You received a demand letter over copyright infringement in a photo or content: what to check and what to do

Service page: Digital commerce and AI lawyer: terms, privacy and direct mailing.

What a demand letter can demand, and what only a court decides

A demand letter is the position of whoever sent it. Compensation without proof of damage is awarded only by a court, “at the plaintiff’s request”, in an amount “not exceeding” NIS 100,000 for each infringement (section 56(a) of the Copyright Act, 5768-2007). This is a cap, not a fixed rate.

Within the cap, the court may consider, among other things (section 56(b)):

• the scope of the infringement and how long it lasted;
• the seriousness of the infringement;
• the actual damage and the profit the infringer made, as estimated by the court;
• the characteristics of the infringer’s activity and the relationship between the parties;
• the infringer’s good faith.

Infringements committed “in a single course of conduct” are treated as one infringement (section 56(c)). The amount of NIS 100,000 is not linked to the index; the Minister of Justice may change it by order (section 56(d)), and it is the amount set in the Act as of 27 October 2026. The same compensation can also be claimed for an infringement of the moral right, for example leaving out the photographer’s name.

Four things to do today

1. Document before you remove. Take screenshots of the page as it is: where the work appeared, at what size, from what date and until when, and where it came from: a purchase from a stock library, a license, a content supplier, the website builder or an employee.
2. Then remove the work or stop the use. Stopping does not erase what has already happened, but the duration of the infringement is one of the considerations for compensation (section 56(b)(2)), and stopping within a reasonable time after the notice is a condition for the exemption in section 56A.
3. Check who uploaded it. An infringer is also someone who “authorizes another to do” the act without permission (section 47(a)). If the website builder or a content supplier uploaded the photo, check what your agreement with them says.
4. Do not admit anything in writing before you have checked. Anything you write may be used later. A written admission of the plaintiff’s right also restarts the limitation period (section 9 of the Prescription Law, 5718-1958).

The deadline written in the letter is a deadline set by the sender. A civil claim is, as a rule, time-barred seven years from the day of the infringement (sections 5(1) and 6 of the Prescription Law).

Five questions to test the claim

1. Is there copyright in the work?

Copyright exists in an original literary, artistic, dramatic or musical work that is fixed in some form. A photograph is an “artistic work” (sections 1 and 4). There is no right in an idea, a method, a fact or a piece of data, only in the way they are expressed (section 5). The right lasts for the author’s whole life and another 70 years (section 38).

A photograph taken before 25 May 2008: for the identity of the author and the term of the right in such a photograph, the Copyright Act, 1911, continues to apply (section 78(i)). Under it, the author is the person who owned the negative at the time it was made, and the right lasts 50 years from the making of the negative (section 21 of the 1911 Act).

2. Is the sender of the letter the owner of the right?

The author is the first owner (section 33). A work made by an employee for the purposes of and in the course of their employment belongs to the employer, and a commissioned work belongs to the author, in both cases unless agreed otherwise (sections 34–35). A claim may be filed by the copyright owner, and also by an exclusive licensee (section 54(a)). A name that appears on the work in the usual way as the author’s name creates a presumption that this person is the author, unless proven otherwise (section 64(1)). For a photograph taken before 25 May 2008, the question of ownership is decided under the previous law (section 78(e)). You may ask the sender for the details that establish their right.

3. Did you have a license?

If you bought the photo from a stock library or received it from a supplier, check the terms of the license: for what use, for how long and to what extent. A license can be limited to a place, a period or a particular act (section 37(b)). Only a transfer of the right and an exclusive license require a written document (section 37(c)).

4. Is the use permitted by law?

• Fair use: permitted for purposes such as criticism, review, news reporting or quotation, and examined, among other things, by four considerations: the purpose and character of the use, the character of the work, the extent of the use, and its effect on the market for the work (section 19). The details: Fair use in copyright.
• Incidental use: incidental inclusion of a work in a photograph, a film or a sound recording is permitted; deliberate inclusion of a musical work is not considered incidental (section 22).
• A public place: photographing an architectural work, a sculpture or a work of applied art that is permanently located in a public place is permitted (section 23).
• Credit is not permission. Naming the photographer concerns the moral right (section 46). The right to copy remains with the copyright owner (section 11).

5. How many infringements are there really?

The letter may count every photo, every page or every publication as a separate infringement. The Act provides that infringements “in a single course of conduct” are one infringement (section 56(c)). Whether several publications are a single course of conduct is decided by the facts.

The exemption in section 56A: when there is no compensation without proof of damage

Section 56A, added to the Act by Amendment No. 5 in 2019, provides that the compensation without proof of damage in section 56 will not apply to someone who made available online an artistic work, such as a photo, that had already been made available to the public, if all of the following conditions are met:

1. you stopped the infringement within a reasonable time after you received notice from the owner of the right or from someone on their behalf;
2. the photo was not copied from a catalog made available online in order to sell the works in it or to license their use;
3. and one of these: the use was not for a commercial purpose, or you are a nonprofit association (amuta), a nonprofit institution, a public benefit company, an endowment (hekdesh) or an Ottoman association whose annual turnover does not exceed NIS 1,200,000.

What the exemption does not do:

• It does not apply to State institutions, a local authority, a government company or a government subsidiary, a corporation established by law, or associations and nonprofit bodies whose turnover exceeds NIS 1,200,000 (section 56A(b)).
• It excludes only the compensation without proof of damage in section 56. It does not cancel the infringement itself, and the owner of the right may still ask for an injunction (section 53) or for compensation for damage it proves.

A separate exemption, for non-commercial use as part of their regular activity, applies to educational institutions, libraries, archives and museums of the types set by the Minister (section 56A(c)).

Source: the judgment, paragraphs 14–20. The court added that even if the exception had applied, it would have had power to award compensation for proven damage, including non-financial damage (paragraph 18). A Magistrates’ Court judgment is not a binding precedent, and every case is decided on its own facts.

“I didn’t know”: when an innocent infringer is exempt from damages

An infringer who did not know and did not have to know, at the time of the infringement, that the work was protected by copyright will not be ordered to pay compensation (section 58). The test is twofold: it is not enough that you did not know; it must also be that you did not have to know, at the time of the infringement, that the work was protected by copyright. The wording of the section refers to knowing that copyright exists in the work, not to knowing who owns the right. Even when the section applies, the court may grant an injunction (section 53).

Credit and changes to the photo: the moral right

The author has the right to have their name attributed to their work “to the extent and in the manner appropriate in the circumstances”, and the right that the work not be distorted or mutilated in a way that harms their honor or reputation (section 46). The right belongs to the author personally, even if they transferred the copyright to someone else (section 45(b)), and the author is the one who sues over it (section 55). So one letter may contain two demands: the copyright owner’s, over the copying, and the photographer’s, over leaving out their name.

If you searched for the author with reasonable diligence and did not find them, stated that the use was made under the law and gave contact details, leaving out the name is not an infringement of the moral right, and for commercial use advance notice online or in a daily newspaper is also required (section 50(a1)). The same mechanism exists for using a work whose owner was not located, and for commercial use, payment of a reasonable royalty after the owner of the right came forward is also required (section 27A).

How to answer the letter: what the reply should include

There is no single answer. What to check before you write:

• A request for details: which work, where it appeared, and what establishes the sender’s ownership.
• Your license, if you have one: where the photo came from, and the terms you received.
• The defenses in the law: fair use, incidental use, a public place, the exemption in section 56A, innocent infringer.
• The number of infringements: if the letter counts each publication as a separate infringement, the “single course of conduct” argument.
• Wording: no written admission of the sender’s right, as long as you have not checked.

A settlement by agreement, such as a retroactive license or an agreed payment, is possible at any stage. A general outline for letters before a lawsuit: A warning letter before a lawsuit.

If a claim was filed

• Limitation: seven years from the day of the infringement; if the facts were hidden from the plaintiff for reasons beyond their control, which they could not have prevented even with reasonable care, from the day they learned of them (sections 5(1), 6 and 8 of the Prescription Law).
• A small claim: only an individual may sue in the Small Claims Court, up to NIS 39,900 in 2026. A photo agency that is a company cannot sue there (section 60(a) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984). The guide: Small Claims Court.
• An account: the court may order the defendant to provide details of the infringement (section 57).
• Anonymous publication: a person who claims their right was infringed online and does not know the infringer’s identity may ask the District Court to order whoever holds the information, such as a platform or a provider, to give the court details that will make it possible to identify the infringer (section 60B).

Frequently asked questions

How much do you pay for a photo uploaded to a website without permission?

There is no fixed amount. Without proof of damage, the court may award up to NIS 100,000 for each infringement, according to considerations such as the scope of the infringement, its duration and good faith, and infringements in a single course of conduct are one infringement (section 56). For example only, in a published judgment of a Magistrates’ Court (CC 24465-09-21 Flash 90 v. Hillman, 17 August 2022), for one photo, in limited use that was stopped immediately, NIS 4,000 was awarded to the owner of the right and NIS 6,000 to the photographer. Such a judgment is not binding, and every case is decided on its own circumstances.

I took the photo down right away. Can I still be sued?

Yes, for the period in which it appeared. The removal is relevant to the consideration of the duration of the infringement (section 56(b)(2)), and for non-commercial use that was stopped within a reasonable time after the notice and was not copied from a catalog for sale or licensing, section 56A excludes compensation without proof of damage.

May I use a photo I found on Google?

As a rule, no, not without the permission of the owner of the right. An infringer is someone who does an act with the work, such as copying it or making it available to the public, without permission, unless the use is permitted by law, for example fair use (sections 11, 19 and 47(a)). The fact that the photo was already online is one of the conditions of the exception in section 56A, not a permission to use it.

I credited the photographer by name. Isn’t that enough?

As a rule, no. The credit concerns the moral right (section 46); the right to copy and to make available to the public belongs to the copyright owner (section 11), and use with credit but without permission infringes it, unless it is permitted by law (section 47(a)).

A photo agency sent the letter. May it sue?

If it is the copyright owner or an exclusive licensee of the work, yes (section 54(a)). The photographer personally sues over leaving out their name (section 55). You may ask for the details that establish the right.

How long does the sender have to file a claim?

Seven years from the day of the infringement, as a rule (sections 5(1) and 6 of the Prescription Law). A written admission of the plaintiff’s right restarts the period from the day of the admission (section 9).

The image was created with artificial intelligence (AI). Is there copyright in it?

The Act protects an “original work” (section 4) and does not mention artificial intelligence. The question of who, if anyone, is the author of such an output is discussed in the guide Ownership of content created by artificial intelligence.