## Facts

- Jonathan Larson developed the musical *Rent* and initially resisted adding another writer, stating it should remain his project.
- New York Theatre Workshop (NYTW) hired Lynn M. Thomson as a dramaturg in May 1995 to assist with development for an Off-Broadway production; her contract with NYTW did not address copyright ownership.
- Thomson worked closely with Larson in 1995 and claimed she made substantial contributions to *Rent*’s plot, structure, character development, and dialogue.
- A November 1995 agreement between Larson and NYTW gave Larson approval rights over text changes, provided that all text changes would become Larson’s property, and required that Larson be billed as the sole author.
- Larson died in January 1996; *Rent* opened successfully Off-Broadway and later on Broadway.
- After the show’s commercial success, Thomson sought royalties and then sued the Larson heirs, seeking a declaration that she was a co-author and co-owner of the copyright.

## Issues

1. Whether *Rent* was a “joint work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101 such that Thomson and Larson were joint authors.
2. Whether, if Thomson was not a joint author, she nonetheless retained a separate copyright in her contributed material absent a written agreement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Larson heirs.
- The court held Thomson was not a joint author because she failed to prove that Larson and Thomson shared an actual, mutual intent to be co-authors, as required by *Childress v. Taylor*.
- The court declined to decide whether Thomson retained a separate copyright in her individual contributions because she had not pleaded an infringement claim based on such a right, placing the issue outside the case as framed.

## Legal Principles

- A “joint work” requires (i) independently copyrightable contributions by each putative author and (ii) a shared, actual intent that the contributors be co-authors whose contributions merge into a unitary whole. 17 U.S.C. § 101; *Childress v. Taylor*.
- Mutual intent to be co-authors is assessed objectively, including agreements, allocation of creative control, and how the work is credited and presented to the public.
- Substantial creative input, standing alone, does not establish joint authorship without proof of shared intent to share authorship and ownership.
- Contractual provisions reserving approval rights, assigning text changes to one participant, and requiring “sole author” billing are strong evidence against shared intent.
- A court may avoid deciding potential rights in individual contributions when the claim is not properly pleaded or presented for adjudication.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Thomson’s asserted contributions to *Rent* did not make her a joint author because the objective evidence—contracts, control over revisions, and consistent sole-author billing—did not show Larson’s intent to share authorship, and the court did not reach any separate-copyright theory for her contributed material.


Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998)