Unanimous Agreement

How could Kinoe and B, as co-authors, jointly enjoy copyright? If they could reach an agreement, they would exercise the copyright jointly. If they could not reach an agreement, Kinoe and B would each have the right to exercise any right other than the right to transfer the copyright. Therefore, Kinoe's uploading of the work to the internet without your permission was an act of making the work available through an information network. It did not infringe the jointly owned copyright in the collaborative work. Your setting a link to Kinoe's blog was likewise not infringing. Since Kinoe's act of uploading did not infringe the copyright jointly enjoyed by the co-authors, then setting the link would not constitute infringement either. Likewise, Ding did not infringe. Ding copied and distributed the work, and B's consent as a co-author was sufficient. Keep going! When the co-authors could not reach an agreement, Kinoe had the right, without B's permission, to permit others to reproduce and distribute the work, though the resulting proceeds should be reasonably divided. Kinoe possessed the rights of publication and dissemination through information networks. Where a collaborative work could not be used separately, Kinoe could exercise any copyright other than transfer without B's permission, including publication and dissemination through information networks. Kinoe's uploading of it to the internet did not constitute an infringement of B's jointly owned copyright, so A was wrong. The claim that setting a link infringed Kinoe's information-network dissemination right was also wrong. Since Kinoe's uploading did not infringe the jointly owned copyright in the collaborative work, setting a link did not aid or expand an infringing act and thus did not constitute infringement. The claim that Ding's act of copying and distribution still constituted infringement even though Kinoe and B had been paid remuneration was wrong.