Document Type


Publication Date



Part II of this Article introduces the restrictive joint authorship tests created by federal courts, and the courts' reliance on the equal ownership principle as a justification for those tests. Part III examines the relevant case law and other authorities addressing the rights of tenants in common under both copyright law and the general law of property, and concludes that, contrary to the views expressed by many courts and commentators, historical precedent and legislative history strongly favor an interpretation of the copyright statutes that apportions joint authorship shares according to the collaborators' respective contributions. Part IV examines the decision of the United Kingdom courts to abandon the equal ownership rule in favor of apportionment. Part V concludes that apportionment not only is consistent with the copyright statutes but also better serves the goals of federal copyright law by providing a more accurate allocation of the rewards of authorship.

Publication Citation

71 U. KAN. L. REV. 209 (2022).