Chapter 4, pp. 328-329, 346-348 and 361.
Ownership clauses in production contracts are discussed in our guide to Commissioned Creative Content Agreements in Israel; verification of title before transactions is addressed in Copyright Due Diligence in Israeli Acquisitions.
In Yesh Atid – Led by Yair Lapid v. Hosen L’Israel, Tel Aviv District Court, Originating Motion 26045-04-20 (21 June 2020), a dispute arose over use of the Blue and White political alliance logo after the parties separated. Without an agreement governing the jointly held rights, the court permitted reasonable continued use by one partner provided it did not prevent parallel use by the others.
