Copyright lawyer in Paris: employees, contractors, agencies, who owns the rights.

Not as a general rule. The author of a work of the mind holds the rights by the sole fact of creating it, and signing an employment contract changes nothing, outside the cases the Code reserves (Intellectual Property Code, Art. L. 111-1). Payment of a salary alone does not prove an assignment, even though a fee for an assignment may, depending on the applicable regime and the contract, be included in it. To exploit an employee’s creations freely, the employer therefore needs a written instrument that names the rights transferred and limits their exploitation. Several situations fall outside this principle, notably software created in the course of duties, whose exploitation rights go to the employer, the collective work disclosed under the company’s name, the journalist attached to a press title and the author bound to an audiovisual producer. Outside those cases, a general clause in the employment contract is not always sufficient. The moral right remains attached to the person of the author: the Court of Cassation set aside a judgment that had allowed a photographer’s employer to obtain, on the basis of the moral right, compensation for the absence of its own name on the infringing reproductions (Cass. 1re civ., 16 November 2016, No. 15-22.723). The firm examines the contract, the job description and the actual circumstances of the creation before reaching a conclusion.

Such a clause is fragile. The Code makes an assignment covering future creations in bulk null and void (Article L. 131-1) and requires, for each transfer, that each right transferred be named separately and its exploitation limited as to scope, purpose, place and duration (Article L. 131-3). A formula that transfers all rights in all creations, for all uses and without time limit, generally does not meet these requirements. A clause may stand if it concerns determinable works, created within the precise scope of the employee’s duties, and if it lists the rights and the modes of exploitation. Remuneration must also be addressed: an assignment in principle carries remuneration proportional to revenue, a lump sum being allowed only in the cases listed by the Code (Article L. 131-4). The firm reviews such clauses against the employee’s actual activity and proposes, where appropriate, one-off assignments tied to each project, which are easier to defend.

Software follows a rule of its own. Unless a status or contract provides otherwise, the exploitation rights in software and its documentation, written by employees in the course of their duties or on instruction, belong to the employer, who alone may exercise them (Article L. 113-9). The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal relied on this provision to recognise a company’s standing to bring an infringement action over the part of a piece of software written by its employees, recalling that “the economic rights in software and its documentation created by one or more employees in the exercise of their duties or on their employer’s instructions are vested in the employer” (our translation) (CA Aix-en-Provence, ch. 1-2, 15 January 2026, No. 25/01456). The vesting applies to employees, to the public officials mentioned in the same article and to certain persons hosted by agreement in a research structure (Article L. 113-9-1); an independent developer, a services company or a non-employee partner remain in principle subject to the ordinary law of assignment. The same provision allocates disputes to the judicial court of the employer’s registered office. Before a fundraising or a sale, the firm reconstructs the list of contributors to the code and the status of each.

A collective work arises from the initiative of a person, natural or legal, who edits and disseminates it under their authority and in their name, the contributions of the participants merging into it so that no separate right can be attributed to each of them (Article L. 113-2). Unless proved otherwise, it belongs to whoever disseminates it under their name, who exercises the author’s rights (Article L. 113-5). The Paris Court of Appeal stated that “the natural or legal person at the initiative of a collective work is vested ab initio with the author’s rights in that work, including the prerogatives of the moral right” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 14 September 2022, No. 20/02587), concerning a periodical of a scientific institution to which a contractor had contributed. The characterisation is not established by mere assertion: the power of initiative, the effective direction of the work and the merging of contributions must be shown. The same decision notes that the merging of contributions does not prevent the contributors from being identified (CA Paris, 14 September 2022): an identifiable contribution is therefore not enough to rule out this characterisation. Briefs, mock-ups, approvals and the signature of the whole under the company’s name form the useful evidence. The firm checks these elements before supporting or challenging that characterisation.

It can, because the employment contract does not deprive the employee of their rights, but the employee must establish authorship photograph by photograph, and an employer relying on a collective work must meet its conditions. In a case concerning a graphic designer employed by a ready-to-wear brand, the Paris Court of Appeal held that the statements produced showed only the designer’s presence at the photo shoots and found that “these statements in no way establish the authorship of the photographs of which they claim paternity” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 2, 30 June 2023, No. 21/13981). It required the designer to show, for each photograph, that they had controlled the creative process without being subject to the employer’s direction and control, and then held the designer’s action inadmissible for all the photographs claimed. This decision is unfavourable to the employee and shows how hard proof can be where the employer took the initiative for the shoots and gave instructions. On the creator’s side, original files, metadata and exchanges showing the personal choices made should therefore be kept. On the company’s side, briefs and approvals document the direction exercised.

The answer depends on the date and content of the documents. Since 9 July 2016, the date of the version resulting from Law No. 2016-925 of 7 July 2016, contracts that transfer copyright must be recorded in writing (Article L. 131-2), and that writing must comply with the particulars required by Article L. 131-3. The Paris Court of Appeal inferred from this that “since the law of 7 July 2016, a written instrument must necessarily record the assignment of copyright” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 13 September 2023, No. 21/12304). Taking for its part an entry into force of 1 October 2016, it accepted an implied assignment for the photographs delivered before that date by an independent photographer who issued notes headed assignment of rights. For later photographs, those notes, which referred neither to the photographs nor to their conditions of exploitation, did not amount to a valid assignment, but the claims were dismissed for lack of demonstrated originality: the decision is unfavourable to the creator. An invoice that mentions an assignment without specifying the rights, media, territory and duration therefore remains weak support for the party exploiting the work. The firm sorts the creations by date, reviews each note and identifies the uses that exceed what was actually consented to.

It can assign only the rights it holds, either because its contributors assigned them to it, or by operation of a statutory regime such as that of the collective work disclosed under its name (Article L. 113-5). If the agency entrusted the creation to independent graphic designers, photographers or developers without obtaining a compliant written assignment from them, the client who receives an assignment from the agency acquires an incomplete chain, and the actual creator may take action against the client. The individual author in fact keeps their rights despite the service contract concluded for the commission (Article L. 111-1). The contract with the agency should therefore provide that it warrants having obtained the rights of all contributors, for the media and duration transferred to the client, and that it will provide proof on request. Conversely, an agency may lose standing to sue: the court of appeal having found, in view of the relations between the parties, an implied assignment in favour of the client, the Court of Cassation upheld the inadmissibility of the design agency’s infringement action (Cass. 1re civ., 28 January 2026, No. 24-11.394). The firm audits the chain of contracts and drafts the missing warranties.

No. Length of use and the creator’s silence do not replace the instrument of assignment. The Lille judicial court held, in a case concerning a logo drawn by a volunteer and used by an association, that “the mere use of the logo in dispute from June 2020 to June 2023 without objection from its author is not sufficient to establish unequivocally the common intention of the parties” (our translation) (TJ Lille, ch. 1, 20 March 2026, No. 24/07818), and then found infringement. The risk is real where the logo has been registered as a trade mark, reproduced on packaging or built into a costly visual identity. The best response is generally a written assignment negotiated with the author, which covers past and future, specifies the rights, media and duration, and fixes remuneration. If the creator refuses, the actual protection of the logo must be assessed, since originality remains a condition of protection, and a replacement strategy prepared. The firm examines both options before any contact is made.

It can sometimes rely on a presumption, but that presumption is narrow. A legal entity cannot be an author, except for a collective work, and must in principle prove the assignment granted by the creator. Where no author claims their rights, case law accepts that the company is presumed to be the owner as against infringers if it exploits the work in a genuine, peaceful and unequivocal manner. The Lyon Court of Appeal recalls that “where the alleged assignment of rights is not formalised in writing, and in the absence of any claim to those rights by a natural person or their successors in title, the legal entity bringing the infringement action is presumed to be the owner of the rights” (our translation) (CA Lyon, 1re ch. civ. A, 11 June 2026, No. 22/04998). It nevertheless refused this presumption to a company whose exploitation coincided with that of other businesses and with the claims of the female creator, and upheld the judgment unfavourable to the company. For registered designs, the applicant’s presumption yields only to a claim by the individuals who created them (Cass. com., 31 January 2024, No. 22-20.409). The firm assesses the strength of the presumption before any writ of summons is served.

Where several individuals contributed to the creation without the work being collective, it is a joint work (Article L. 113-2). It is the common property of the co-authors, who exercise their rights by common agreement, the civil court settling their disagreements (Article L. 113-3). Where the contributions are of different kinds, such as a text and a piece of music, each may, unless otherwise agreed, exploit their own contribution separately without harming the joint exploitation. In practice, a company that exploits a work created by several hands must obtain the agreement of each co-author, not only of the main contact. As to legal action, the Court of Cassation holds that “while the co-author of a joint work may act alone to defend their moral right, this is on condition that their contribution can be individualised” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 21 March 2018, No. 17-14.728); failing that, the other co-authors must be joined to the proceedings. The firm identifies the contributors, the nature of their contribution and the authorisations to be obtained.

A collective agreement may set general conditions of assignment, but it is not automatically binding on each employee-author. The Paris judicial court held, for journalists of an audiovisual group, that “the enforceability against the employee of the conditions of assignment stipulated in a collective agreement or accord therefore presupposes that the employee was informed of them and accepted them” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3e ch. 1re sect., 19 March 2026, No. 21/09385). It declared the stipulations in dispute unenforceable against the claimants, for lack of proof of their acceptance, holding that only the author is vested with economic rights within the meaning of Article L. 111-1. The same judgment nevertheless applied to the contracts concerned the presumption of assignment to the audiovisual producer (Article L. 132-24) and dismissed most of the claims for annulment and infringement, only three journalists obtaining damages. For professional journalists, the Code moreover provides for an assignment to the employer of the exploitation rights in works produced for the press title, unless otherwise stipulated (Article L. 132-36), which does not settle every use outside the title. The firm checks whether the employment contract refers to the agreement, whether the employee accepted it and which uses remain to be covered.

An assignment covers only what it delimits. Any new use, on another medium, in another country or beyond the agreed duration must be authorised by the author, unless the contract had already provided for it on conditions. The Court of Cassation illustrates this in a way that is unfavourable to the composer: the court of appeal had noted that “the parties had provided for the possibility of secondary exploitation of the music, and in particular the scoring of an advertising film subject to the composer’s written agreement” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 June 2024, No. 22-24.462), and an email from the author amounted to that agreement, so that the claims on this point were dismissed. The decision shows that a brief written exchange may suffice where the initial contract set up the extension procedure. Conversely, without a clause of this kind, extension requires a new assignment complying with Article L. 131-3 and a negotiated remuneration. The firm reviews the initial contract, lists the envisaged uses and prepares the appropriate amendment or request for authorisation.