Intellectual Property in Co-ownership: When a Single Co-author Cannot Decide Alone

Imagine: you own a flat in Mont-de-Marsan, in that beautiful 1930s residence near the Parc Jean-Rameau. With your neighbour, you decide to renovate the facade together, which is threatening to crumble. You hire an architect, share the costs, supervise the works hand in hand. But one day, your neighbour, unhappy with the mason, decides alone to terminate the contract, without consulting you. Yet, you agreed to continue. Who is right? Who can decide?

This situation, which seems trivial, actually touches on a fundamental principle of law: when you create or own something together, decisions must be made together. This is exactly what the Court of Cassation reminds in this decision of 14 October 2015, but applied not to a building, but to an intellectual work (artistic, literary, musical creation).

The case concerns two songwriters and their music publisher. But behind this copyright matter lies a rule that can concern any property owner, any investor, any professional who shares a creation, an asset, or a project. What to do when one wants to terminate a contract and the other does not? Who should decide? The judges' answer is clear, and it has implications well beyond the world of music.

The Facts: A Story as Happens Every Day

Let's take concrete characters. Mr. Melody, music composer, and Mr. Lyrics, lyricist, two artists from the Landes region who collaborated on two hit songs, "Boom boom" and "Toujours là". Imagine them working in a studio in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, mixing guitar chords and rhymes about local heritage. Together, they signed with the music publishing company Artists Plus, based in Paris, to exploit these works.

Years pass, and Mr. Melody believes that Artists Plus is not fulfilling its obligations: poor promotion, royalties poorly paid. Unhappy, he decides alone to terminate (end) the publishing contracts. He brings legal action to have this termination pronounced and obtain damages (financial compensation).

But here's the thing: Mr. Lyrics, his co-author, disagrees. He believes that the collaboration with Artists Plus is working rather well, and he wishes to continue. Artists Plus, for its part, contests the termination and in turn claims damages from Mr. Melody for wrongful termination.

The case goes up to the court of appeal. The second-instance judges partially rule in favour of Mr. Melody: they pronounce the termination of the contracts... but only for Mr. Melody! In other words, Mr. Melody is no longer bound to Artists Plus, but Mr. Lyrics remains engaged. Artists Plus appeals this decision to the Court of Cassation, the highest French judicial court. And that's where everything changes.

The Court's Reasoning — Analysed

The Court of Cassation quashes (annuls) the appeal court's judgment. Why? Because the appeal judges violated Article L. 113-3 of the Intellectual Property Code. But what does this article say? It defines the collaborative work (creation to which several people have contributed) as being "the common property of the co-authors". In plain terms, the work belongs to all the authors, together. And crucially, they "must exercise their rights by common agreement".

To simplify: if you create a song, a book, software, an architectural plan with several people, you are all owners. And to make an important decision — like terminating a publishing contract — you must all agree. One alone cannot decide for the others, even if they are unhappy.

The appeal court therefore made an error in pronouncing a termination only for Mr. Melody, when Mr. Lyrics opposed it. It divided the indivisible. However, note: the Court of Cassation specifies that if the co-authors disagree among themselves, they can bring legal action to settle their dispute. But it is for the judge to decide, not for one of the co-authors alone.

This reasoning confirms consistent case law. It is not a revolution, but a firm reminder of an essential principle: common property implies joint decision-making. The arguments of Artists Plus — which also invoked Article 1134 of the Civil Code on the binding force of contracts — were not accepted on this point, as the fundamental issue was indeed that of the co-authors' agreement.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

But what exactly does this change for you, property owner, tenant, or real estate professional? A lot, because this principle of common property and joint decision-making also applies in your daily life.

If you are a co-owner of a building in Mont-de-Marsan, for example a building with shops on the ground floor and flats on the upper floors, you cannot decide alone to terminate the caretaker's contract if your neighbour co-owner is against it. You need everyone's agreement, or a decision in a general meeting. Otherwise, you risk legal action.

If you are a landlord (owner renting out a property) and you have co-invested with a partner in a house in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, estimated value €250,000, you cannot alone decide to sell or change the property manager without your partner's agreement. A unilateral attempt could cost you months of proceedings and several thousand euros in legal fees.

If you are a purchaser in co-ownership (purchase by several people), for example of a building plot, any important act — sale, letting, works — requires everyone's agreement. undefined, I have encountered cases where a co-owner had signed a building permit alone, creating a dispute that blocked the project for two years.

If you are a tenant and you share a lease (joint tenancy), termination of the contract should ideally be signed by all. Otherwise, the one who remains may be liable for the rent.

In short, this decision reminds you that in any shared property or creation, the golden rule is: we decide together, or we go before the judge. Unilateralism is a source of conflicts.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Draft a clear written agreement from the outset: whether it's a co-ownership agreement, a collaboration contract, or co-ownership regulations, specify in black and white how decisions will be made (unanimously, by majority, with what quorum). In Mont-de-Marsan, I see too many cases where everything relies on a verbal agreement, a source of misunderstandings.
• Systematically consult your co-authors or co-owners: before any decision committing the common asset, send a registered letter or email with acknowledgment of receipt to formalise the consultation. Keep a record.
• Anticipate disagreements: in your contract, include a mediation or conciliation clause before any recourse to the court. This can defuse many conflicts, as I saw in a co-ownership in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax where mediation avoided an 18-month lawsuit.
• Do not take solo initiative in case of a dispute with a third party: if you have a problem with a service provider (publisher, contractor, manager), first discuss with your co-authors or partners. Acting alone, like Mr. Melody, can make you liable to them.

In-depth Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision fits into a consistent line. For example, in a judgment of 12 January 2011 (No. 09-70.168), the Court of Cassation had already reminded that a co-author could not alone assign their rights on a collaborative work without the others' agreement. Similarly, for real estate assets, case law requires unanimity of co-owners for acts of disposal (sale, mortgage).

What few people know is that this trend is strengthening over time. Courts are increasingly strict on respecting common property, particularly in the digital domain (website creation, applications) where collaborations are frequent. For the future, this means that any collaboration, whether artistic, real estate, or commercial, will need to be carefully framed by written agreements. Trust is no longer enough.

Checklist Before Acting

FAQ:

1. I am a co-author of a work and I want to terminate a contract. What to do?
First discuss with your co-authors. If you agree, terminate together. Otherwise, you can bring the matter before the judge to decide, but do not terminate alone.

2. My partner signed a contract alone for our common asset. Am I bound?
Not automatically. You can challenge this act before the courts, especially if it causes you harm. But act quickly, as the limitation period (time limit to act) may be short.

3. How long does a procedure for this type of dispute take?
At first instance, allow 12 to 18 months before the Mont-de-Marsan Judicial Court. On appeal, add 12 to 24 months. Mediation can reduce this to a few months.

4. What are the costs?
Legal fees vary, but for an intellectual property or real estate dispute, budget €3,000 to €8,000 at first instance, plus court costs and expert fees if needed.

5. How to prove that I am a co-author or co-owner?
By any written evidence: contract, shared invoices, emails, witness statements. In real estate, the notarial deed is the primary proof.

Do you find yourself 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 →