Why are we asserting copyright protection for our Hang?

The group calling itself ‘HCU Handpan Community United’, led by Ralf Van den Bor, has just launched another fundraising campaign. Under the title ‘The Handpan may become ILLEGAL’, they are stirring up fears that our claim to copyright on the Hang threatens the freedom ‘of hundreds of makers and musicians worldwide’. It also gives the impression that a handpan must necessarily look exactly like the Hang, i.e. have a lens-shaped base, a central dome, a resonance hole on the opposite side and circularly arranged tone fields.

These statements are false in three ways and are also misleading.

Firstly, the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Canton of Bern on 2 July 2024 – which, nota bene, was sought by the manufacturers and dealers of handpans (!) – merely confirmed (albeit not yet in the final instance) that the design of the Hang is already protected by copyright (see the full text of the decision...). Copyright protection for the Hang is therefore not new but has existed since the Hang was created.

Secondly, instruments that look the same as the Hang and are referred to as handpans are not illegal. This is despite the fact that, in our opinion, all handpans disputed in the Bern proceedings fall within the scope of the copyright on the Hang. Only those actions prohibited by copyright law are illegal, namely commercial manufacture and commercial distribution. Playing a handpan has always been legal and will always remain legal. The same applies to manufacture for private use. Accordingly, we only enforce copyright against commercial manufacturers and dealers of handpans who profit from the sale of counterfeit products and the good faith of many players.

Thirdly, apart from the subjective desire to own an instrument that looks like the Hang, there is no objective reason why a handpan should look like the Hang. This has been confirmed by the Bern court on the basis of three expert opinions (one of which, nota bene, was submitted by the dealers and manufacturers of handpans). We have also proven this with several differently designed instruments that are equal to the Hang in terms of playability and sound.

Fact is that we have not just started claiming copyright on the Hang today. Rather, within the scope of our possibilities as a small family business, we have made it clear to everyone involved in the industry since the first serious emergence of plagiarism about ten years ago that we will not tolerate mere copies of our sound sculpture. Conversely, we have always encouraged the design of original instruments that deserve copyright protection in their own right. After all, that is what copyright is all about, in addition to protecting the personality of the author – providing an incentive for creativity.

What happens next? If the initiators of the Bern proceedings insist, a second court hearing will take place at the end of January 2026. The court will then decide to what extent our copyright is infringed by the disputed handpans. Subsequently, and presumably, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court will render a final decision.

We are not enforcing our copyright on the Hang in order to destroy handpans, let alone to prevent people from buying or playing them. We are asserting our copyright on the Hang solely to put a stop to the shameless production and marketing of plagiarised products and the associated industrialisation of the form that originated here in Bern.


Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer