A business pays an influencer to create a video, commissions an agency to produce a campaign, or asks an employee to prepare product photographs.
Who owns the resulting content? Can the business publish it on its website, edit it, use it in advertising, or share it with a distributor?
Under Taiwan's Copyright Act, the answer does not depend on payment alone. Different rules apply to works created within the scope of employment and works created under commission. The parties’ agreements also matter. Importantly, ownership of economic rights and the right to use a work are related but distinct questions.
This guide explains the statutory starting points and the issues that should be reviewed before content is published or reused. Contract suggestions below are practical drafting points, not statements that every agreement must contain the same terms.
Taiwan’s Copyright Act distinguishes between the author of a work, the holder of its economic rights, and the author’s moral rights.
Economic rights include rights relating to reproduction, public transmission, and adaptation. Moral rights concern matters such as public disclosure, attribution, and certain changes that damage the author’s reputation. The author and the economic-rights holder are not necessarily the same person.
Receiving a finished file or paying a production fee does not, by itself, establish that all economic rights have been transferred. For commissioned works, Article 12 provides specific rules on ownership and the commissioning party’s ability to use the work. Article 36 separately governs assignments of economic rights.
Before reaching an ownership conclusion, identify:
This article focuses on rights in copyright-protected works. It should not be read as a conclusion that every slogan, idea, short phrase, or marketing asset qualifies for copyright protection. The Act excludes certain subject matter and protects expression rather than the underlying ideas or concepts.
Article 11 addresses works completed by an employee within the scope of employment.
Its starting points are:
It is therefore inaccurate to say that an employee always owns the economic rights simply because they created the work. It is equally inaccurate to say that the employer owns everything an employee creates.
Whether a particular work was completed within the scope of employment must be assessed against the relevant facts and agreements. The employee’s role, assigned tasks, and the circumstances of creation should be reviewed rather than relying only on the fact that the creator was employed by the business.
Employment documents and project instructions can address:
These are recommended clarification points, not a statement that each item is a statutory requirement.
Article 12 applies to works created under commission outside the employee-work situation addressed by Article 11.
Under Article 12:
The fourth point is important. The absence of a copyright-assignment clause does not necessarily mean that the commissioning party has no right to use the commissioned work.
Article 12, paragraph 3 (the fourth point above) should not be treated as either a transfer of ownership or a complete answer to every proposed use.
Whether a particular use is covered requires assessment of the commission, the parties’ arrangements, and the proposed activity. This guide does not determine whether any particular advertising, adaptation, overseas use, or third-party use falls within that provision.
The statutory ability to use a commissioned work should also be distinguished from a contractual license under Article 37 of Taiwan's Copyright Act. The rules should not be collapsed into a blanket statement that “anything not expressly licensed is prohibited” in every commissioned-work situation.
To reduce uncertainty, record the intended uses before production begins. For example:
An influencer agreement may describe a deliverable, such as one video or two social-media posts. The parties should separately consider what the brand may do with the resulting content.
Depending on the campaign, the agreement can address:
These are commercial terms to consider. They do not mean that every listed activity always requires a separate contract or an additional fee.
Where the parties rely on a contractual license, Article 37 of Taiwan's Copyright Act provides that its territory, duration, content, methods of use, and other matters depend on the agreement. Unclear portions are presumed not to have been licensed. Any applicable rights under Article 12 must still be considered separately.
A brand commissions a video for an influencer campaign. Later, the brand wants to translate the video and allow a distributor to use it in advertising.
This example does not establish that the later use is necessarily permitted or prohibited. The review should consider:
Permission relating to the influencer’s name, image, voice, or endorsement may also require separate review. Those issues, platform rules, and advertising compliance are outside the scope of this copyright-focused guide.
An agency engagement may involve work created by the agency’s employees, independent contractors, or other contributors, together with licensed materials.
The brand’s agreement with the agency should be reviewed alongside the agency’s ability to provide the rights it promises.
The fact that the agency manages production does not, by itself, resolve ownership of every component. Equally, the involvement of subcontractors does not automatically mean that the agency lacks the necessary rights. The relevant arrangements must be checked against the statutory rules and contractual documents.
The parties can identify:
A schedule identifying included rights and excluded materials can make the arrangement clearer than an undefined statement that “all content belongs to the client.”
Article 36 Taiwan's Copyright Act allows economic rights to be assigned wholly or partly. The recipient acquires rights within the scope of the assignment. Portions not clearly covered by the agreement are presumed not to have been assigned.
A license permits use within its scope without necessarily transferring ownership.
Article 37 of Taiwan's Copyright Act governs contractual licenses and provides that unclear portions are presumed not to have been licensed. It also provides that a non-exclusive licensee may not sublicense the licensed rights to a third party without the economic-rights holder’s consent.
Rather than relying only on phrases such as “full rights” or “commercial use,” specify:
There is no single arrangement that suits every project. The terms should reflect what the business needs and what the creator or agency is agreeing to provide.
Article 21 of Taiwan's Copyright Act states that moral rights belong exclusively to the author and cannot be assigned or inherited. An assignment of economic rights should therefore not be described as transferring the author’s moral rights. The identity of the author must first be determined under the applicable rules, including any relevant agreement under Article 11 or Article 12.
The Act also contains qualifications that should not be overlooked:
Not every crop, cut, or formatting change necessarily constitutes an adaptation or a moral-rights infringement. The actual change and its effects must be assessed. Economic-rights questions and moral-rights questions should be considered separately.
Where relevant, agree on crediting, publication procedures, and permitted changes. Do not assume that a broad economic-rights clause resolves every moral-rights issue.
A deliverable may include music, photographs, illustrations, footage, or other material obtained from third parties.
Rights in a newly created derivative or compilation work do not displace rights in the underlying works. Accordingly, acquiring rights in a finished deliverable should not be assumed to clear every incorporated component.
Request an appropriate record of incorporated third-party materials and review whether the relevant permissions cover the intended use, including:
Whether a particular stock asset or platform-library item is usable depends on its applicable terms. This article does not confirm the licensing terms of any specific provider or platform.
Copyright ownership does not, by itself, answer every question about what files must be delivered.
The agreement can specify whether delivery includes:
Also address formats, deadlines, storage periods, and any separately priced deliverables. These are matters to agree, not a statement that creators must always provide every underlying file.
Use the following questions as a review checklist:
The aim is not to assume that either the paying business or the creator always controls everything. It is to identify the relevant rights and document the intended arrangement before uncertainty becomes a dispute.
For advice on a specific content-production agreement, ownership question, or proposed use, contact us to discuss the relevant documents and circumstances.
