Singapore’s Copyright Act 2021 reversed who owns commissioned creative work — but for software developers and their clients, the position is more complex, and potentially more perilous, than many realise.
Introduction
A significant but under-publicised change in Singapore’s intellectual property landscape came into effect on 21 November 2021, when the new Copyright Act 2021 commenced. Among its most commercially consequential provisions was a reversal of the default ownership position for commissioned works. For software development — an industry built on commissioned work — the situation is considerably more nuanced, and the risks of misunderstanding are substantial.
The Old and New Commissioning Position
Under the previous copyright regime in Singapore, when a party commissioned the creation of a work and paid for it, the commissioning party was, by default, the first owner of the copyright in that work. The Copyright Act 2021 reversed this default — copyright now vests by default in the creator, not the commissioning party. The commissioning party retains a statutory licence to use the work for the purpose for which it was commissioned, but ownership rests with the creator unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing.
The Critical Gap: Software Is Not on the List
Computer programs — classified as literary works under Singapore copyright law — are not included in the list of commissioned work types to which the new default ownership provision applies. This means the 2021 Act’s reversal of the commissioning position does not automatically extend to bespoke software built for a client.
| Scenario | Default Owner (Pre-2021) | Default Owner (Post-2021) |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioned photograph | Commissioning party | Creator (photographer) |
| Commissioned film | Commissioning party | Creator (filmmaker) |
| Commissioned software | Commissioning party (arguably) | Unclear — not covered by the new provision |
| Employee-created software | Employer | Employer (unchanged) |
Practical Implications
For technology companies, startups, and businesses commissioning custom software in Singapore, the absence of software from the new commissioning provision creates a dangerous ambiguity. Without a written assignment of copyright in the development contract, the ownership position for bespoke software is governed by general copyright principles and, potentially, contested. Any software development agreement should explicitly address copyright ownership, moral rights waivers, and the scope of the licence granted to the commissioning party.
Summary
The Singapore Copyright Act 2021’s new commissioning position is a creator-friendly reform — but it has a notable gap for software. Technology businesses and their development partners should not assume that paying for software development automatically confers copyright ownership. In the absence of a clear written agreement, ownership is ambiguous and potentially disputed. In software development contracts, never leave IP ownership to default rules. Always draft it expressly.
Leave a Reply