115
III. OWNERSHIP OF RIGHTS
- Co-authors of one work should be distinguished from two or more
individual authors creating two or more individual works
A typical provision defines a work of joint authorship as:
a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which
the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other
author or authors. (Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (U.K.), s.
10(1))
Recall how that provision was interpreted in Ray v. Classic FM plc [1998]
F.S.R. 622 (U.K.: High Court):
A joint author is ... a person
(1) who collaborates with another author in the production of a work;
(2) who (as an author) provides a significant creative input; and
(3) whose contribution is not distinct from that of the other author.
He must contribute to the “production” of the work and create something protected
by copyright which finds its way into the finished work... Copyright exists, not in
ideas, but the written expression of ideas. A joint author must participate in the
writing and share responsibility for the form of expression in the literary work. He
must accordingly do more than contribute ideas to an author: he must be an author
(or creator) of the work in question. It is not enough that he thought up the plot of a
play or made suggestions for a comic routine to be included...; or indeed that he
passed on his reminiscences to a ghost writer ... It is not sufficient that there is
established to have been a division of labour between two parties in the project of
writing a book if one alone is entirely responsible for the skill and labour of
authorship of the book...What is essential is a direct responsibility for what actually
appears on the paper.
How much work is necessary before a person can qualify as a joint author, and
whether the product is a work of joint authorship, are often hotly debated
questions.
EXAMPLE 1:
The plaintiff, a consultant engineer, designed the engineering structure of a
telecommunications tower for the defendant, according to the overall artistic
design produced by the defendant’s architect. The defendant had to modify the
structure because hairline cracks appeared in it, and sued the plaintiff for
negligent design. The plaintiff counterclaimed that the defendant had infringed
his moral rights by modifying the design of the building. The Court found that
the plaintiff was not the “author” of the tower and so could not complain of any
breach of his moral rights:
John Maryon International Ltd v. New Brunswick Telephone Co. Ltd (1982)
141 D.L.R. (3d) 193 (Canada: New Brunswick Court of Appeal)
