• news-banner

    Expert Insights

The Tricky Issue of Joint Authorship in Copyright Works

The author of a copyright work is the person who creates it. This is significant because (unless the author created the work in the course of their employment) they are the first owner of the work; they decide how it is commercialised and ultimately have the right to prohibit dealings in the work without their consent.

However, where more than one person creates a work, it can be deemed a work of ‘joint authorship’ and each individual has the same rights as a sole author would. This can, however, be very difficult to establish, as the recent judgment in Martin v Kogan shows.

The case concerns a dispute over the authorship of the screenplay for the box office hit Florence Foster Jenkins. The judgment itself reads a bit like a screenplay and the case has kept the interest of copyright litigators over the past few years, and not just because of the rare decision by the Court of Appeal to order a complete retrial of the first instance judgment.

Works of Joint Authorship

A work of joint authorship requires collaboration in a quite specific sense, there must be a shared intellectual input that is not distinct from the input of the other author(s). The Judge referred to the helpful Court of Appeal summary of the relevant legal principles in the analysis of a work of joint authorship, which I have set out below. It was particularly relevant here that the work was a screenplay.

It was disputed between the claimant, Nicholas Martin, and defendant, Julia Kogan, whether the screenplay was written by Mr Martin as sole author, or whether it was in fact a collaboration between the two, as joint authors. If it was a collaboration, Mr Martin (and the film companies behind the movie) would have been infringing Ms Kogan’s IP through their commercialisation of the work.

The Evidence

The court looked in great depth at how this analysis applies in particular to a screenplay (which is a dramatic work, rather than a literary work as had previously been suggested). To prove the value of her contribution, Ms Kogan was given the opportunity to submit her ‘six best’ examples of where her contribution was not merely editorial or as a sounding board, but as a collaborative joint author.

A thing of particular relevance was that Ms Kogan was an accomplished musician. She had writing experience (although not screenplays) and had a lifelong interest in the life and music of Florence Foster Jenkins. It was clear from her evidence that, with this, she not only provided some of the key ideas and background information, but also that the two worked together in creating certain parts of the work. Further, the fact that her contribution was mainly in relation to earlier drafts of the script doesn’t mean that it wasn’t significant to the final output.

This case demonstrates just how difficult it can be to retrospectively assess what actually happened during the creative process, let alone what this means for the legal analysis. Here, the judge was highly critical of both parties for their unhelpful and often clearly false evidence. However, it is interesting that even though there were clear attempts by the witnesses to mislead the court, this did not mean that the entirety of their evidence was to be rejected.

Judgment

Having looked at each of Ms Kogans ‘six best’ in great detail, the judge concluded that she succeeded on proving joint authorship in all six. Due to the nature of dramatic works, the input of ideas, background information and particular collaboration on key scenes holds great importance (perhaps in a way that it might not in other works).

The Judge found, having considered all of the evidence (beyond the ‘best six’), that Ms Kogan was a joint author and that her contribution amounted to 20% of the work.

Comments

There are two key things to mention here:

Firstly, the judgment provides a helpful analysis on the law of joint authorship (in particular in relation to screenplays and dramatic works). There is a useful summary – set out below – to work through. Anyone who wants to appreciate just how technical the analysis can get would be well advised to read the judgement.

Whilst not always practical, it is advisable for those collaborating on a project to set out their intentions as to ownership from the outset (preferably in a written contract). It is also critical to record the relative contributions of each individual as and when they are creating a work. Much of the difficulty for the court in this case was that the evidence was largely oral assertions from the claimant and defendant (who were not necessarily reliable witnesses).

Secondly, it will be interesting to see where this judgment might take us. It seems that there is almost a blurring here of the line between ideas (which are not protectable) and the expression of those ideas (which are), at least in relation to dramatic works. Although this analysis is very fact specific and the Judge confirms that the relevance of the ideas is heightened due to the nature of the work in question, it is an interesting development and could lead to some interesting arguments in the future.

Summary of Legal Principles

The Court of Appeal summarised these as follows:

  1. A work of joint authorship is a work produced by the collaboration of all the people who created it;
  2. There will be a collaboration where those people undertake jointly to create the work with a common design as to its general outline, and where they share the labour of working it out;
  3. Derivative works do not qualify. Works where one of the putative authors only provides editorial corrections or critique, but where there is no wider collaboration, do not qualify. Ad hoc suggestions of phrases or ideas where there is no wider collaboration do not qualify;
  4. In determining whether there is a collaboration to create a literary or artistic work it is never enough to ask "who did the writing?". Authors can collaborate to create a work in many different ways. For example there may be joint authorship if one person creates the plot and the other writes the words, or if either or both of these types of labour is shared;
  5. Joint authors must be authors, in the sense that they must have contributed a significant amount of the skill which went into the creation of the work. Again, it is not correct to focus exclusively on who fixed the work in writing. The statutory concept of an author includes all those who created, selected or gathered together the detailed concepts or emotions which the words have fixed in writing;
  6. Contributions which are not "authorial" in the above sense do not count. What counts as an authorial contribution is acutely sensitive to the nature of the copyright work in question;
  7. The question of what is enough of a contribution is to be judged by the Infopaq test, i.e. whether the putative joint author has contributed elements which expressed that person's own intellectual creation. The essence of that term is that the person in question must have exercised free and expressive choices. The more restrictive the choices the less likely it will be that they satisfy the test;
  8. The contribution of a putative joint author must not be distinct;
  9. There is no further requirement that the authors must have subjectively intended to create a work of joint authorship;
  10. The fact that one of the authors has the final say on what goes into the work may have some relevance to whether there is a collaboration, but is not conclusive. The author with the final say must be given credit in deciding on the relative proportions of ownership, for the extra work involved in making those choices;
  11. It follows that the respective shares of joint authors are not required to be equal, but can reflect, pro rata, the relative amounts of their contributions.

For more information on this article, please contact Peter Byrd.

Our thinking

  • A Summer of Sport - Top 5 Legal Considerations

    Anna Sowerby

    Insights

  • Managing IP quotes Charlotte Duly on the Supreme Court SkyKick ruling

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys named ‘UK Trademark Prosecution Firm of the Year’ at the Managing IP Awards 2023

    Mary Bagnall

    News

  • Trade marks: an overview of the registration process

    Charlotte Duly

    Insights

  • The Financial Times quotes Nick White on risks to content creators promoting counterfeits

    Nick White

    In the Press

  • ITV This Morning quotes Charlotte Duly on the “Wagatha Christie” trademark

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Wagatha Christie: The Trade Mark

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Sky News quotes Charlotte Duly on Lidl’s trademark win against Tesco

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • UKIPO guidance on NFTs and virtual goods

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Charlotte Duly on the Rolex and Oyster & Pop trademark opposition

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys Intellectual Property team successfully oppose the registration of a certification mark for Manuka Honey

    Mary Bagnall

    News

  • Charles Russell Speechlys kickstarts its 'In-House Insights' programme with the first event of the series

    Megan Paul

    News

  • Is it really against the law to share your Netflix password?

    Quick Reads

  • Omnichannel innovation essential in the face of outlet decline

    Caroline Swain

    Quick Reads

  • Verdict quotes Nick White on his cryptocurrency predictions for 2023

    Nick White

    In the Press

  • The 12th Edition of the Nice Classification for Trade Marks includes blockchain goods and services

    Chris Haywood

    Quick Reads

  • Instagram: NFT Factory and Marketplace

    Anna Rogers

    Quick Reads

  • Henry Cuthbert writes for Law in Sport on Usain Bolt's move to trademark his legendary victory celebration

    Henry Cuthbert

    In the Press

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Mary Bagnall on the Cadbury trademark win

    Mary Bagnall

    In the Press

  • Eminem and Snoop Dogg Go Metaverse Live

    Mark Hill

    Quick Reads

  • The Legal 500: Intellectual Property Country Comparative Guide

    Mark Hill

    Insights

  • Lesley O'Leary writes for The Law Society Gazette on law firm strategy

    Lesley O’Leary

    In the Press

  • NFTs and the power of licensing

    Chris Haywood

    Quick Reads

  • Strike a Pose - Usain Bolt files legendary victory celebration as a trademark

    Henry Cuthbert

    Quick Reads

  • Retail Bulletin quotes Charlotte Duly on the House of Zana trademark row with Zara

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • The Times quotes Tim Maxwell on replica copies and copyright considerations

    In the Press

  • Protecting a Good Name: Statutory Inquiry into The Captain Tom Foundation

    Verity Heath

    Quick Reads

  • Nick White writes for Sports Business on the new IP laws to help protect Fifa World Cup rights

    Nick White

    In the Press

  • Charles Russell Speechlys achieves colour trade mark registration for iconic ‘Cadbury Purple’

    Mary Bagnall

    News

  • Top Gun: Maverick studio Paramount sued over alleged copyright breach

    Mark Hill

    Quick Reads

  • Charlotte Duly writes for CITMA Review on the China Tang trade mark infringement case

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • The problem of fakes: catching the counterfeiters

    Nick White

    Quick Reads

  • Jamaica becomes a member of the Madrid System

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

  • Media and Entertainment - The Changing Landscape in the Middle East #2: The Digital Context

    Mark Hill

    Quick Reads

  • What Lloyd v Google means for Project Red Card

    Nick White

    Quick Reads

  • Can machines be inventors?

    Sonia Kenawy

    Quick Reads

  • The United Arab Emirates Joins the Madrid System

    Lara Haidar

    Quick Reads

  • Bullfighting ... as a copyright work?

    Chris Haywood

    Quick Reads

  • Pfizer, Ted Danson and the Olympic Vaccine Solution

    Nick White

    Quick Reads

  • #cake – a trial by social media

    Charlotte Duly

    Quick Reads

Back to top