Suppose a U.S. software startup pays a developer in Taipei to build its mobile app. The paperwork is a one-page statement of work and a run of paid invoices, and neither mentions intellectual property. Under Taiwan's Copyright Act, the developer is the author of that code and holds the economic rights in it. The startup may use the app. It does not own the copyright.
If the same developer were on the payroll of the startup's Taiwan subsidiary, the company would hold the economic rights without any clause at all, although the developer would still be the author.
Paying for the work does not transfer the copyright
Article 12 of the Copyright Act covers works completed by a person under commission. The commissioned person is the author unless the contract names the commissioning party as author. Where the commissioned person is the author, the contract decides which side holds the economic rights, and if it is silent they stay with the commissioned person. In that case the commissioning party may use the work.
The article does not say how far that use extends. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) gives the example of a company that orders an ERP system by purchase order alone: it may use the system, but it may not pass the system to partner companies to install and use. Whether the startup can have another developer rework the code, or hand the code over when the business is sold, cannot be read out of Article 12. The contract has to say.
When the contractor is an agency or a development house, the rights move in two steps, because the people who create the work are the agency's employees. The same TIPO page sets out the sequence: the agency first secures the rights from its own staff by agreement, then transfers the economic rights to the client and agrees not to exercise moral rights against it. A contract between client and agency cannot by itself make the employees' work the client's.
The U.S. "work made for hire" doctrine is a different concept under a different statute. A contract for work made in Taiwan is clearer when it uses Article 12's own terms: who the author is, and who holds the economic rights. How U.S. law treats the same deliverable is a question for U.S. counsel.
Employees: the company holds the economic rights, the employee is the author
Under Article 11, an employee who completes a work within the scope of employment is its author, and the employer holds the economic rights. The contract can change either default: it can name the employer as author, or leave the economic rights with the employee.
| Who made the work | If the contract is silent | What the contract can change |
|---|---|---|
| An employee, within the scope of employment (Article 11) | The employee is the author; the employer holds the economic rights | Name the employer as author, or leave the economic rights with the employee |
| A person under commission (Article 12) | The commissioned person is the author and holds the economic rights; the commissioning party may use the work | Name the commissioning party as author, or give it the economic rights |
A company named as author holds the moral rights as well as the economic rights. The term changes too. Economic rights generally last for the life of a natural-person author plus 50 years (Article 30), but for 50 years after public release where a juristic person is the author (Article 33).
Whether a work was made within the scope of employment does not turn on office hours or location. TIPO describes it as a question of fact, judged by the nature of the job: was the work done on the company's instructions and plan, and with its budget and resources? In TIPO's example, photographs an employee takes on holiday as a hobby are not made in the course of the job, and the copyright is the employee's.
For staff seconded from a foreign parent, the law governing the employment contract also matters. Under paragraph 2 of Article 42 of the Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, ownership of intellectual property that an employee completes in the course of duties follows the law applicable to the employment contract.
Assignments and licenses reach only what the contract names
Economic rights can be transferred in whole or in part. The scope is what the parties stipulated, and rights not clearly covered are presumed not to have been transferred (Article 36, paragraph 3). Licenses follow the same pattern. Territory, term, content and method of use are set by agreement, and anything not clearly covered is presumed not to be licensed (Article 37, paragraph 1). A non-exclusive licensee may not sublicense to a third party without the consent of the holder of the economic rights (paragraph 3).
A clause for Taiwan-made work therefore names the author, says whether the economic rights are assigned or only licensed, and lists the rights, the territory and the term. Adaptation is a separate right from reproduction. Translating, rewriting or filming a work to create another one is adaptation as defined in Article 3, and Article 28 makes it an exclusive right of its own. A company that plans localized editions needs that right written into the grant. Licensing brand artwork to Taiwan franchisees raises the same question of scope; the corporate side is covered in A foreign brand's Taiwan store.
Moral rights cannot be assigned
Copyright in Taiwan consists of moral rights and economic rights (Article 3). The moral rights are the right to decide whether the work is publicly released (Article 15), the right to be named or to remain unnamed (Article 16), and the right to prohibit changes to the content, form or title of the work that prejudice the author's reputation (Article 17). They belong exclusively to the author and cannot be transferred or inherited (Article 21). An assignment of every economic right still leaves the moral rights with the employee or freelancer, unless the contract named the company as author.
The Act removes part of the friction. Where an employer or commissioning party held the economic rights in an unreleased work from the outset, the author is deemed to have consented when the work is publicly released through its use (Article 15, paragraph 3). The author's name may be omitted where the purpose and method of use pose no likelihood of harm to the author's interests and do not depart from accepted practice (Article 16, paragraph 4). For the rest, TIPO describes an agreement in which the author undertakes not to exercise moral rights against the other party. The author keeps the rights, so the wording of the clause decides whom that promise covers.
Source code: copyright and trade secrets are separate questions
Copyright protects expression, not the underlying ideas, procedures, systems, methods of operation or principles (Article 10-1). Owning the copyright in code does not give a company control over the design ideas behind it.
Methods, techniques, programs and designs are protected as trade secrets if they meet the secrecy and other requirements of Article 2 of the Trade Secrets Act. The ownership defaults resemble those in the Copyright Act. A trade secret developed by an employee in the course of duties belongs to the employer unless the contract says otherwise (Article 3). A trade secret developed under commission belongs to whichever side the contract names; if the contract is silent it belongs to the commissioned party, and the commissioning party may use it in its business (Article 4). A development agreement that deals only with copyright leaves that default in place. If the contractor built on open-source components, those parts carry their own license terms, so ask for a list on delivery. Enforcement of trade secrets is covered in Trade Secret Litigation in Taiwan.
No register, so the contract is the proof
Copyright arises when the work is completed (Article 10). TIPO explains that the copyright registration system was removed by the amendment of January 21, 1998, and that no authority now accepts copyright registrations. In a dispute the rights holder has to prove its own rights. For a company, that proof is the signed contract and the record of how the work was made.
The copyright holder may demand that an infringement be removed or prevented (Article 84), and a person who intentionally or negligently infringes economic rights is liable for damages (Article 88). As the statute stands on October 6, 2026, an injured party who cannot easily prove actual damages may ask the court to set an amount between NT$10,000 and NT$1 million, which may be raised to NT$5 million where the infringement is intentional and serious. A licensee may take legal action in its own name only within the scope of an exclusive license (Article 37, paragraph 4). If the economic rights are still with the freelancer and the company merely uses the work, the first question after an infringement is who is entitled to claim.
If you want a contract for Taiwan-made work checked or drafted, you can email Hovering International Law Firm at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw with what was made, whether the maker is an employee or an outside contractor, and the contract or purchase order you have now. This column is general information; the answer in a particular case depends on the wording of the contract and how the work came to be made.
Official sources
- Copyright Act (Taiwan, last amended June 15, 2022), Art. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10-1, Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 15, Art. 16, Art. 17, Art. 21, Art. 28, Art. 30, Art. 33, Art. 36, Art. 37, Art. 84, Art. 88
- Trade Secrets Act (Taiwan), Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 4
- Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, Art. 42
- Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (in Chinese): copyright basics, questions 1 to 10 on the end of registration; copyright basics, questions 11 to 20 on Articles 11 and 12 and the agreement not to exercise moral rights; Q&A on works completed during employment
- Official English translation of the Copyright Act, used to check wording: law.moj.gov.tw/ENG
Checked: October 6, 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
- We paid a Taiwanese freelancer in full for our logo. Do we own the copyright?
- Not unless the contract says so. Under Article 12 of Taiwan's Copyright Act, when the contract is silent the person you commissioned is the author and holds the economic rights, and the commissioning party may use the work. To own the economic rights you need a contract term that allocates or assigns them to you. Under Article 36, paragraph 3, rights not clearly covered are presumed not to have been transferred.
- Who owns software written by an employee of our Taiwan subsidiary?
- If the contract is silent, the employee is the author and the employer holds the economic rights under Article 11. If the contract names the employer as author, the employer holds both the moral rights and the economic rights. Whether the work was done within the scope of employment is a question of fact. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office says it depends on the company's instructions and resources, not on working hours or location.
- Can a contract assign moral rights to the company?
- No. Article 21 provides that moral rights belong exclusively to the author and cannot be transferred or inherited. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office describes a contractual alternative in which the author agrees not to exercise moral rights against the other party. Articles 11 and 12 also allow the contract to name the company as author from the start.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
