Legal Definition of Joint Author
In the case of co-authorship, each author is not only the owner of the part he has created, but of the entire work.  Any author is free to use the work and license it to others.  A co-owner of a co-authored work does not need permission from other authors to use the work itself, and other authors cannot object to such use.  1. each author must have made a substantial and valuable contribution to the work; Whether a work is a collaborative work that makes a party a co-author is often a question of fact that must be decided by the jury. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing co-author`s summary finding). But see Richlin v.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 967-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (confirmation of co-author`s summary conclusion); Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1236 (9th Cir. 2000) (idem). This instruction may also be inappropriate for use in a case involving joint authorship under the Copyright Act 1909. See Richlin, 531 F.3d at p. 967 (explains that the Copyright Act of 1909 did not explicitly mention or define joint authorship, but that co-authors` claims can be analyzed under the Copyright Act, 1976 because it contained common law principles that were well established under the 1909 Act). In Gaiman v. McFarlane, where the issue of co-authorship concerned the creation of new characters for an existing comic book series, the court ruled that there would be co-authorship, even if the author`s contribution was not protected by independent copyright.  The reason behind this was that if more than one person was working on the creation of a single copyrighted work, it would be paradoxical if no one could claim copyright because the individual contributions themselves were not protected by copyright.  Although in this case recent decisions requiring that individual contributions be independently protected by copyright have not been explicitly repealed, they have been distinguished on the facts.
 It was also noted that the lower standard for co-authorship applies only to multimedia works.  The main case of co-authorship in India is Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. and Ors. In this case, the plaintiff is the legal heir of the author of the book India Wins Freedom. The defendant is the publisher of this book.  The respondent entered into an agreement with a certain Professor Humayun Kabir to make the contents of the book known to the public.  The plaintiff obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from breaking the seals on the covers of the entire India Wins Freedom book and from making its contents known to the public. According to the preface to the book in question, written by Kabir, Maulana Azad used to describe her experiences in Urdu, on the basis of which an English draft was created by Kabir.
 The court ruled that the active and close intellectual collaboration and cooperation between Maulana Azad implied that Kabir was co-author of the book with Maulana Azad.  As a result, the defendants were allowed to break the seals on the covers of the entire India Wins Freedom book and make the contents known to the public.  If the work is considered a joint work under copyright law, the co-authors or collaborators may share the rights and obligations of the copyrighted work. However, since it is not necessary to have a formal agreement between co-authors or employees, a legal relationship of co-authorship may arise even without the intention of the respective authors to create a co-author`s work. Thus, if no joint paternity agreement has been formalized, the following principles are assumed to apply. Nor is this issue of co-authorship specifically addressed in other international agreements such as the UCC, the TRIPS Agreement and the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty.  In Childress v. Taylor, actress Clarice Taylor asked playwright Alice Childress to write a play about legendary comedian Jackie “Moms” Mabley. As he wrote, Childress accepted Taylor`s help. Taylor primarily contributed ideas to represent the characters in the play and also researched the life of “Moms” Mabley.  After completing the drawing, Childress denied that it belonged equally to her and Taylor and registered it in her name.
Taylor then took a copy of the play and produced it in another theater without Childress`s permission.  In response to an infringement lawsuit filed by Childress, Taylor asserted that she was a co-writer of the script and therefore had equal rights to it. In considering this question, the Court examined whether the two parties intended to combine their works into a single whole. In addition, the court considered whether the parties “intended to be co-authors of the work.”  The court ruled that Taylor was not a co-writer of the script because he had not provided sufficient expression.  It was noted that no evidence was presented to support Taylor`s role as more than advice and ideas.  A joint work is defined in the U.S. Copyright Act as “a work created by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unified whole.” That is, if you and your co-authors are working on a project with the intention of merging the work each of you contributes to the project into a whole, you have all created a joint work. This is important because if the co-created work meets this definition, copyright for all joint works also applies to your situation, unless the parties agree otherwise. The elements proposed in the paragraph to complement the second element of the instruction are taken from Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d to 1234-35 (the above being described as “several factors suggesting themselves as criteria for co-authorship in the absence of a contract”. Control “is in many cases the most important factor”). See also Richlin, 531 F.3d at p.
968 (Analysis of co-authorship according to the criteria set out in Aalmuhammed). But shortly after the dress rehearsal, Larson died and Thomson filled his shoes and finished the book that was to be used for the musical. At that time, Thomson still had to sign a waiver that would result in the assignment of any copyright in the completed work.  Notwithstanding the fact that Thomson had made a significant contribution in portions that could be protected by copyright until the final result, the court held that Rent was not the product of a collaborative work and that, therefore, Thomson could not claim co-authorship.  In this context, it was added that there was no suggestion by Larson that he had always intended Thomson to be a co-author. Instead, her explicit intent characterized her ability as the editor of her original work. The court reiterated the precedent set by Childress, rejecting Thompson`s argument that the intention requirement should only be met in a situation where an author`s contributions are minimal.  Joint work is defined in US Article 101. Copyright as “a work created by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unified whole.”  Section 201(a) grants these authors of a joint work the status of co-ownership of the copyrighted work.
 2. As a collection of independent sketches, a film was a collective work under 17 U.S.C. § 101, with different copyrights for each sketch under 17 U.S.C. § 201(c), and since one author testified that producers return to it only when he reads his sketches to them, no joint paternity has been demonstrated; The summary judgment rendered to the manufacturers was set aside. The definition of “joint works” has raised concerns that, if a work already written, such as a play, novel or music, is incorporated into a future work, such as a film, the authors of those earlier works could claim to be co-authors of the film.  It is generally true that a film would be a collaborative work and not a collective work in relation to the authors who actually work on the film, but the usual status of “employees” given to them would not raise the question of co-ownership.