Moral rights protect the personal relationship between a creator and a copyrighted work, independently of who owns the economic copyright. A photographer may assign the economic rights in an image, an artist may sell a painting, or a composer may license music while retaining the right to appropriate credit and protection against certain prejudicial changes. A claim for infringement of moral rights can therefore arise even where the economic use of the work was authorized.
In Israel, moral rights are governed primarily by Sections 45–46 of the Copyright Law, 5768-2007, with infringement addressed in Sections 50–51. These rights are not absolute: attribution must be appropriate in the circumstances, and not every alteration of a work constitutes prohibited interference with its integrity. A claim requires identification of the creator, the protected work, the relevant act and the specific moral right allegedly infringed.
What Are Moral Rights Under Israeli Copyright Law?
Section 46 recognizes two distinct interests. The first is attribution, the author’s right to have their name associated with the work to an extent and degree appropriate in the circumstances. The second is integrity, protecting against distortion, mutilation, other alteration or a derogatory act concerning the work where the act is prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation.
Both rights concern the creator’s personal connection to the work. Economic copyright, by contrast, concerns acts such as reproduction, broadcasting, public performance and making a work available to the public. One publication may infringe both economic and moral rights, but proving infringement of one does not automatically establish infringement of the other.
Which Works Carry Moral Rights in Israel?
Section 45 applies moral rights to authors of copyrighted artistic, dramatic, musical and literary works for the duration of copyright protection. Photographs, paintings, sculptures, original writings, plays, films and musical compositions may therefore carry moral rights, subject to the statutory requirements and identification of the author.
The law contains specific exclusions. A computer program, although treated as a literary work for economic copyright purposes, is excluded from moral rights by Section 45(a). A typeface is subject to a special arrangement: the statutory right of attribution in Section 46(1) does not apply to it. Rights in musical compositions should also be distinguished from separate rights concerning performances and sound recordings.
There must first be a copyright-protected work. Investment of effort, ownership of a digital file or contribution of an idea, fact or other unprotected subject matter does not by itself create a moral right.
Who Owns Moral Rights and Who May Sue?
Section 45(b) makes moral rights personal and non-transferable. They belong to the creator even if the creator was never the economic copyright owner or subsequently transferred the economic rights to another party. An employer, client or purchaser can own economic copyright without thereby acquiring the creator’s moral rights.
Section 55 governs who may bring proceedings. The creator may sue for infringement. If the infringement occurs after the creator’s death, the statute permits proceedings by certain family members, including a spouse, descendant, parent or sibling. That rule should not be confused with a general transfer of moral rights by inheritance.
In Levy v. S.Y.–A.D. Communications, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 16297-08-15 (14 June 2016), the economic rights in a commissioned photograph of a lawyer were transferred to the client. The photograph was later published in a local newspaper without proper credit to the photographer. The court held that assignment of economic rights did not extinguish the photographer’s attribution right and awarded NIS 35,000 for five moral-right infringements.
The Right of Attribution: When Must the Creator Be Credited?
Section 46(1) does not require identical credit placement or size for every type of work. The author’s name must be indicated to an extent and degree appropriate in the circumstances. Relevant considerations may include the work’s character, manner of presentation, context of publication, practical possibilities for attribution and professional practice, without treating customary practice as the sole test.
A magazine photograph, painting reproduced in a corporate calendar and film screening may reasonably involve different forms of attribution. The credit might appear next to the work or elsewhere in the publication depending on its format. Where credit is given, its accuracy, visibility and adequacy must still be considered.
Failure to provide credit may infringe a moral right even when reproduction was lawfully licensed. Conversely, credit does not cure unauthorized reproduction or another infringement of economic copyright. The two inquiries remain separate.
Attribution for Photographs, Illustrations and Online Content
In Flash 90 v. Hillman, Rishon LeZion Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 24465-09-21 (17 August 2022), a press photograph appeared in advertising for a business podcast without permission or credit. The court awarded NIS 4,000 to the photo agency for economic copyright infringement and NIS 6,000 to the photographer for infringement of moral rights. The separate awards illustrate how one act can affect rights belonging to different parties.
For websites and social media, it matters whether the user uploaded a new copy, linked to the original source, relied on a licence or otherwise used the work. Naming the photographer in accompanying text may be relevant to attribution but does not replace the need for a valid licence to reproduce the image. See Photography and Image Copyright in Israel.
Removing a Creator’s Signature, Watermark or Credit
In Meital Cohen v. Geniel Beauty Care, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 56391-07-22 (17 July 2024), an interior designer reproduced drawings of a pedicure basin prepared by another designer and replaced the original creator’s name with her own. The court found infringements of economic copyright and moral rights, distinguishing copying protected original expression from permissible use of a general design style.
Deleting a painter’s signature, removing a photographer’s name from a watermark or publishing text without its author’s name may infringe attribution rights. The legal assessment depends on the circumstances and on whether the omission is inconsistent with the credit appropriate to the work and use. A signature identifying the author should also be distinguished from a trademark or other technical marking, which may raise additional legal questions.
The original work and later publication should be preserved to show how the credit appeared before and after use. Source files, edited versions and correspondence can help establish whether removal was deliberate. Deleting a signature does not make the person removing it the copyright owner.
The Right of Integrity: What Is Prohibited Distortion or Alteration?
Section 46(2) protects against distortion, mutilation, other alteration and derogatory acts concerning a work where these are prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation. Showing that the work was changed is not enough. The nature of the change, its context and its effect on the creator must also be examined. Authorization by the economic copyright owner does not automatically resolve this separate question.
Examples requiring case-specific assessment may include cropping a photograph so that its message is distorted, changing a painting in a manner that affects the artist’s presentation, associating music with a damaging message, or allowing serious deterioration of a sculpture in a public place.
In Bar Hama v. Kiryat Gat Municipality, Beersheba District Court, Civil Case 5211-08 (7 June 2012), the court considered neglect of two commissioned sculptures installed in public space. In the circumstances, it found an infringement of the sculptor’s moral rights and awarded total compensation of NIS 40,000, in addition to costs. The decision does not mean that every purchaser must preserve a work unchanged forever; it reflects the particular harm and competing interests in that case.
When Is an Alteration Reasonable and Therefore Not an Infringement?
Section 50(b) provides that an act of the type described in the integrity right will not constitute infringement if it was reasonable under the circumstances. Section 50(c) identifies relevant considerations, including the work’s nature, the character and purpose of the act, whether the work was made in employment or on commission, accepted practice in the field and the need for the change weighed against harm to the creator.
For architectural work, modifications may be necessary because of safety, changing functional needs or building use. For commercial photography, resizing, framing or color adjustments may be needed for publication. A necessary technical modification may differ significantly from an alteration presenting the creator’s work as endorsing an offensive message.
The fact that a work was commissioned does not automatically eliminate its integrity right. Reasonableness is not determined solely by the commissioning party’s preference.
Moral Rights in Music, Advertisements and Dramatic Works
Composers and lyricists may retain moral rights even where economic rights are administered by collecting societies or licensed to another party. Using music or lyrics with a substantially different message may raise infringement questions relating both to economic rights and to the author’s reputation and attribution.
In Caspi v. Novoselsky, Haifa District Court, Civil Case 67249-01-19 (26 January 2022), election campaign videos used a melody composed by Matti Caspi without authorization, with altered lyrics. The court also found infringement of moral rights because of missing attribution and the derogatory context in which the melody was used. The example shows that an integrity claim can concern the context of a use, not only technical alteration of sound.
Agreements covering music in film, advertising or political campaigns should therefore address credit, editing, lyrical changes and the association of the work with the new message in addition to royalties and reproduction rights.
Visual Art and Moral Rights After the Creator’s Death
A painting or sculpture can be sold to a collector, company or museum. Ownership of the physical object does not automatically convey copyright or the artist’s moral rights. Reproducing a painting in a catalogue, calendar or corporate advertisement requires a separate assessment of copying permission and attribution.
In Wexler v. Migdal, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 52488-09-14 (19 September 2021), paintings in a corporate art collection were reproduced in publications without the required permissions and with missing credit. The court found infringements of copyright and moral rights, awarding NIS 45,000 for missing attribution in three paintings in addition to compensation for economic infringements. The claimants included family members and heirs of the deceased artist.
Under Section 45(a), moral rights continue for the copyright term, while Section 55 identifies who can sue for infringements occurring after death. Publications of works by deceased artists should therefore be assessed for copyright ownership, authorship, attribution and the applicable statutory period.
Can Moral Rights Be Waived by Agreement?
Moral rights cannot be assigned, but assignment must be distinguished from a creator’s consent to specific acts, adaptations or methods of presentation. The validity and scope of waivers or consents in commercial contracts depend on the wording and circumstances, alongside the personal nature of the statutory right.
A generic clause permitting “any use” does not necessarily dispose of every dispute concerning attribution or prejudicial alteration. A contract should preferably identify agreed changes, expected uses, how the creator will be credited and whether the name may be removed from a significantly modified version.
In commissioned and employee works, drafting should distinguish economic ownership and future exploitation from personal moral-right considerations. For contractual issues, see Copyright Assignment and Licensing in Israel.
Does Fair Use Remove the Obligation to Credit the Creator?
Section 19 may permit use of a copyrighted work without authorization from the economic rights holder where the statutory fair-use test is met. It is not a blanket exemption from moral rights. Reproducing an image for public-interest reporting may be permissible economically, yet omission of the photographer’s name may raise a separate attribution claim.
In Bardugo v. State of Israel, Rishon LeZion Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 9544-10-21 (7 May 2023), a photograph was used in official reporting following the Mount Meron disaster. The court accepted a fair-use defense for economic copyright but awarded NIS 30,000 for failure to credit the photographer. The source report noted that the decision was appealed, so the first-instance judgment should not be described as necessarily final.
There is no automatic rule that all news reporting is fair use or that all omitted credits give rise to the same compensation. The detailed economic-rights inquiry is explained in Fair Use Under Israeli Copyright Law.
What If the Creator Is Unknown or Cannot Be Found?
Section 50(a1) provides a specific arrangement concerning attribution where a user cannot discover the creator’s identity. It requires reasonable diligence before the use, a clear indication that the work is being used under the relevant statutory provision and contact information enabling notification of the creator’s identity. For commercial use, a prior notice on the internet or in a daily newspaper may also be required under the statutory conditions.
These are cumulative conditions for the particular attribution arrangement, not a general permission to copy images that lack a credit. Separately, Section 27A concerns certain uses of works whose economic copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. The identity of the creator and that of the economic rights holder may differ, making the two statutory inquiries materially distinct.
For a related discussion see Orphan Works and Copyright in Israel.
Indirect Infringement of Moral Rights
Section 51 addresses certain acts involving a copy of a work in which the integrity right under Section 46(2) has been infringed. Subject to the knowledge requirement in the statute, it may apply to sale, rental, possession for business purposes, commercial distribution and commercial public exhibition of a prejudicial copy. The section excludes buildings and other structures.
This is not a general secondary-liability rule for every omission of credit. It specifically concerns interference with integrity. A claim against a distributor who did not make the original alteration should identify the relevant right, the statutory knowledge requirement and the commercial act performed.
How Can Moral-Rights Infringement Be Proven?
The claimant should establish authorship and the existence of a copyright-protected work falling within the moral-right provisions. An attribution claim should document where and how the work was used, whether credit was provided and its placement and adequacy. An integrity claim requires comparison between original and altered versions and evidence of the character of the change and its prejudice to the author’s honor or reputation.
Useful evidence may include original files, drafts, employment or commission agreements, version histories, screenshots, printed copies, testimony about professional practice and expert evidence where appropriate. Where the work has been sold, ownership of the physical copy must be distinguished from economic copyright and moral rights.
Multiple uses should be documented separately, including dates, distribution and circumstances. An allegation that a work was “mutilated” is not a substitute for producing the altered version and explaining the claimed injury.
Compensation for Infringement of Moral Rights
Section 56 allows the court, in appropriate circumstances, to award damages without proof of actual loss for moral-right infringement, up to NIS 100,000 per infringement, subject to the statute. This is a ceiling, not an automatic tariff. Relevant considerations include scope, duration, seriousness, estimated damage and profit, the nature of the defendant’s activity, relations between the parties and good faith.
Under Section 56(c), infringements comprising one series of acts may be treated as one infringement for the statutory calculation. Where both economic copyright and moral rights are affected, claimants and distinct injuries should be identified, and compensation should not duplicate recovery for the same harm.
The Wexler and Flash 90 cases illustrate separate compensation for economic and moral interests. The fact that a particular decision awarded damages for five missing attributions does not create a fixed amount for each future publication. See Copyright Infringement Damages in Israel.
Remedies Other Than Monetary Compensation
A creator may seek relief stopping or correcting the infringement, such as adding proper credit, removing a prejudicial publication, restraining distribution of a distorted version or correcting the presentation of the work. The appropriate order depends on the right affected, the circumstances and practical enforceability. Third-party ownership or use of physical artworks may raise competing interests.
In Levy v. S.Y.–A.D. Communications, the court ordered that infringing online publications be removed or given appropriate attribution and granted prospective injunctive relief. The example shows that enforcement of moral rights may focus on correcting the way the creator is credited, not only on damages.
Preparing a Moral-Rights Claim in Israel
Before sending a demand letter, counsel should establish the author’s identity, the protected work and precisely which moral right was affected. For missing attribution, the question is what credit was appropriate in context; for alteration, what was changed and why the change was prejudicial to the author.
Existing contracts must be reviewed for agreed uses and consents. A demand letter may seek appropriate credit, removal of an altered version, cessation of use, preservation of evidence and information about distribution. A damages claim should identify the statutory or compensatory route and the facts relevant to amount.
An additional case noted in the Hebrew guide, Hartman Institute v. Yael Weiler Israel (2025), concerned the need to prove the identity of the creator asserting moral rights; a monetary award was set aside where the photographer’s identity had not been established and she could not be found despite reasonable efforts. The case reinforces the importance of proving the claimant’s personal entitlement.
Israeli Legal Sources and Further Reading
The key provisions are Sections 45–46, 50–52 and 55–56 of the Israeli Copyright Law, and, as relevant, Sections 19, 27A, 53 and 56A. See Yonatan Drori and Yotam Werzansky-Orland, Intellectual Property Law in Israel (2019), Chapter 4, pp. 348 and 365–367.
Related articles: Copyright Infringement in Israel, Copyright in Photography in Israel, Fair Use in Israel and Copyright Damages in Israel. For legal representation, see Drori Stav IP’s Copyright Practice or contact office@dwo.co.il.
