Entertainment & Arts Law · Intellectual Property & Copyright
Assigning and licensing copyright in creative work.
A writer, composer or choreographer owns copyright the moment the work is fixed in a material form. What happens next, whether you hand it over or let someone use it, is the difference between assigning and licensing. One transfers ownership, the other grants permission. Here is how each works, and the writing the law requires.
By Aaron Kernaghan · Brady & Associates Lawyers · 18 September 2026
This article is for informational purposes and general commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.
When you write a song, a script or a choreographic work, you own the copyright in it from the moment it is put in material form. The value in that copyright is realised by letting other people use it: a producer stages the play, a label releases the recording, a company tours the show. Two legal tools do that work, assignment and licence, and they are not the same thing. Choosing the wrong one, or papering it loosely, can cost a creator control of their own work.
What is the difference between assigning and licensing copyright?
An assignment transfers ownership of the copyright to someone else. After a full assignment, the person who created the work no longer owns it, and can be stopped from using it like anyone else. A licence is permission to use the copyright while the owner keeps it. The creator stays the owner and grants defined rights to the other party. Assignment is like selling the house; a licence is like renting a room in it.
The practical effect is large. If a composer assigns copyright in a score to a production company, the company owns it, can license or sell it on, and can stop the composer using it elsewhere unless the deal says otherwise. If the composer instead grants a licence for a particular season, the composer keeps ownership and every right not licensed. Which one fits depends on what each side needs, and it should be a deliberate choice rather than an accident of wording. Who owns copyright in the first place is covered in the note on who owns copyright in a performance, script or choreography.
Does a copyright assignment have to be in writing?
Yes. Section 196 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) says an assignment of copyright, whether total or partial, has no effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor. An oral promise to hand over copyright does not, by itself, transfer it. This catches people in the arts, where deals are often done on a handshake or across an email chain. The full text is on the Federal Register of Legislation.
A signed writing is not just a formality. It is what makes the transfer effective at law. Where there is only an unwritten agreement to assign, a court may in some cases enforce it in equity, treating the person as holding the copyright for the other, but that is a harder and more costly path than a clear signed document. The safer course is to record any assignment in a signed document that names the work and the rights passing.
Can you assign only part of your copyright?
Yes. Section 196 also allows a partial assignment. Copyright is a bundle of separate rights, and an assignment can be limited to one or more of the classes of acts the owner controls, to a place in or part of Australia, or to part of the period for which the copyright lasts. So a writer can assign the stage rights while keeping the film and publishing rights, or assign rights for one territory and keep the rest.
This is where careful drafting earns its keep. A creator who signs a broad assignment of all rights gives away far more than one who assigns only the specific rights the other side actually needs. Splitting the bundle by right, place and time lets a creator earn from a work in one market while holding on to the others. Getting the scope right at the start is much easier than trying to claw rights back later.
What is an exclusive licence, and why does it matter?
A licence can be exclusive or non-exclusive, and the difference decides who can enforce the copyright. An exclusive licence is defined in section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) as a licence in writing, signed by or on behalf of the owner, authorising the licensee to do an act to the exclusion of all other people, including the owner. So during an exclusive licence even the owner cannot do the licensed act.
The reason it matters beyond exclusivity is standing to sue. Under section 119, an exclusive licensee can bring infringement proceedings in its own right, alongside the owner. A non-exclusive licensee cannot. A producer who wants to be able to chase infringers of a show it has licensed will want an exclusive licence in writing, not a loose permission. Enforcing copyright is covered in the note on enforcing your copyright.
Can a licence be verbal or implied?
A non-exclusive licence can be. Unlike an assignment or an exclusive licence, a non-exclusive licence does not have to be in writing. It can be given orally, and it can be implied from the conduct of the parties or the circumstances in which a work was made. If a designer is paid to create a poster for a specific show, a court may imply a licence to use it for that show even if nothing was signed.
Implied licences are useful but risky, because their scope is uncertain and read narrowly. An implied licence to use a poster for one production will not usually stretch to merchandise, a national tour, or a sequel. A party that relies on an implied licence may find its rights are narrower than it assumed, which weakens any claim. A short written licence that states the permitted uses avoids the argument.
What about future works and moral rights?
Copyright in a work that does not yet exist can still be dealt with. Section 197 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allows the assignment of future copyright, so a creator can agree to assign copyright in a work still to be made, and the copyright vests in the assignee as soon as the work comes into existence. Commissioning deals often use this, covered in the note on commissioning a new work and who owns it. A creator should read a future-copyright clause closely, because it can hand over rights in works not yet imagined.
One thing an assignment does not carry is moral rights. The right to be named as author and the right against derogatory treatment stay with the creator and cannot be assigned. They can only be dealt with by written consent. So even a creator who assigns all copyright keeps their moral rights, covered in the note on moral rights for performers and creatives. A well-drafted deal treats copyright and moral rights as two separate questions.
What this means before you sign
For a creator, the message is to know which tool is on the table. An assignment is a sale of ownership and needs a signed writing. A licence is permission, and it can be shaped by right, place, time and exclusivity. Read the scope, not just the heading, because a document titled a licence can still assign key rights, and an assignment of all rights, present and future, can carry works not yet created.
For a producer or company, the safer course is to take only the rights the project needs, in writing, and to be clear about exclusivity and term. A right you assumed you held, found later to be a narrow implied licence, is an expensive thing to discover in court. If you are negotiating an assignment or a licence over creative work, get advice on the scope before you sign, not after the work has been used.
Frequently asked.
What is the difference between assigning and licensing copyright?
Assigning copyright transfers ownership to someone else, so the creator no longer owns it. Licensing grants permission to use the copyright while the creator keeps ownership. An assignment is like selling the work; a licence is like letting someone use it on defined terms. A licence can be limited by the acts allowed, the place, the time and whether it is exclusive.
Does a copyright assignment have to be in writing in Australia?
Yes. Under section 196 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), an assignment of copyright, whether total or partial, has no effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor. An oral promise to assign does not by itself transfer copyright, although a court may in some cases enforce an unwritten agreement to assign in equity.
Can you assign only some of your copyright?
Yes. Section 196 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) allows a partial assignment. Copyright is a bundle of rights, so an assignment can be limited to particular classes of acts, to a place in or part of Australia, or to part of the copyright term. A creator can assign the stage rights while keeping the film and publishing rights, for example.
What is an exclusive licence under the Copyright Act 1968?
An exclusive licence, defined in section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), is a licence in writing signed by or on behalf of the owner that authorises the licensee to do an act to the exclusion of everyone else, including the owner. Under section 119 an exclusive licensee can sue for infringement in its own right, which a non-exclusive licensee cannot.
Can a copyright licence be verbal?
A non-exclusive licence can be. It does not have to be in writing and can be oral or implied from conduct. An exclusive licence must be in writing and signed. Implied licences are read narrowly, so a permission implied for one use, such as a poster for one show, will not usually cover merchandise, a tour or a sequel.
Does assigning copyright transfer your moral rights?
No. Moral rights, the right to be named as author and the right against derogatory treatment, cannot be assigned. They stay with the creator and can only be dealt with by written consent. So a creator who assigns all copyright still keeps their moral rights, and a deal should address copyright and moral rights separately.
If you are a performer, producer, venue, or independent practitioner and this raises a question about your own situation, Aaron Kernaghan and the team at Brady & Associates Lawyers can give you tailored guidance. Call 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.
This article is for informational purposes and general commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. It reflects the law in Australia as at 18 September 2026, with a focus on Commonwealth law and New South Wales and ACT practice. The law changes and applies differently to every set of facts. Written by Aaron Kernaghan, Brady & Associates Lawyers.