Commissioned Artwork in Nepal: Who Owns the Copyright When You Pay the Artist?
Commissioned artwork in Nepal belongs to the artist until a written assignment says otherwise: who owns the copyright, and what brands and galleries must sign.
The mural on the café wall, the illustration on the book cover, the painting in the hotel lobby, the character design on the merch line — all commissioned, all paid for in full, and under Nepal's law all of them still belong to the artist.
Payment buys the artwork. Only a written assignment buys the copyright — and the difference is worth real money the first time the image succeeds.
In short
Commissioned artwork copyright in Nepal follows the creator-first default: the Copyright Act 2059 vests rights in the artist who made the work, payment alone transfers nothing, and the commissioner holds no implied right to reproduce, adapt or merchandise the image. The fix is the assignment signed at commissioning — present-tense, scope-tied to the deliverables, with source files included and moral rights respected. Galleries, publishers, brands and app developers all sit on the same default; the paperwork that fixes it is one page, and the moment to sign it is before the work starts, not after it succeeds.
The default: the commissioned artwork belongs to its maker
The Copyright Act, 2059 (2002) vests copyright in the author — the natural person who created the work — from the moment of creation. Commissioning changes nothing: there is no work-for-hire doctrine in Nepalese law, and payment is not an assignment. The client who pays NPR 50,000 for an illustration and receives no written transfer owns the physical piece (or the right to use it as delivered, at most) — not the copyright.
The gap shows up the moment the image earns a second income. Reproduce the painting on the hotel's marketing without an assignment, and the claim is the artist's. Print the character on a second merch run, license the illustration to a publisher, post the mural in a national campaign — each is an economic right the commissioner does not hold. And the artist is free to resell or license the same image to a competitor, because they never gave that up.
Assignment, licence, or neither: the three deals
The licence is a legitimate choice — commissioning a single book cover for single-book use, for instance — but it must be written with the same care as an assignment, because the default it replaces is harsher than either party assumes. What Nepal's law does not supply is the middle ground: 'we paid, so we can use it' is not a doctrine here.
| Structure | Commissioner gets | Artist keeps |
|---|---|---|
| Written assignment | The copyright — full economic rights, from signature | Moral rights: attribution and integrity, which cannot be waived |
| Written licence | Defined uses only: the scope, territory and term the licence states | Ownership — and the right to license others |
| Nothing in writing | The artwork itself; no usable rights beyond the physical delivery | Everything — including the right to resell the image's use |
The copyright assignment clause that works
- Present tense — 'the Artist hereby assigns to the Commissioner all right, title and interest…' — signed at commissioning, not promised for later
- Scope tied to the deliverables — the specific work commissioned, named; a blanket 'all work' clause invites the dispute it was meant to avoid
- Source files included — the transfer covers working files, layers and originals, not just the final export
- Originality warranty — the artist warrants the work is original and non-infringing; the clause matters most where the artwork becomes a logo or packaging
- Moral rights respected — credit terms agreed in the contract; attribution and integrity cannot be waived, so the working relationship should assume them
- Future-use clarity — merchandising, adaptation and new formats addressed explicitly, because tomorrow's use is today's gap
Who needs this, sector by sector
Publishers and book covers
The cover art travels with every edition, format and translation deal — which means the publisher needs the assignment, or a licence broad enough to cover reprints and foreign editions before they are negotiated.
Brands and agencies
Illustration that becomes brand identity must be owned before it is filed as a trademark device — you cannot cleanly register or enforce a mark whose artwork you do not own. Assignment first, filing second.
Galleries, hotels and art buyers
Buying the painting buys the object; the reproduction rights for catalogues, marketing and merchandise live in the contract. Museums and galleries that forget this discover it when the exhibition poster prints.
App and game developers
Every sprite, icon and interface illustration needs its paper — the aggregator of dozens of small commissions is the biggest beneficiary of a standard assignment template used every time.
The artist's side: the same paper, read carefully
Artists have the mirror interest. An assignment signed at commissioning is final — including the upside if the work becomes iconic, which Nepalese art history suggests it sometimes does. The professional practice is to price the assignment knowing that, or to counter-offer a licence with a higher fee and retained ownership; both are legitimate deals. What is not legitimate is the unsigned arrangement that leaves both sides assuming opposite ownership.
And the artist keeps what no contract can touch: moral rights. Attribution for public displays, and integrity against derogatory modification, remain with the creator for the work's life — a floor Nepal's law builds under every commission, however the economics are papered.
Want this handled for your brand?
IP Watch monitors new trademark publications in Nepal and alerts you to potentially conflicting marks — with the context needed to review them.
This article is general information, not legal advice.