What is Co-Ownership?

In the Supreme Court’s seminal 1884 copyright case, the Court held that an author is the individual who originates, makes and produces the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 61 (1884). A joint work is a work created by two or more authors who intend that their contributions form a unified work. 17 USC § 101. The author of a work is generally also the copyright owner.

The Copyright Act describes the focus of the authorship inquiry as “the intention, at the time the writing is done.” 17 USC § 201. Courts vary in their interpretation of co-ownership and therefore the respective rights of the parties. The Second and Seventh Circuits look for mutual intent to create a unitary work and evidence that the joint authors treat each other as such. Looking to the legislative history, the Second Circuit has said that intent is the ‘touchstone’ of the joint author inquiry. Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500, 505 (2d. Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit emphasizes that the authors must share creative control and must contribute independently copyrightable material. In Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1235 (9^th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit held that although Aalmuhammed contributed substantial value and creative help to the work, he was not a co-author because he lacked superintendence of the work.

Contentious co-ownership debates are often avoided if all contributors follow best practices and enter into contractual agreements prior to commencing the project. However, “the relationship may change over time as the work proceeds.” Id. Therefore, it is beneficial to revisit and potentially renegotiate contract terms in the event of material changes.

Rights of Co-Owners

By default, each co-owner owns an equal, undivided interest in the entire work, regardless of the relative significance of their individual contributions. Each co-owner may use or license the work without obtaining the other co-owner’s permission as long as they share any resulting profits from the work (see discussion below). States differ on whether a co-owner can grant an exclusive license. The Ninth and Second Circuits have held that exclusive licenses may not be granted unilaterally as it would interfere with the rights of the other co-owner(s). For example, in Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit emphasized that granting an exclusive license without agreement from all co-owners can devalue the others’ interests. In contrast, the Wisconsin District Court has permitted exclusive licenses so that licensees may enforce their rights. Some jurisdictions allow unilateral licenses only if they do not destroy the value of the co-owned work. Other jurisdictions such as New Jersey hold that it is not a breach of trust to diminish the value of the work through acts such as promoting a competing work. SBK Catalogue P’ship v. Orion Pictures Corp., 723 F. Supp. 1053, 1072 (D. N.J. 1989). Importantly, co-owners can contract around these default rules by agreeing in advance that all licenses require unanimous consent.

Profits from licensing agreements will be shared equally unless a different ownership or profit-sharing agreement has been negotiated. Greene v. Ablon, 794 F.3d 133, 151(1st Cir. 2015).

If one co-owner dies, their share of ownership will transfer to their estate or heirs rather than to the surviving co-owner(s). The existing licenses or transfers will not be affected by the death.

Enforcement Rights of Co-Owners

Courts have held that a copyright co-owner can sue a third party for infringement without joining the other co-owners. For instance, Tempo Music, a music investment platform, had partial ownership of Bruno Mars’s “When I Was Your Man” and sued Miley Cyrus, alleging her song “Flowers” infringed upon the earlier work. The court rejected Cyrus’s argument that Tempo lacked standing because it had not included the other co-owners as plaintiffs. The court also acknowledged the limits of co-ownership by explaining that a co-owner cannot grant exclusive licenses without all owners’ consent, so as not to interfere with others’ exclusive rights. Tempo Music Invs., LLC v. Cyrus, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49470, *7 (C.D. Cal. 2025). In the event that one co-owner is successful in the unilateral suit, the other co-owners may be responsible for their proportionate share of litigation costs if the suit was for their common benefit.

Additionally, in the case of a license termination, only those co-owners who are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of the termination interest may terminate. 17 USCS § 304(c)(1).

If a contribution to a copyrighted work does not meet either of the two thresholds for co-ownership, the contributor’s rights are limited because they cannot license the whole work. In such cases, the primary copyright owner must have an actual or implied license from the contributor(s) to use the contributor’s work. By contrast, co-owners of a joint work may independently exercise their exclusive rights without obtaining permission from the other co-owners.

Collective works such as an anthology have “a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves [but] are assembled into a collective whole.” 17 USCS § 101. The owner of the collective work owns the copyright to the selection, coordination and arrangement of the works, rather than each individual work. Therefore, owners of contributions to a collective work do not have co-ownership in the collective work.

For further reading from our website on the topics discussed here, see the following insights and IP Bits & Pieces®: Music Video Copyright, Compilations v. Individual Copyright Registrations of Photographs, AI Can’t Hold Copyrights and our Copyright FAQs.