Copyright and undivided ownership: can one author alone take action in the event of infringement, or must all heirs participate?

Audiovisual works (such as films) or music often involve multiple authors. But what happens if an infringement occurs and you want to take action, but you cannot find the other rights holders or their heirs? In the Chabrol ruling (C-182/24) of 18 December 2025, the European Court of Justice provides clarity. The short answer: national procedural rules may require all authors to act jointly, unless this makes it practically impossible for you to enforce your rights. In that case, the right of access to the courts takes precedence.

The facts and context

The case revolves around the estate of renowned French director Claude Chabrol and screenwriter Paul Gégauff. Between 1967 and 1974, they collaborated on fourteen films. The heirs of both men determined that these films were exploited by various distribution companies without (in their opinion) receiving the correct compensation or having contracts complied with.

When the heirs went to court, the distributors raised a procedural hurdle. They invoked French law (Article L. 113-3 of the Intellectual Property Code), which states that co-authors of a collaborative work must exercise their rights “by mutual agreement.” The defense argued that the claim was inadmissible because not all co-authors (or their heirs) were parties to the proceedings.

This created a stalemate. Although the plaintiffs had tracked down various other rights holders and involved them in the proceedings, the age of the films and the large number of parties involved made it impossible to identify and involve every heir of every contributor (dialogue writers, composers, etc.). The French court then asked the European Court of Justice whether such a national rule, which effectively blocks legal proceedings, is contrary to European law.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had to rule on whether strict national procedural rules may paralyze the enforcement of copyrights.

The key points of the decision are as follows:

• National autonomy: The Court confirms, first of all, that EU directives (such as Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights) do not contain specific rules on how co-authors should act jointly. Member States therefore have “procedural autonomy” to regulate this themselves.
• The limits of autonomy: However, this autonomy is not absolute. National procedures must not be “unnecessarily complicated or costly”.
• Principle of effectiveness: The Court rules that a rule requiring all co-authors to be involved is not contrary to EU law, provided that that this does not make the exercise of rights “extremely difficult or impossible”.
• Impact of the Charter: Where it proves impossible to locate all the heirs, strict application of the national rule infringes the fundamental right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU).

The Court's conclusion is clear: if the claimant has made reasonable efforts but cannot locate all co-owners, the court must nevertheless declare the claim admissible.

Legal analysis and interpretation

The Chabrol ruling forces us to take a fresh look at the procedural obstacles within Belgian copyright law, specifically with regard to collaborative works. Although theruling primarily assesses French procedural rules, it also has an impact on the provisions of the Belgian Code of Economic Law (CEL).

In Belgium, collaborative works are subject to a regime of joint ownership. Article XI.168 of the CEL establishes the principle that co-authors must exercise their rights jointly. As a result, no author may exploit the work separately without the consent of the others.

However, the legislator has provided for safety valves to prevent total blockage:

• Contractual freedom: Authors may deviate from joint exercise by agreement.
• Judicial intervention: In the event of disagreement, the court may decide. The judge has broad discretion in this regard and may even allow publication despite the opposition of a co-author, possibly subject to financial compensation or anonymization of the refusing party.

However, in the context of (procedural) enforcement, a distinction must be made between a claim for damages and a prohibutory injunction claim:

• Claim for damages: Belgian law is already flexible in this regard. Article XI.168, paragraph 2 of the CEL explicitly stipulates that each co-author can only take action for copyright infringement to claim his share of the damages. The presence of other co-authors in the proceedings is not required for this.
• Action for injunction (prohibition): Because an injunction (e.g., prohibiting the screening of a film) affects the entire work and cannot be divided, case law has sometimes assumed that all co-authors must be involved. This can lead to situations where a single untraceable heir effectively grants immunity to an infringer.

The Court of Justice has now ruled that a national procedural rule requiring the participation of all co-authors, does not conflict with Union law, provided that this rule does not render the exercise of rights impossible or excessively difficult.

In concrete terms, this means the following for Belgian legal practice:

1. Assessment against Article 47 of the Charter: The court must assess whether the requirement that all co-authors must be present as plaintiffs in proceedings does not create a disproportionate barrier.
2. Exception in case of force majeure: If, despite “significant efforts,” a co-author cannot be identified or located, the court may not declare the active author's claim inadmissible.
3. Shift in the burden of proof: The claimant will have to demonstrate that it has done everything possible to resolve the dispute. If it succeeds in doing so, the way to court must be open, even for a claim for a strike affecting the entire workplace.

Please note: in the case of audiovisual works (such as in the case Chabrol) the situation is often even more complex due to the large number of employees involved. Article XI.179 of the CEL designates the director, screenwriter, adapter, scriptwriter, composer, and (in the case of animation) the illustrator as the presumed authors. In addition, Belgium applies a rebuttable presumption of transfer of exploitation rights to the producer (Art. XI.182 CEL). However, conflicts often arise in the case of audiovisual works – as in this case – that date from before the current legislation of 2015, and where contracts are unclear, or when the producer goes bankrupt and rights become fragmented. In such cases, the rights often revert to the authors, resulting in the rules of Art. XI.168 and the correction of Chabrol apply in full.

Specifically, what does this mean for you?

Are you involved in a collaborative project? These are the consequences:

• For exploitation (granting licenses): You still need the agreement of all co-authors. You cannot decide on your own to license or transfer the work to a third party. Is there disagreement? Then you must go to court to request authorization.
• In case of infringement (third parties infringe your copyright) You can go to court individually to claim compensation for your share.
• In case of procedural blockage: Is a co-author untraceable (for example, emigrated without leaving an address) and do you want to stop an infringement? You must demonstrate that you have made “significant efforts” to find them. If you prove this, the court may not refuse you access to the proceedings on the basis of the absence of that co-author.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Does this ruling also apply to Belgian court cases?
Yes. The Court of Justice interprets EU law, which takes precedence over national legislation. Belgian judges are obliged to interpret their procedural rules in such a way that they are in accordance with this ruling (conform interpretation) or, if necessary, to disregard the strict national rule.

Can I exploit my contribution to a joint work separately?
That depends on whether the work is divisible. If your contribution (e.g., text) can be separated from the rest (e.g., music), you may exploit it separately, as long as this does not harm the exploitation of the joint work (Art. XI.179 CEL). If the work is indivisible (a “work of collaboration”), you need permission from the other authors.

Who is considered a co-author of a film or video?
The law designates specific individuals as presumed authors: the director, the screenwriter, the author of the dialogues, and the composer of music written specifically for the work (and, in the case of animation, also the graphic designer). Other contributors (such as cameramen or set designers) must prove that their contribution was creative and decisive in order to be recognized as co-authors.

Can I only initiate legal proceedings if the other co-authors disagree?
Yes, but with one important distinction. You can always act alone when claiming compensation (for damages). However, if you want to prohibit exploitation (cessation) and another co-author explicitly refuses to cooperate, you must first ask the court to settle this dispute, as in principle you must decide jointly on the management of the work.

Do I have to share the proceeds from my lawsuit with the other authors?
No. The law stipulates that you can only claim compensation for “your share.” The judge will calculate your compensation according to your share in the work. The other authors will receive nothing unless they voluntarily join the case.

What if we don't know who the other heirs are?
In the past, this could block legal proceedings, especially if you wanted to demand a ban on exploitation. Thanks to the ruling Chabrol this has been resolved: if you can demonstrate that you have made serious efforts to find the heirs without success, the court may not reject your claim solely on the grounds that you are alone. In Belgian legal practice, this was already accepted in any case for claims for damages.

Conclusion

Undivided copyright can lead to complex situations, especially when relationships deteriorate or heirs come into the picture. The Court of Justice confirms that the legal system must be flexible: formal rules should not make it impossible to protect your intellectual property. For Belgian legal practice, this means that individual actions by co-authors will be more feasible.