A photograph published on a website, social media platform, catalogue or newspaper may be protected by copyright in Israel even if it carries no copyright notice and is freely accessible online. Ownership of copyright, permission to use the photograph and the duty to credit the photographer are three different legal questions, frequently at issue in claims involving unauthorized images.
The Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007, protects original photographic works and regulates economic and moral rights. It also contains special rules for commissioned photographs, employee works and permitted uses. This guide explains the position of photographers, website operators, advertisers, businesses and clients commissioning photography under Israeli law.
Is Every Photograph Protected by Copyright in Israel?
Section 1 includes photographs within the definition of artistic works, while Section 4 protects original artistic works fixed in a tangible form where the remaining statutory requirements are met. Registration or recognition as fine art is not required. Product photographs, event photography, photojournalism and portraits may qualify for protection without having an artistic purpose.
Originality depends on the photographer’s independent creative contribution. Decisions about viewpoint, lighting, timing, positioning, framing, lenses and editing may reflect authorship. Although the originality threshold is not necessarily high, it is not correct to assume that every digital file is protected without inquiry. A purely mechanical reproduction of another work may lack its own original contribution.
Copyright does not protect the facts depicted or the subject matter itself. Two photographers may independently photograph the same person, landscape or event; similarities resulting from that shared subject do not prove copying. Copying another photographer’s image file, or a substantial part of its protected expression, raises a different legal question.
Who Owns Copyright in a Photograph?
Under Section 33, the general rule is that the author is the first copyright owner. For an ordinary photograph, that is usually the photographer who made the creative choices giving rise to the work. Ownership of the camera, memory card or physical file delivered to a client does not itself determine ownership of the copyright.
Paying for a photography session or receiving high-resolution files does not automatically transfer every economic right in the images. In some situations the employer or commissioning client is first owner under a specific provision of the Copyright Law. The circumstances of creation, the parties’ relationship and their agreement must be examined.
Photographs Created by Employees
Section 34 provides that the employer is generally the first owner of copyright in a work created by an employee for the purposes of and during the course of employment, unless otherwise agreed. Images taken by a salaried photojournalist in the course of newspaper work may therefore belong economically to the employer.
The employment relationship does not establish that every photograph taken privately or outside the employee’s duties belongs to the employer. The date of creation, instructions, employment agreement, intended use and actual working arrangements may all be relevant. Even where the employer owns the economic right, the photographer’s moral rights require separate assessment.
Commissioned Photography and Private Events
Under Section 35(a), the first owner of copyright in a commissioned work is generally the author unless the author and commissioning party expressly or impliedly agreed otherwise. This differs from the employee-work rule. For commercial product photography, the parties should therefore clarify exactly which rights the client needs rather than assume automatic ownership of every image.
Section 35(b) contains an important exception: for a commissioned portrait or photograph of a family or other private event, the commissioning party is the first owner unless otherwise agreed. Wedding or private-event photography may therefore have a different starting point from product or commercial campaign photography.
Contracts should still address permitted uses, retention of files, the photographer’s portfolio use and attribution. Not every photograph depicting a person is automatically a commissioned portrait owned by that person. Who commissioned the photograph and the nature of the arrangement remain decisive.
Copyright Ownership Versus a Licence to Use the Image
A licence permits the uses identified in the agreement without necessarily transferring economic copyright. It may cover a single publication, website, campaign, time period, country or non-commercial use. Licences may be exclusive or non-exclusive.
Section 37 regulates assignments and licences and requires a written instrument for a copyright transfer or exclusive licence. See Copyright Assignment and Licensing in Israel.
A client who commissions images for an article or social media post does not necessarily obtain permission to use them for paid advertising, product packaging, billboards or another company’s campaign. The agreed scope, not simply who paid for the photography, governs.
In Azoulay v. Karni, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 71998-12-20 (28 August 2022), photographs taken for an article and limited publication were used in further commercial advertising. The court held that the proven uses exceeded the permission granted and infringed economic and moral rights, awarding total compensation of NIS 24,000 against the defendants found liable, as well as costs and legal fees.
Can a Photograph Found Online Be Used Without Permission?
Publishing a photograph on a website or social network does not place its copyright in the public domain. The ability to view, save or link to an image is not itself permission to upload a new copy, incorporate it into advertising or print it on a product. Those acts may involve reproduction and making available to the public under Section 11.
Crediting the photographer is not a licence. Conversely, absence of a copyright notice does not mean that an image is unprotected. Before using a photograph, the user should determine the rights holder and obtain suitable permission unless a statutory permitted use applies.
Stock images and photographs offered under open licences may be used subject to their licence conditions. These may restrict commercial exploitation, adaptation, redistribution, social media posting, merchandise or require attribution. Even a valid copyright licence may not resolve privacy, likeness or third-party rights affecting persons or other works depicted.
When Does Posting a Photograph Online Constitute Copyright Infringement?
Section 47 treats unauthorized performance of an act reserved under Section 11, or authorizing another to perform that act, as copyright infringement unless a permitted use applies. Copying an image from a competitor’s site, incorporating it into a commercial catalogue, uploading it to a business social media account or providing it to another distributor can therefore infringe in the relevant circumstances.
In Bardugo v. Peretz, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 25775-12-20 (7 April 2024), a company used a photograph commercially without authorization, altered it and failed to provide appropriate attribution. The court found infringements of economic and moral rights and awarded NIS 30,000 against the company. A separate personal claim against another defendant was dismissed. The decision illustrates why liability must be analyzed for each defendant individually, rather than presumed solely from a management position.
Where agencies or content suppliers deliver images to a company, an additional issue arises: did the supplier have authority to license the photograph? Receipt of a file from an employee, client or advertising agency may evidence some permission but does not automatically prove its scope or the supplier’s ownership.
The Photographer’s Moral Rights: Credit, Cropping and Alteration
Moral rights are separate from economic copyright. Under Sections 45–46, the creator has a right to appropriate attribution and to protection against certain prejudicial distortions, alterations and derogatory acts. These rights are personal and non-transferable and may remain with the photographer even after economic copyright has been assigned.
There is no universal rule specifying the identical credit format for every photographic use. Appropriateness depends on the circumstances, type of publication and work, industry practice and manner of display. Missing credit where it should have been given can found a separate claim, even if economic use was authorized.
In Levy v. S.Y.–A.D. Communications, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 16297-08-15 (14 June 2016), economic rights in a commissioned photograph were transferred to the client, but the photographer’s attribution right survived. Following five newspaper publications lacking proper credit, the photographer received NIS 35,000 for infringement of moral rights.
Cropping, recoloring, adding words or creating a collage does not necessarily infringe integrity rights in every case. The analysis must address the legal requirements for prejudice to the creator’s honor or reputation and the reasonableness provisions of Section 50. Even if an alteration does not violate moral rights, it may still exceed an economic copyright licence.
Does Naming the Photographer Permit Reproduction?
No. Attribution does not substitute for permission from the economic copyright owner. An image can be copied unlawfully while carrying prominent credit, and an authorized use can still violate moral rights through insufficient attribution.
In Flash 90 v. Hillman, Rishon LeZion Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 24465-09-21 (17 August 2022), an unlicensed press photograph was used to promote a business podcast without credit. The court awarded NIS 4,000 to the photo agency for economic copyright infringement and NIS 6,000 to the photographer for moral-right infringement, together with costs.
The distinction matters because the economic owner and creator may be different claimants. See Moral Rights in Israeli Copyright Law.
Photographing People: Copyright Versus Privacy and Likeness Rights
Copyright in a photograph is not the same as the legal rights of a person depicted. The photographer or copyright owner may control economic exploitation of the image, while the subject may have separate rights under Israeli privacy law, defamation law or an agreement depending on the content and circumstances of publication.
For advertising or commercial use featuring an identifiable person, it is necessary to consider whether the subject’s consent is required. Permission from the photographer does not necessarily authorize using a person’s likeness to promote a product. Conversely, a person’s consent to being photographed does not automatically transfer the photographer’s copyright to the client.
Agreements can address image copyright, model releases, permitted purposes and the term of the authorization separately. Photographs of minors, private events and sensitive circumstances may require particularly careful evaluation.
When Can a Photograph Include Another Protected Work Without Permission?
Photographing a sculpture, painting or other artistic work can involve two protected works: the photographed work and the new photograph. Originality in the photograph does not erase copyright in material appearing within it.
Section 22 permits incidental inclusion of a work in a photograph, film or sound recording where its conditions are met. Section 23 permits, among other acts, photographic reproduction of certain architectural works, sculptures and works of applied art permanently located in public places. Neither provision means that any artwork placed anywhere accessible to the public may be reproduced for every commercial purpose.
A person photographed with a sculpture permanently displayed in a square presents different issues from an intentional photograph of a painting temporarily displayed in a gallery for reproduction in a commercial catalogue. Section 19 fair use may also apply where its conditions are met.
Fair Use of Photographs for Criticism and News Reporting
Section 19 allows fair use in appropriate circumstances for purposes including criticism, review, research and news reporting. The assessment examines the use’s purpose, the work’s nature, the qualitative and quantitative extent taken and the effect on the market. Use of an entire photograph may be necessary for criticism but does not automatically establish or defeat fair use.
In Ronen v. Let the Animals Live, Rishon LeZion Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 48263-11-13 (5 January 2016), an animal-welfare organization posted a photograph of a bird of prey on Facebook as part of criticism and reporting about suspected animal abuse. The court upheld fair use in the circumstances and rejected the photographer’s claim. The result reflected the public-interest context and overall use, not a blanket exemption for photographs uploaded to Facebook.
A photograph used mainly as decoration or to attract readers, or in a commercial campaign, may compete with its normal licensing market even if a publication addresses a public-interest subject. The words “news reporting” alone do not authorize every image reproduction.
In Elul Lighting Systems v. Semicom Lexis, Rishon LeZion Magistrates’ Court, Small Civil Case 1873-01-23 (26 March 2025), a claim concerning a product photograph was dismissed where originality, the identity of the photographer and copying of the particular image were not sufficiently demonstrated. The court distinguished potential protection in a photograph from alleged rights in the industrial lighting fixture itself.
For the full statutory test see Fair Use Under Israeli Copyright Law.
How Can Authorship, Ownership and Copying Be Proven?
Evidence may include RAW files, original camera files and metadata, sequences of images from the same shoot, editing records, correspondence and photography contracts. Such evidence is not conclusive: metadata can be edited, and possession of a high-resolution file does not always prove ownership.
Evidence of unauthorized publication should include the claimant’s image and the allegedly infringing use, the URL, publication date, account, commercial context and actual file disseminated. Where a limited licence existed, its conditions and the particular departure from permission must be documented.
With multiple defendants, the role of each must be identified: who uploaded, commissioned, distributed or authorized the use? The contractual chain and source materials are often more important than the mere presence of one party’s name on a publication.
Damages for Unauthorized Use of Photographs in Israel
Under Section 56, Israeli courts may award statutory damages without proof of actual loss of up to NIS 100,000 for each infringement, subject to the law. This is a statutory maximum, not a fixed fee per photograph. Relevant factors include scope, duration, seriousness, estimated harm and profit, the infringer’s activity, the relationship of the parties and good faith.
Section 56(c) treats infringements forming a single series of acts as one infringement for this purpose. The number of photographs or uploads does not automatically equal the number of statutory awards. A single course of conduct may give rise to questions about the correct unit of infringement.
There is also a distinction between damages to the economic copyright owner and damages for the photographer’s moral rights. Section 56A contains restrictions on statutory damages in certain internet uses of artistic works, while Section 58 addresses an innocent infringer. Those rules do not necessarily make the use lawful or remove every available remedy. See Copyright Infringement Damages in Israel.
What Should a Photographer Do After Discovering Unauthorized Use?
Evidence should be preserved before contacting the alleged infringer. A screenshot may help, but exact URLs, observation dates, copies of the publication, page data and records of dissemination may be needed. For commercial use, the product, advertisements, number of publications and responsible parties should be documented.
Next, verify ownership and consider whether the use was authorized under a licence or permitted by statute. A focused demand letter identifies the work and owner, the specific acts, and requests concerning cessation of use, preservation of evidence and compensation.
If urgent relief is required, the rights holder may consider a preliminary injunction in Israel. Removal following a demand can limit the duration of infringement but does not automatically erase acts already committed. In appropriate circumstances, the parties may agree on a licence for future use or a settlement.
How Long Does Copyright Protection for Photographs Last?
Under Section 38, the general copyright term is the author’s lifetime plus 70 years, subject to the specific provisions and transitional arrangements in the statute. The protection of older photographs may depend on earlier law and transitional rules, so it should not be assumed that every historical image remains protected or has entered the public domain.
Even after copyright in a photograph expires, privacy, contract terms, archive access conditions or rights in another work appearing in the image may still be relevant. The source and creation date should be investigated before a proposed commercial use.
Selected Israeli Photography Decisions and Legal Sources
In Bardugo v. D. Eitan / R. Lahav-Rig Architects and Town Planners Ltd., Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 53689-10-17 (16 August 2020), a photograph of the Dead Sea obtained from a free-access website was used in an architectural project without a licence or credit. The court rejected fair-use and innocent-infringer arguments and awarded NIS 40,000.
The 2025 appeal decision in Hartman Institute v. Weiler, discussed in the Hebrew guide, addresses proof of a photographer’s identity when a pseudonymous user claims rights, attribution and the relationship between fair use and moral rights.
The principal provisions are Sections 1, 4, 11–12, 19, 22–23, 33–38, 45–50, 52–58 and 78 of the Israeli Copyright Law. Related guidance appears in Copyright Infringement in Israel and Drori Stav IP’s Copyright Practice.
