Copyright and Phonogram: Mention of 'Stage Adaptation' Does Not Suffice to Prove Co-Authorship

Imagine: you are a stage director in Montdidier, you have worked for months on a musical show, you are credited on the CD cover as the author of the 'stage adaptation'. Yet, when the producer exploits the phonogram without paying you, you feel wronged. But does the law recognise you as a co-author of the sound work? Not so fast, says the French Supreme Court in a judgment of 12 July 2007.

This decision, concerning a dispute between a stage director and Milan Music, dashes the hopes of those who hoped that a mere vague mention on a medium would suffice to establish authorship. For rights holders, artists and producers, it is a stern reminder: the presumption under Article L. 113-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code requires mentions that are 'free from ambiguity'.

So, what should be retained from this judgment? How to avoid finding yourself in the same situation as Mr Z., the stage director who was unsuccessful? Follow the guide.

The facts: a story like many others

In 1998, Milan Music published and marketed a CD reproducing the sound version of a show. On the cover, a mention credits Mr Z. for the 'stage adaptation'. So far, everything seems normal. But Mr Z. believes that this mention makes him a co-author of the sound part of the show. He therefore sues Milan Music for infringement, claiming damages for unauthorised exploitation of his alleged copyright.

The Paris Court of Appeal, hearing the case at first instance, rejects his claim. For the judges, the mention 'stage adaptation' refers to stage directing activities, not to the creation of the sound work. Mr Z. cannot therefore rely on the quality of co-author of the sound part, as he did not participate in writing the texts or composing the music. He appeals to the Supreme Court.

The French Supreme Court upholds the appeal judgment. It recalls that the presumption of authorship under Article L. 113-1 of the CPI can only be deduced from mentions that are 'free from ambiguity'. However, the mention 'stage adaptation' is ambiguous: it can refer either to stage directing work or to participation in the sound creation. In the absence of other elements (such as contracts, copyright statements, etc.), Mr Z. cannot prove that he contributed to the sound work. His claims are therefore rejected.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

Article L. 113-1 of the French Intellectual Property Code provides that 'the quality of author belongs, unless proven otherwise, to the person or persons under whose name the work is disclosed'. In clear terms: if your name appears on the work (book, CD, film), the law presumes that you are its author. But this presumption is not absolute: it can be reversed if the mention is ambiguous or if circumstances show that you did not actually create the work.

In this case, the French Supreme Court considered that the mention 'stage adaptation' did not make it clear whether Mr Z. had contributed to the creation of the sound work. Stage adaptation is about staging, sets, costumes, in short everything that relates to the visual and scenic representation of the show, not its sound part. Yet, the CD only reproduced the audio, not the staging. Therefore, even if Mr Z. had been a brilliant stage director, that did not make him a co-author of the music or lyrics recorded on the CD.

The judges also emphasised that no element demonstrated that Mr Z. had participated in writing the texts or composing the music. No contract, no copyright statement, no evidence supported his claim. Consequently, the presumption under Article L. 113-1 did not apply in his favour, and his infringement claims had to be rejected. This is a strict application of the principle that authorship is not presumed from a vague mention; concrete evidence is required.

This decision is neither a development nor a reversal of precedent: it is in line with a consistent line of the French Supreme Court, which requires clear and unequivocal mentions to benefit from the presumption. It also reminds that copyright protects creation, not ancillary or purely technical contributions.

What this changes for you — practically

Whether you are an artist, producer, or simply an owner of an intangible asset, this decision has immediate practical implications.

For a performer or stage director (like Mr Z.): if you participate in a show, do not rely on a vague mention on a medium. Demand a written contract specifying your creative contribution. For example, if you are credited as 'co-author of the texts' or 'composer', the mention is clear. But 'stage adaptation', 'staging', 'artistic direction' are ambiguous mentions that will not give you rights to the sound work. In Abbeville, a client stage director lost €15,000 in royalties because he only had a 'staging' credit on a DVD cover; he could not prove he participated in writing the script. A written contract would have avoided this loss.

For a producer (like Milan Music): this decision secures you. You can exploit a phonogram without fearing that a mere vague credit gives rights to a third party. But remain cautious: if the mention is precise (e.g., 'lyrics author'), the presumption will apply in favour of the credited person. Therefore, check the mentions before marketing a medium, and have all contributors sign assignments of rights.

For a rights holder (author, composer): if you want to protect your contribution, ensure that your name is associated with a clear mention of your creative input. For example, on a CD, if you wrote the lyrics, demand the mention 'lyrics: [your name]'. A mere mention 'adaptation' or 'collaboration' will not suffice. In case of a dispute, you will need to provide evidence: contracts, correspondence, copyright statements, etc.

In summary, to avoid a lawsuit, be precise from the start. The law only protects clearly identified creators, not vague contributors.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Have a copyright assignment contract drafted before any exploitation of the work. This contract must list precisely the nature of your contribution (lyrics, music, staging, etc.) and the rights assigned (reproduction, performance, adaptation). Avoid vague formulations like 'participation in creation'.
• Check the mentions on the media before their marketing. If you are credited in an ambiguous way, request a modification. For example, if the producer writes 'stage adaptation' whereas you wrote the dialogues, demand the mention 'dialogues: [your name]'.
• Keep all evidence of your work: drafts, recordings, emails exchanging files, previous copyright statements. In case of a dispute, these are the elements that will tip the balance, not the mention on the cover.
• If you are a producer, have all contributors sign an assignment statement (artists, technicians, stage directors) before distribution. This will avoid unpleasant surprises: a simple 'staging' credit could be interpreted differently by a judge if the statement is not clear.

Further analysis: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of case law from the French Supreme Court. For example, in a judgment of 13 November 2008 (n° 07-18.245), the Court held that the mention 'direction' on a film did not suffice to establish the quality of co-author of the audiovisual work, because the director had not made a personal creative contribution to the script or music. Similarly, in a judgment of 20 January 2011 (n° 09-71.852), the mention 'artistic collaboration' was deemed too vague to give rise to the presumption of authorship.

The trend is therefore clear: judges require precise and unequivocal mentions, and they do not hesitate to set aside the presumption if the mention is ambiguous. This means that, for professionals in the real estate sector who exploit works (for example, promotional videos, background music in commercial premises), it is essential to clearly identify the authors and formalise the assignments of rights in writing. A mere mention in a credit or on a cover will not suffice to protect your rights, nor to attest to your quality as author.

For the future, one can expect judges to continue to apply this rule strictly, especially with the multiplication of digital media where mentions are often vague. Caution is therefore required.

Checklist before acting

• Am I credited on the work? If so, is the mention precise (lyrics, music, composition) or vague (adaptation, collaboration)?
• Do I have a written contract describing my contribution and the rights assigned? If not, request one before participating in a project.
• Have I kept evidence of my work (drafts, files, emails)? In case of a dispute, these elements will be decisive.
• Has the producer had all contributors sign assignments of rights? If you are a producer, ensure that each contributor has signed a clear document.
• Have I consulted a specialised lawyer before signing or claiming a right? A 30-minute consultation can save you years of proceedings.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →