Israeli Court Rejects Claim Ottoman Law Applies to Copyright Case
Translated & summarized from Walla by baba
The Jerusalem District Court upheld a lower court's ruling against the Elkanah Local Council and its community center for copyright infringement, ordering them to pay 200,000 shekels in damages. The court rejected the council's appeal, which argued that Ottoman and Mandate-era laws should apply instead of Israeli law. The court cited the late introduction of the foreign law argument and insufficient proof of its content. The ruling highlights the complex legal landscape in the region.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- The Jerusalem District Court rejected Elkanah's appeal regarding copyright infringement, upholding a 200,000 shekel damages award.
- Elkanah argued Ottoman and Mandate law should apply, not Israeli copyright law, due to their location.
- The court ruled the foreign law argument was raised too late and lacked sufficient proof.
- The ruling was based on procedural grounds, not a definitive statement on which law governs the region.
- The case highlights the complex legal situation for Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria.
The Jerusalem District Court has rejected an appeal by the Elkanah Local Council and its community center, which argued that Ottoman and Mandate-era laws, rather than Israeli copyright law, should apply to a case concerning copyright infringement. The lower court had previously ruled that the council and community center infringed on ACUM Ltd.'s copyrights in four separate incidents, ordering them to pay 200,000 shekels in damages and a permanent injunction against further use of protected works without a license. They were also ordered to pay 17,000 shekels in legal fees and 8,000 shekels in court costs.
In their appeal, the Elkanah entities presented a novel argument: that because they operate in Judea and Samaria, the applicable law should be Ottoman and Mandate law, which they claimed does not allow for damages to be awarded without proof of actual harm. ACUM argued that the appeal should be dismissed.
The District Court rejected the appeal on several grounds. Primarily, the court found that the argument regarding foreign law was not raised in the initial trial, and therefore, the presumption of the equality of laws dictates that Israeli law applies. The court stated that introducing this claim for the first time on appeal was contrary to standard legal procedure, only permissible in exceptional circumstances.
Furthermore, the court determined that the expert opinion presented to support the foreign law claim was not submitted according to evidentiary regulations for appeals and did not prove the content of the foreign law itself, but rather offered a legal opinion outside the expert's purview. The court also noted, without making a final ruling, that copyright laws have largely been harmonized internationally through treaties and that under the "law of enclaves" doctrine, Israeli law applies to Israeli settlements in the region.
Attorney the עו"ד, whose firm specializes in real estate and law applicable in Judea and Samaria, commented that the claim sounded like a legal joke but was a genuine attempt to argue that Israeli copyright law does not apply in the region. He explained that the court rejected the appeal not by definitively ruling that Israeli law always applies in Judea and Samaria or by deciding on sovereignty, but because the claim was raised too late, the local law was not proven, and the proceedings were conducted under Israeli law. The עו"ד added that this situation necessitates the development of "law of enclaves" to address the complex legal mosaic of Israeli legislation, orders, and judicial precedents alongside Ottoman, Mandate, and Jordanian law, emphasizing the need for legal certainty for citizens and public authorities.