Contribution and collaboration in joint authorship: too many misconceptions

Legal context: This Article examines the requirements of collaborationand contribution in joint authorship. It discusses the mainUK case law and provides a comparative assessment of the requirementsin the US and Canada. Key points: The author identifies and examines misconceptionssurrounding the definition of joint authorship; the nature ofthe requirements of collaboration and contribution; the confusionwithin the definition of what amounts to sufficient contribution.The author asserts that joint authorship cannot be determinedby using similar conceptions applicable to individual authorship.At the heart of the argument is the belief that the unavoidableresult of the present definition of joint authorship is denialof reward for authors and artists. Practical significance: This Article argues that the rules ofjoint authorship, as presently configured, do not recognizeintellectual input that should be recognized. The Article defendsthe proposition that this has far-reaching effects on the creativeprocess. It discourages authors from creating or contributingvaluable materials to other authors. More importantly, the flawsinherent in the present definitions of collaboration and contributionin joint authorship contradict the aims of our copyright systemthrough the denial of authorial contributions and withholdingof reward from authors.