New

Every mark published in the last 90 days — see today's opposition deadlines

All articles
Copyright25 August 20267 min read

Photography Copyright in Nepal: Protecting Images from Unauthorized Commercial Use

Your photo on a hotel's brochure, a brand's Instagram, a news site's article — the rights Nepalese photographers hold, the uses that infringe, and the licensing that gets paid.

The call is always the same shape: a business is using your photograph — in a brochure, on Instagram, on their website — without asking and without paying. Sometimes they credited you. Usually they didn't. Both are, in the relevant sense, the same question: whose image is it?

Nepalese copyright law is clear on the answer. This guide covers the rights, the infringing uses, and the licensing practice that turns them into income.

In short

Under Nepal's Copyright Act 2059, photographs are protected works: the photographer owns the economic rights (reproduction, distribution, public communication, adaptation) for 50 years from creation (photographic works' term under the Act), plus moral rights (attribution, integrity). Unauthorised commercial use — brochures, ads, websites, social media of businesses, products on packaging, editorial use without licence — infringes; the common defences fail (credit is not a licence; 'found it on Google' is not a defence; buying a print does not buy the copyright). Enforcement sequence: document the use (screenshots, URLs, dates, the commercial context), verify your ownership (raw files, metadata, creation records; registration at the NCRO strengthens it), send a licence-retroactive notice (the professional framing: offer the licence fee + credit), escalate to the infringement notice/lawyer letter, then NCRO/court channels; for platform uses, the platform's copyright reporting removes content fast. The licensing practice that prevents disputes: rate cards, written licences (scope, term, territory, uses), watermarked previews, and metadata. Special cases: commissioned work (client owns only with a written assignment — the creator-first default), model/property releases for privacy/publicity issues (separate from copyright), and news use (limited fair dealing — the next guide's topic).

The rights, precisely

Photographs are protected works under the Copyright Act 2059: the photographer owns the economic rights — reproduction, distribution, public communication, adaptation — with the Act's term for photographic works (50 years from creation), and moral rights (attribution; integrity against derogatory modification) that stay with the author and cannot be waived. The right arises automatically on creation — no registration needed for protection; registration at the NCRO supplies the proof.

The rights are licensable and assignable in writing — which is where most photographers' problems begin: the sale of a print, the delivery of a shoot's files, the email 'here are the photos' — none of it transfers the copyright unless a written assignment says so. The client who paid for a shoot owns the deliverables' copies, not the rights — unless the paperwork says otherwise.

  • Automatic protection; 50-year term; moral rights unwaivable
  • Payment buys copies, never rights — assignments in writing only
  • Registration at the NCRO converts ownership into proof

What infringes — and the defences that fail

Infringing uses: business websites and brochures; brands' social media; product packaging and ads; news/editorial use without a licence (beyond narrow fair dealing — next guide); re-selling your images as stock; printing for commercial resale. The defences that fail: 'we credited you' (attribution ≠ licence — and you can't get the attribution right without the licence question); 'we found it on Google' (public availability ≠ public domain); 'we bought the photo' (buying a copy ≠ buying rights); 'we modified it' (adaptation is one of the rights you hold); 'it's just a small business' (the scale of the infringer is irrelevant to infringement).

The one genuine narrowing: fair dealing for purposes like personal study, criticism, review and news reporting — narrow, non-commercial-leaning, and argued case by case. A hotel's brochure is not fair dealing; a newspaper's thumbnail in a story about photography might be.

Uses and their status
UseStatusFix
Hotel brochure, brand InstagramInfringing commercial useLicence (retroactive) or removal
News article thumbnail in a photo storyPossibly fair dealingAssess case by case
Client's use of paid shoot files beyond scopeScope breach / infringementLicence terms in writing going forward
Resale of your images as stock by othersInfringementTakedown + enforcement

The enforcement sequence

1. Document the use — screenshots with dates, URLs, the commercial context (who's selling what with your image). 2. Verify ownership — raw files, metadata, creation records; the NCRO certificate where registered. 3. The licence-retroactive notice — the professional opener: identify the image, state the rights, offer the licence (fee + credit) instead of threatening; most businesses take it. 4. Escalate — infringement notice through counsel where the opener fails; NCRO/court channels for the stubborn; platform reporting (Instagram/Facebook/website hosts) removes infringing content fast and independently of the fee conversation.

Two special cases complete the map: commissioned work — a client wanting full rights needs the written assignment (and pays for it); photographers keeping rights and licensing uses is the better default business. Model/property releases — people and private property in commercial images raise privacy/publicity questions separate from copyright; commercial shoots need releases, and copyright enforcement does not cure their absence.

The licensing practice that prevents the disputes

Rate card — published or ready, by use type (web, print, campaign, exclusive). Written licences, always — scope (which uses), term, territory, exclusivity, credit — one page; the licence is the product. Watermarked previews and low-res proofs for pitching. Metadata intact (name, contact, licence terms embedded). Registration for the portfolio's crown jewels — the images most likely to be stolen are the ones worth certifying. The stock decision — whether to self-license, use stock platforms, or both; the platforms handle licensing and enforcement but take the majority margin.

Nepal's commercial image economy is growing — hospitality, tourism, e-commerce, NGOs — and it runs on photography. The photographers who treat their images as a licensed product rather than free-floating files are the ones the growth pays.

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.