to use the articles insofar as they were incorporated in the manuscript, for without such a license, Oddo’s contribution to the partnership venture would have been of minimal value.”). Alternatively, it is also arguable that the book itself constitutes a “joint work” within the meaning of the Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“A ‘joint work’ is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”). This would also mean that Wallenfang’s claim would fail since “[t]he authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work,” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), and a joint copyright owner cannot sue his or her co-owner for infringement. See Donna v. Dodd, Mead & Co., 374 F.Supp. 429, 430 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (<HOLDING>). Under either scenario, Wallenfang’s copyright
holding that childrens book for which plaintiff provided the text and defendant provided the illustrated photographs was a joint work in which each party owned an undivided ownership and thus neither could be held liable to the other for copyright infringement holding that where codefendants conducted a joint defense that provided a benefit to each defendant the joint services represented fair consideration for the payment of reasonable compensation regardless of which defendant paid the bill holding that fees are not recoverable for work for which the client could not be charged holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the tcpa holding defendant liable for attorneys fees when the guaranty contract at issue provided for the payment of collection costs and expenses