Academic Collaboration and Copyright: Key Lessons from Boghossian v IOP Publishing 

For universities, disputes over authorship can quickly become disputes over copyright ownership, publication rights and the commercialisation of research. This is in part because the academic convention of ‘named authors’ does not always reflect the underlying copyright position.

The recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) in Prof. Ardemis Boghossian v IOP Publishing Limited & Anor [2025] EWHC 3317 (IPEC) provides important guidance for universities on copyright created by academics.

In this article we explore the facts of this case and set out key takeaways, along with practical recommendations for universities as to how to best manage joint authorship issues in academic works.

Background to the Boghossian v IOP Publishing dispute

In 2015, Prof. Boghossian was an Assistant Professor at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (“EPFL”), where she led the Laboratory of Nanobiotechnology. She hired Dr Djokic as a postdoctoral researcher to assist with a research project concerning fluorescence in single-walled carbon nanotubes.

In his role as a postdoctoral researcher on this project, Dr Djokic prepared a draft paper entitled “Quantum yield in polymer wrapped single walled carbon nanotubes” (the “Draft Paper”), which he sent to Prof. Boghossian for review in a non-editable form. The Draft Paper listed Prof. Boghossian as an author.

Dr Djokic ceased to be employed in Prof. Boghossian’s lab from December 2015. A dispute subsequently arose in January 2016 when Dr Djokic wished to publish a modified version of the Draft Paper (the “Modified Paper”).

Following a mediation in March and April 2016, facilitated by EPFL’s ethics committee, an agreement was reached as to the conditions of publication of the Modified Paper. However, the terms of the agreement reached were subsequently disputed. In July 2017, Dr Djokic requested and received permission from EPFL to publish the Modified Paper.

Dr Djokic submitted the Modified Paper to IOP Publishing in August 2017 and revised the draft in September 2017, with the paper being published in the Nanotechnology journal in October 2017 (the “Djokic Paper”). The Djokic Paper did not list Prof. Boghossian as an author.

Prof. Boghossian issued proceedings against IOP Publishing, claiming that she was a joint author of the Djokic Paper and so the fact that she had not consented to its publication meant that IOP Publishing had infringed her literary copyright in the work. IOP Publishing, in turn, brought a claim against Dr Djokic on the basis that he had warranted that he owned the copyright in the Djokic Paper and had the authority to publish.

It was accepted by IOP Publishing that a substantial part of the Draft Paper was reproduced both in the Modified Paper and in the Djokic Paper. Prof. Boghossian argued that she had made significant contributions to the content of the Djokic Paper which meant she was a joint author, and such publication was without her consent and therefore infringed copyright. Her argument was based on claims that she:

1. had provided Dr Djokic with an outline for the manuscript (including the structure, a description of each of the sections and transitions between the sections, and relevant literature to cite in the introduction);
2. had added handwritten comments and amendments on a hard copy of the Draft Paper; and
3. was named as a co-author on a conference poster that was produced in September 2015, prior to the production of the Modified Paper and Djokic Paper, which included verbatim quotes from the Draft Paper.

In order to determine whether Prof. Boghossian’s copyright had indeed been infringed, the court evaluated her claims to determine whether she was a joint author of the Djokic Paper.

Revisiting the law on joint authorship

What is joint authorship under copyright law?

As the reader may be aware, joint authorship is a legal concept defined in statute which arises where two or more people collaborate to create a piece of work, where their contributions are not distinct from one another. This definition comes from section 10(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Joint authors share ownership of the copyright in the jointly authored work. Without anything in writing to the contrary, this means that all authors of the work must agree to any exploitation of the work, so one owner cannot license or sell the work without the consent of the other author(s).

The case of Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 remains the leading authority on joint authorship and provides useful guidance as to the practical application of navigating the position on joint authorship. We will revisit the key lessons of this case as the dispute in question and principles established by the court were applied in Boghossian v IOP Publishing.

As a timely reminder, the case itself related to a dispute between professional opera singer Julia Kogan and screenwriter Nicholas Martin over the extent and nature of Ms Kogan’s role in creating early drafts of the screenplay for the 2016 film Florence Foster Jenkins starring Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant.

Key principles from Kogan v Martin

The court in Kogan v Martin, helpfully set out principles of joint authorship as follows:

• There is no requirement that the authors must have subjectively intended to create a work of joint authorship, rather this is judged objectively in relation to the contributions each author makes to the work.
• A work of joint authorship is a work produced by the collaboration of all the people who created it.
• There will be collaboration where people undertake jointly to create a work with a common design to its general outline, sharing in the labour of working this out.
• The contribution of each joint author must not be distinct, but rather a collaboration on the same piece of work. If the contributions are distinct then they may be considered separate co-existing works, for example the works of an illustrator and a writer.
• The fact that one person has the final say on what goes into the work may have some relevance to whether there is a collaboration, but is not conclusive. The author with the final say must be given credit in deciding on the relative proportions of ownership, for the extra work involved in making those choices.
• The contributions of each person need not be equal, but the respective shares of the joint authors will be relative to their contributions.
• The statutory concept of authorship encompasses more than just consideration of who did the writing, recognising that authors can collaborate in many different ways. For example, there may be joint authorship if one person creates the plot and the other writes the words, or if either or both of these types of labour is shared. The concept recognises all those who have created, selected or gathered concepts or emotions which the words have fixed in writing. However, a contribution is not relevant if it does not feature in the final work, for example if it is deleted.
• To be a joint author, a person must contribute a significant amount of skill to the work. Crucially, a party’s contributions must satisfy the Infopaq test in order to be considered “authorial” contributions. To satisfy this test, the party must have contributed elements expressing their own intellectual creation through free and expressive choices. The more restrictive the choices are, the less likely it will be that they satisfy the test. This is particularly relevant in scientific papers, as the scope for creative freedom of expression may be limited or non-existent (as set out in Wright v BTC Core [2023] EWCA Civ 868).
• Derivative works do not lead to joint authorship. A party who only provides editorial corrections, critique or ad hoc suggestions, where there is no wider collaboration, will not qualify as a joint author.

Was Prof. Boghossian a joint author?

As described above, Prof. Boghossian pursued three key arguments in respect of her claim for copyright infringement: (a) she had sketched out the structure of the Draft Paper on a whiteboard; (b) she had made manuscript amendments to hard copy drafts of the Draft Paper; and (c) she had been named as an author on a conference poster which contained quotes from the Draft Paper.

The court applied the principles from Kogan v Martin in order to evaluate these arguments.

1. The Draft Papers structure

The court found that the Draft Paper’s structure was entirely orthodox for a scientific publication (containing only a title, abstract, four sections entitled ‘I. Introduction’, ‘II. Computational Details’, ‘III. Results and Discussion’ and ‘IV Concluding Remarks’, plus acknowledgements and footnotes). The court found that this left no room for creative expression in the Infopaq sense and therefore this was not an “authorial” contribution. Further, the court found that it was not obvious what creative freedom exists in the transitions between the sections, and Prof. Boghossian did not explain this in her evidence. Finally, the literature she had suggested was not cited in the Draft Paper and therefore could not be considered as a contribution. The court therefore concluded that these were not “authorial” contributions and so Prof. Boghossian was not a joint author on these grounds. This argument therefore did not succeed in proving she had copyright in the Djokic Paper.

2. Manuscript amendments

Whilst Prof. Boghossian claimed she had made amendments to hard copy drafts of the Draft Paper, she had no record of what changes she had made and no memory of what the amendments had amounted to. The burden of proof to prove that “authorial” contributions were made rested with Prof. Boghossian and her vague assertions as to her amendments did not stand up without supporting documentation. The court noted that this was particularly relevant given that the room for creative freedom of expression is generally more limited in work on scientific papers. The court found Prof. Boghossian could not reliably identify what an “authorial” contribution amounted to and so it was insufficient to rely on her testimony alone with no supporting evidence. The court therefore found that it could not be satisfied these amendments were “authorial” contributions and so it could not find that Prof. Boghossian was a joint author with copyright in the work on this basis.

3. Conference poster

The court accepted that elements of the text on this poster amounted to a verbatim reproduction of text in the Draft Paper. Prof. Boghossian claimed that she was a joint author on the basis that the poster effectively communicated to the public that she was. However, the court held that the burden of proof rested with Prof. Boghossian to prove that she was a joint author in the legal sense

The court accepted evidence that it is standard practice in academia for a draft paper to list proposed co-authors, who will then only be named as co-authors on the published paper if they actually input into the paper. It was accepted that it is standard practice for the main author to be named first and the professor (as head of the lab) to be named as the last co-author and to provide corrections and supervision. However, should that person not actually input into the paper, they will not be named as a co-author on the published work. The court accepted Dr Djokic’s evidence that this is why Prof. Boghossian had been named as a co-author on the Draft Paper and conference poster but then removed as an author on the Modified Paper and Djokic Paper. The court held that it could not draw inferences on the legal joint authorship on the basis of Prof. Boghossian’s name appearing on the conference poster. This argument therefore also did not support Prof. Boghossian’s claim that she was a joint author with copyright in the Djokic Paper.

The court concluded that Prof. Boghossian had failed to prove that she had provided “authorial” contribution and therefore dismissed her claim.

What universities should learn from Boghossian v IOP Publishing

This case is particularly critical for universities and further education institutions where academics collaborate on research papers and other works which may be protected by copyright. It highlights several practical lessons for institutions seeking to reduce the risk of copyright disputes:

Being a named author does not always correlate to copyright ownership

This case illustrates the distinction between academic practice and copyright law. In academia, it may be customary for a supervisor to be named as a co-author, for example on conference presentations or posters, but this does not necessarily correlate with the ownership of copyright in the work. To be a joint author under English law, a supervisor must have provided “authorial” contributions as set out in the case of Kogan v Martin.

It is important that all academic staff understand the distinction between authorship in the academic practice and copyright law and the implications on their intellectual property rights. Academic convention may recognise a supervisor’s role by naming them as a co-author, but copyright law requires a higher threshold. Should they not qualify as a joint author under English copyright law, then they will have no control on how the work is exploited and may receive no benefit from the same.

Universities should consider embedding IP training requirements within their institutional IP policies and making such training a mandatory component of induction for new academic staff. Training should explain that a contribution will only be “authorial” if it involves the exercise of free and creative choices that are expressed in the final work; merely being listed as a co-author on a paper will not suffice.

Supervisory input is unlikely to amount to joint authorship

A standard supervisory role, encompassing general guidance, ad hoc suggestions, and editorial amendments, is unlikely to constitute joint authorship. For there to be joint authorship, the supervisor must be a collaborator on the work to the extent that they contribute intellectual creativity through free and expressive choices, which is reflected in the final work.

This is particularly significant for universities, where supervisor-supervisee relationships are central to the research model. Supervisors may assume they hold joint ownership of works produced under their oversight and may be surprised to find they have no legal right to control publication or share in any commercialisation of the research. Equally, junior researchers may not appreciate that they could be the sole legal authors of works on which their supervisors are named. Such confusion could lead to disputes between students and staff. Disputes can damage institutional reputation, consume administrative resources and funds, and disrupt research programmes.

Documentation of contributions is critical

This case highlights the importance of ensuring academic staff document their work in order to protect their intellectual property rights in such works. A central difficulty for Prof. Boghossian was that she did not have documentation to evidence her contributions.

Universities should encourage researchers to maintain clear records of their contributions. This is particularly important in circumstances, such as scientific research, where papers can take years in development before publication. Many different people may contribute over the course of a project and people may leave the university during this time. Come publication, documentation of different people’s contributions will be crucial to establish copyright ownership and potentially to track the chain of ownership if such ownership is transferred.

Clear intellectual property policies, employment contracts and collaboration agreements are essential

This case underlines the need for universities to have clear contractual arrangements and policies in place to govern intellectual property ownership in academic collaborations. This is particularly important given that the complications that can occur due to the different positions within the university held by those creating the intellectual property.

The default position is that an employer will own the copyright in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works created by employees in the course of their employment, subject to any agreement to the contrary., in this instance, both Prof. Boghossian and Dr Djokic’s contracts provided that the researchers themselves would own the rights. Where this is the case, it is important to ensure:

• clarity of ownership in the intellectual property created; and
• that the university is granted appropriate licences to use the work for its educational and research purposes, and to commercialise the work if the university funded the project.

Practical steps universities should consider

Where possible, intellectual property ownership, licensing and publication rights should be addressed at the outset of a project, rather than retrospectively. This is particularly important where multiple researchers are involved across different institutions.

Having written contracts in place helps address the rights individuals and institutions have in any intellectual property rights created, which can help mitigate the risk of disputes.

Universities should also ensure that there are clear employment contracts and intellectual property policies in place, to ensure clarity on the intellectual property ownership position and ensure that the university can use and commercialise work created as necessary.

Universities should:

• maintain intellectual property policies and ensure these are clearly communicated to academics;
• ensure employment contracts for academics and other staff contain robust intellectual property provisions;
• ensure written records are maintained throughout research projects setting out each individual/institution’s contribution;
• ensure the intellectual property position is agreed at the outset of collaborations and collaboration agreements contain robust intellectual property provisions; and
• provide regular intellectual property training to academic staff and researchers on the ownership and licensing of intellectual property rights.

We are here to help

This case serves as an important reminder that academic authorship customs and copyright law do not always align. For academic collaborations, early advice can help minimise the risk of disputes and provide clarity from the outset.

If your institution requires advice on academic collaborations, managing disputes in relation to authorship and copyright ownership, or taking proactive action to protect against such disputes, please get in touch with a member of our commercial services team.

We work closely with our education and employment teams to provide expert advice to universities on intellectual property ownership, governance and commercialisation issues.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to address the circumstances of any individual or entity, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific advice from a qualified solicitor. The information reflects the legal position as at the date specified and may be subject to change. If you require advice on a specific matter, please contact us directly.