Copyright Compensation in Ukraine: How Much Can a Rights Holder Recover?

Your work, photograph, design or software has been used without authorisation. How much can you recover from the infringer – and what must you prove to do so? Two fresh 2026 rulings show how Ukrainian courts approach copyright compensation under the country’s modernised law, and why the choice of calculation method is decisive.

Two Ways to Calculate Compensation

Ukraine’s current Law “On Copyright and Related Rights” No. 2811-IX (Article 55) entitles a rights holder to claim compensation – a lump-sum monetary award – instead of damages. The key advantage: there is no need to prove the precise amount of loss. The Law offers two alternative methods of calculation, and the choice belongs to the rights holder.

📋 Method 1 – fixed statutory range From 2 to 200 subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons. The exact figure is set by the court at its discretion, considering the circumstances of the infringement. Useful where there is no clear “licence price”.

✅ Method 2 – multiple of the licence fee A doubled amount of the remuneration that would have been paid for a licence. For intentional infringement – a trebled (3×) amount of that remuneration. Useful where the market value of the use is clear.

The second method mirrors the EU approach (Directive 2004/48/ec on the enforcement of IP rights), under which a hypothetical licence fee serves as the basis for compensation. Ukrainian law adds a punitive multiplier to that base – doubling it, or trebling it for intentional infringement.

Proving the Infringement Is Enough – Not the Loss

A crucial point, and a frequent stumbling block: to recover compensation it is sufficient to prove the very fact of acts constituting copyright infringement. The amount of loss, or the number of copies sold, need not be established.

📋 The Supreme Court’s position Compensation is payable upon proof of infringement of the rights holder’s economic rights – not upon proof of the amount of loss or the number of copies sold. Each work is a separate object of copyright, and each individual act of unlawful use (including repeated use of the same object) constitutes a standalone infringement.

Each Work, and Each Act of Use, Is a Separate Infringement

The Supreme Court’s ruling of 5 March 2026 in case No. 926/675/25 shows how this principle works. A claimant who had acquired the exclusive economic rights to 29 works of fine art sought compensation of 200 subsistence minimums (over uah 605,000) from an infringing company.

The first-instance and appellate courts awarded only about uah 12,000, calculating compensation on the basis of two paintings that the claimant’s representative had actually purchased to document the infringement. The Supreme Court found this approach wrong: compensation must reflect each individual act of unlawful use – the entire volume of works reproduced, offered for sale and distributed, not merely the documented purchases. It set aside both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

The takeaway for rights holders: buying a “test” copy is not a precondition for proving infringement, and tying compensation only to documented purchases artificially deflates it.

A Practical Example: Trebled Compensation for Software

The second method is vividly illustrated by the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Commercial Court of 1 June 2026 in case No. 924/306/26. A Polish entrepreneur – owner of the economic rights to a trade-automation computer program – established that a Ukrainian company had used the program without a licence (an expert opinion confirmed the disputed document could only have been produced with it).

✅ How compensation was calculated (case No. 924/306/26) Value of the software: Uah 15,600. Infringement found to be intentional → the trebled remuneration applied. Compensation: 15,600 × 3 = uah 46,800 – awarded in full. Plus: a 10% fine (Uah 4,680) to the State Budget and an injunction against further use of the program.

Note that the compensation (Uah 46,800 to the claimant) and the fine (Uah 4,680 to the budget under Article 55(4) of the Law) are two distinct payments. The fine does not replace compensation – it is added to it as a separate consequence of the infringement. For foreign rights holders, the case is also a reminder that Ukrainian courts are an effective forum: here a Polish claimant secured a full award.

Compensation Must Be Effective, Proportionate and Dissuasive

Whichever method is chosen, the Supreme Court stresses that the amount must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive – aimed at restoring the infringed rights while not obstructing legitimate activity and guarding against abuse. In setting the figure, courts consider:

• the duration and systematic nature of the infringement;
• the scope of the infringement, including its territorial reach;
• the infringer’s field of business and intentions;
• the presence and form of fault (intent sharply raises the stakes – up to trebling);
• other objective circumstances of the case.

What This Means for Your Business

For rights holders. Plan your evidence strategy in advance: document the full scope of infringement – reproduction, offers for sale, distribution across multiple platforms – not just isolated purchases. Choose the calculation method that yields a realistic and defensible result, and document the market value of a licence, which is the base for doubled or trebled compensation.

For content and software users. Using a third party’s work, image or program without a proper licence risks not only compensation but also a fine to the budget and an injunction. Intent trebles the financial exposure. Securing a licence in good time is far cheaper than litigation.