Let us begin with the most important distinction.

The author answers the question:

Who created the work?

The rights holder answers a different question:

Who currently owns certain exclusive or economic rights in that work?

Very often, those roles belong to the same person.

A songwriter writes a song and does not transfer any rights. In that case, the songwriter is both the author and the owner of the rights.

But later, rights may be transferred:

Author → Publisher

Author → Label

Author → Producer

Author → Company

Author → Another Individual

After such a transaction, the owner of the economic rights may change.

That does not automatically mean that the person who created the work has changed.

This is where the everyday phrase “I sold my copyright” starts becoming misleading.

In many legal systems, the more accurate formulation would be:

The author transferred the exclusive economic rights in the work they created.

Because transferring economic control over a song does not necessarily mean transferring authorship.

---

One of the foundations of the international copyright system is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Article 6bis is especially important for this discussion.

It separates the author’s economic rights from what are commonly called moral rights.

The principle is expressed clearly: independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of those economic rights, the author retains the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to certain distortions or modifications that may prejudice the author’s honour or reputation. (WIPO)

This point is essential:

The Berne model accepts that one person may remain the author of a work while the economic rights belong to somebody else.

In other words, the relationship:

“I created this work”

and the relationship:

“I control its commercial exploitation”

are not the same legal relationship.

---

When we talk about authorship, we are not talking merely about a decorative credit line.

Authorship is a distinct legal interest.

In the classical continental European tradition, this may include rights such as:

• the right to be recognized as the author of the work;
• the right to determine how the author’s name is used;
• the right to use a real name;
• the right to use a pseudonym;
• the right, in certain circumstances, to remain anonymous;
• the right to object to certain distortions or modifications of the work.

The exact scope of these rights varies from country to country.

But the central idea remains broadly recognizable:

authorship is connected to the fact of creative creation, not to who later paid for the economic rights.

---

4. Selling Rights and Selling Authorship Are Two Different Things

Imagine a simple situation.

A composer writes a song.

A year later, a music company offers to acquire the exclusive rights.

The parties sign an agreement.

After the transaction, the company receives very broad economic control over the work.

Depending on the contract and the applicable law, it may be able to:

• license the song;
• authorize reproduction;
• authorize distribution;
• approve its use in a film;
• grant licenses to third parties;
• collect the corresponding income;
• prevent others from engaging in certain uses.

But who wrote the composition?

The same composer.

The rights holder has changed.

The history of creation has not.

This can be expressed in a very simple formula:

Ownership can change. Creation cannot be rewritten retroactively.

The ownership of economic rights can change.

The historical fact of who created the work cannot be changed retroactively.

There is, however, an important American exception that we will return to later: work made for hire.

---

5. What Happens in the European Union?

It is important to be careful when speaking about a single “EU copyright system.”

The European Union has significantly harmonized economic rights, digital exploitation, licensing, and many other copyright-related issues.

But moral rights have not been fully harmonized at EU level.

Directive 2001/29/EC expressly notes that moral rights remain subject to the legislation of the Member States and the relevant international conventions, and are outside the scope of the Directive itself. (EUR-Lex)

So it would be incorrect to say that France, Germany, Czechia, Italy and Spain all apply one identical model of moral rights.

They do not.

Still, continental European legal systems generally recognize a strong relationship between a work and its human creator.

France

The French Code de la propriété intellectuelle provides that the author has the right to respect for their name, status and work.

The law describes this right as attached to the person of the author, perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. (Légifrance)

So selling exploitation rights does not allow the buyer simply to rewrite the history of creation and declare itself to be the author.

Germany

The German system goes even further in its basic legal architecture.

Section 29 of the German Urheberrechtsgesetz establishes the general principle that copyright as such is not transferable, apart from specific inheritance-related situations.

Instead, the author grants another party Nutzungsrechte — rights of use. (German Federal Ministry of Justice)

This is very revealing.

In English-language business correspondence, parties may casually say:

“We bought the copyright.”

But in German legal terms, the question is framed much more precisely:

Which rights of use were granted, and to what extent?

The author does not cease to be the author.

---

6. The EU Protects Authors Even After Economic Rights Are Transferred

There is another important element in modern European law.

EU copyright policy recognizes that authors and performers may often be the weaker bargaining party compared with publishers, producers or other commercial entities.

This is expressly reflected in Directive (EU) 2019/790.

The Directive repeatedly refers to authors who license or transfer their rights for exploitation. (EUR-Lex)

Notice the language.

Even after the rights have been transferred, the legislation still refers to that person as the author.

The economic rights may have moved.

The authorship has not disappeared.

The Directive also provides mechanisms involving transparency, contract adjustment and, in certain cases, revocation of exclusive rights where a work is not being exploited. (EUR-Lex)

The financial consequences of these provisions deserve a separate discussion and will be the subject of Part II.

For now, the important principle is this:

The transfer of economic rights and the disappearance of authorship are not the same legal event.

---

7. Russia: Here the Answer Is Particularly Clear

The Russian Civil Code draws a very clear distinction.

Article 1228 defines the author of an intellectual result as the person whose creative activity produced that result.

At the same time, the right of authorship, the right to the author’s name and other personal non-property rights are inalienable and non-transferable.

Any waiver of such rights is void. (Consultant.ru)

Article 1265 is even more explicit.

The right of authorship and the right to a name cannot be transferred to another person even if the exclusive right in the work is transferred or otherwise passes to another party. (Consultant.ru)

This means that an agreement essentially stating:

“The author permanently transfers to the company the right to be regarded as the creator of the work”

does not transform the company into the factual author.

Russian law goes even further:

a waiver of the author’s own authorship right is void.

---

8. So What Can Be Fully Transferred in Russia?

The author may transfer the exclusive right in the work.

Article 1285 of the Russian Civil Code expressly provides for an agreement on the alienation of an exclusive right, under which the author or another rights holder transfers the exclusive right in full to the acquirer. (Consultant.ru)

After that transfer, the new rights holder receives economic control over the work within the scope established by law.

But the statements:

“The exclusive right belongs to the company”

and

“The company is the author of the work”

are not synonymous.

For example:

Music and lyrics — John Smith

Exclusive rights — Example Music Ltd.

This is an entirely normal legal structure.

---

9. Can a Company Be an Author Under Russian Law?

As a general rule, the author is the individual whose creative work produced the protected work.

A company can become a rights holder.

It can acquire an exclusive right.

It may receive rights arising from an employee’s work where the law so provides.

It may control the commercial exploitation of the work.

But none of that, by itself, makes a legal entity the human being whose creative activity produced the lyrics or melody. (Consultant.ru)

This is why, when reading a contract, one should not look only for the word “rights holder.”

The provisions dealing with authorship and credit matter just as much.

---

10. What About the CIS Countries?

An important methodological caveat is necessary here.

There is no single unified body of “CIS copyright law.”

Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Belarus and other countries all have their own legislation, civil codes, court practice and contractual structures.

So it would be inaccurate to state:

“This is the rule across the CIS.”

What we can do instead is identify similar tendencies and examine individual jurisdictions.

Several examples show a recognizable pattern.

---

Kazakhstan’s Law on Copyright and Related Rights expressly distinguishes between personal non-property rights and economic rights.

Article 15 protects the right to be recognized as the author and the right to a name, and provides that personal non-property rights remain with the author even where exclusive exploitation rights are assigned, and are inalienable. (Adilet)

Economic rights, meanwhile, may be transferred in whole or in part. (Adilet)

The Civil Code of Kazakhstan likewise provides that personal non-property rights remain with the author when economic rights pass to another person, and that authorship may belong only to the person whose creative activity produced the result. (Adilet)

Again, the same structure appears:

authorship remains with the creator; commercial rights may move elsewhere.

---

Armenia’s Law on Copyright and Related Rights defines the author as the natural person who created the work.

It separately protects the right to be recognized as the author, the right to a name, protection of reputation and other personal rights.

These moral rights are described as inalienable and non-transferable. (ARLIS)

At the same time, economic rights may be transferred to another party by contract, and exploitation agreements may be exclusive or non-exclusive. (ARLIS)

Once again:

transferring economic control does not erase the person who created the work.

---

A particularly clear formulation also appears in Uzbek judicial interpretation.

The Supreme Court explains that personal non-property rights determine the creative status of the creator, belong to the author and cannot be alienated.

Moreover, those rights remain in place even after economic rights have passed to other persons.

The Court gives failure by a publisher to identify the author, despite having acquired exclusive rights, as an example of a potential violation. (LEX.UZ)

This is an excellent illustration of the central issue:

A company may own the exclusive economic rights and still violate the author’s rights if it begins acting as though the author no longer exists.

---

14. The United States: Here the European Logic Becomes More Complicated

The American system requires separate treatment.

As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Act also begins with the author.

Section 201 provides that copyright initially vests in the author or authors of the work.

But copyright ownership in the United States may later be transferred, including in separate parts. (U.S. Copyright Office)

A typical situation may therefore look like this:

Songwriter → Copyright Assignment → Publishing Company

After the assignment, the company may become the copyright owner.

But this does not mean that an ordinary purchase of copyright automatically rewrites history and turns the purchaser into the person who physically wrote the song.

The United States does, however, differ significantly from continental Europe when it comes to moral rights.

---

15. Why Contractual Credit Is Especially Important in the United States

The United States does not have a broad, universal federal moral-rights regime for musical works equivalent to the classical French model.

The U.S. Copyright Office describes the American protection of attribution and integrity as a combination of different federal laws, state laws and contractual mechanisms.

The special federal moral-rights framework created by the Visual Artists Rights Act primarily concerns certain works of visual art rather than establishing a universal attribution right for music. (U.S. Copyright Office)

The Copyright Office has also specifically discussed the importance of contractual attribution protections within the music industry. (U.S. Copyright Office)

That means the word:

Credit

may be much more important in an American music contract than many creators assume.

One should not automatically rely on the continental European intuition:

“My authorship is obvious, so surely they must still name me.”

In the United States, contractual credit provisions must be read with particular care.

---

16. The Major American Exception: Work Made for Hire

This brings us to a legal concept that can genuinely change the answer to the question:

“Who is the author?”

The U.S. Copyright Act recognizes the concept of a work made for hire.

Where a work validly qualifies under that doctrine, an employer or, in certain statutorily defined cases, a commissioning party may be treated as the author for purposes of the Copyright Act.

The U.S. Copyright Office states this very clearly:

for a work made for hire, the party that employed or commissioned the work, where the legal requirements are satisfied, is considered the author and copyright owner. (U.S. Copyright Office — Circular 30)

This is a fundamental difference from Russian law and from many continental European systems.

---

17. But Writing “Work Made for Hire” in a Contract Is Not Magic

This can create another common misconception:

“If the client writes Work Made for Hire into the contract, then they automatically become the author of any commissioned song.”

No.

The Copyright Office explains that there are essentially two main situations.

The first:

the work is created by an employee within the scope of employment.

The second:

the work is specially commissioned, the parties expressly agree in writing that it will be treated as a work made for hire, and the work falls within one of the statutory categories listed in the Copyright Act. (U.S. Copyright Office)

Those categories include, among others:

• a contribution to a collective work;
• part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work;
• a translation;
• a compilation;
• a supplementary work;
• an instructional text;
• a test;
• answer material for a test;
• an atlas.

A standalone song commissioned from an independent songwriter does not automatically become a work made for hire simply because money was paid and the contract uses that phrase.

The Copyright Office specifically discusses the application of work-for-hire principles to musical works. (U.S. Copyright Office)

So an American contract cannot be evaluated merely by reading its heading.

The actual legal requirements and factual circumstances must be examined.

---

18. A Very Practical Question: What Does the © Line Mean?

Suppose a song was written by:

John Smith

but all transferable economic rights were acquired by:

Example Music Ltd.

A release may perfectly well contain:

Written by John Smith

© 2026 Example Music Ltd.

There is no contradiction.

The first line tells us:

who created the work.

The second tells us:

who owns the relevant copyright or economic rights.

That is why the © symbol should not automatically be read as:

“This is the author.”

Very often, it answers a completely different question.

---

19. Music Becomes Even More Complicated Once the Recording Is Involved

A song is not necessarily one single legal object.

At the very least, there may be:

Musical Work / Composition

The music and, where applicable, the lyrics.

Sound Recording / Master

The particular recorded performance of that composition.

These rights may belong to entirely different persons or companies.

So this structure is completely normal:

Written by John Smith

© Example Publishing Ltd.

℗ Example Records Ltd.

Here:

John Smith is the creator of the composition;

Example Publishing owns the relevant rights in the composition;

Example Records owns the rights in the specific sound recording or master.

Transferring master rights does not make the master owner the author of the lyrics or melody.

And the reverse is equally true.

---

20. Can the Author’s Real Name Simply Be Removed?

Again, several situations must be distinguished.

The Author Uses a Pseudonym

This is perfectly normal.

A creator may publish under a stage or professional name.

The Author Chooses Anonymity

In many legal systems, this may also be an exercise of the author’s right concerning attribution and name.

The Author Agrees to a Particular Credit Format

A contract may specify exactly how the author is to be credited.

The Purchaser of the Rights Simply Claims the Work as Its Own

That is a very different situation.

In Russia and in many continental European systems, acquisition of the economic rights does not in itself entitle the purchaser to present itself as the factual creator of the work.

Kazakhstan and Armenia show the same basic distinction.

In Uzbekistan, judicial guidance expressly identifies the failure of a rights holder to credit the actual author as a potential infringement. (LEX.UZ)

In the United States, the obligation to provide attribution is more complex, which makes contractual credit protection particularly important.

---

21. The Rights Holder Can Change Ten Times. The Author Does Not.

Imagine the following chain:

2026 — the author creates a song

↓

economic rights are transferred to Publisher A

↓

Publisher A sells the catalogue to Publisher B

↓

Publisher B is acquired by an international corporation

↓

the catalogue moves to Company C

↓

twenty years later, it is bought by an investment fund

The economic owner of the work may have changed five times.

But the question:

Who wrote the song in 2026?

remains a historical fact.

That is why music publishing catalogues often contain information about writers and information about publishers / rights holders at the same time.

This is not duplication.

It is the description of different legal roles.

---

22. The Most Dangerous Clause Is Not Necessarily “Transfer All Rights”

Creators often become alarmed by phrases such as:

assigns all rights, title and interest

while paying less attention to other provisions.

But when the question is whether the creator preserves a legal and public connection to the work, the following clauses may be just as important:

credit

attribution

name

pseudonym

waiver of moral rights

consent to modifications

work made for hire

right to edit

right to adapt

right to create derivative works

copyright ownership

master ownership

These provisions may have very different consequences.

Especially where the agreement is intended to operate across multiple jurisdictions.

A clause that has one effect in the United States may not have an identical effect in France, Germany, Russia or Kazakhstan.

---

23. Why the Phrase “Sell the Copyright Completely” Is Not Precise Enough

After examining these systems, it becomes clear how imprecise the popular question really is:

“Can copyright be sold completely?”

The correct questions are more detailed.

Who is the author?

Who creatively created the work?

Which rights initially belong to the author?

Which rights can be transferred?

Which rights cannot be transferred?

Is ownership being transferred, or is a licence being granted?

Which rights remain with the author after the transaction?

How will the author’s name be credited?

Is the use of a pseudonym permitted?

May the purchaser modify the work?

Which law governs the agreement?

In which territories does it operate?

Does the agreement contain a work-made-for-hire clause?

Only after answering all of these questions can we understand what the creator has actually “sold.”

---

24. Comparing the Central Principle

Legal systemCan economic rights be transferred?Does an ordinary transfer make the purchaser the author?Author’s continuing connection to the work
Berne framework	Yes	No	Moral rights exist independently of economic rights
European Union	Yes	Generally no; details depend on national law	Moral rights remain primarily a matter of national law and international conventions
France	Economic rights may be transferred	No	Moral rights are strongly attached to the person of the author
Germany	Rights of use are granted	No	Urheberrecht as such is generally non-transferable during the author’s lifetime
Russia	The exclusive economic right can be transferred	No	Authorship and name rights are inalienable
Kazakhstan	Yes, in whole or in part	No	Personal rights remain after economic rights are transferred
Armenia	Yes	No	Moral rights are inalienable and non-transferable
Uzbekistan	Economic rights may pass to others	No	Personal rights remain after the transfer of economic rights
United States — ordinary transfer	Yes	Not automatically	Attribution protection is less universal and often depends on contract and other laws
United States — valid work made for hire	Special statutory structure	Yes, employer/commissioning party may be treated as the statutory author	Major exception to the general principle

---

25. So What Is the Answer to the Central Question?

Does the author remain the author after fully transferring the rights to a song?

In most of the continental legal systems examined here:

Yes.

The author may no longer own the exclusive economic right.

The author may lose the ability to control certain forms of exploitation.

Another individual or company may become the rights holder.

But that does not mean the purchaser becomes the person who wrote the song.

This principle is especially clear in Russia, France, Germany, Kazakhstan and Armenia.

At the international level, it is reflected in Article 6bis of the Berne Convention.

The United States requires additional caution.

An ordinary copyright transfer and a work made for hire are very different legal structures.

Where a valid work-made-for-hire relationship exists, U.S. law can treat the employer or commissioning party as the author for purposes of the Copyright Act.

And the United States does not provide musical attribution through the same broad federal moral-rights framework found in many continental European jurisdictions.

---

26. Authorship Is Not Merely a Line on a Balance Sheet

And perhaps this is the most important conclusion of the entire discussion.

A creative work exists simultaneously in two different worlds.

In one world, it is an economic asset.

It can be licensed.

Rights can be transferred.

A catalogue can be bought.

A company can be sold to another company.

Rights can become part of an investment portfolio.

Their value may rise or fall.

But there is another world.

The origin of the work.

Who wrote these words?

Who created this melody?

Who created this story?

That question lies at the heart of authorship.

Many legal systems deliberately prevent the answer from becoming nothing more than a commodity.

A company may buy the rights to a song.

But a contract cannot travel back in time and write the song instead of the person who created it.

---

27. But Then Who Gets the Money?

And this is where an entirely different investigation begins.

Because the fact that someone remains the author does not automatically mean that they continue receiving all of the income generated by the work.

Authorship and revenue are separate questions.

A creator may:

• remain the author while transferring all economic rights;
• retain copyright ownership and grant a licence;
• transfer only certain rights;
• retain a writer’s share;
• transfer a publisher’s share;
• sell the master;
• retain the composition;
• accept a lump-sum payment;
• receive royalties;
• receive statutory remuneration;
• combine several of these models.

So the next question becomes:

If the author remains the author, which money still belongs to the author after the rights have been transferred?

That will be the subject of Part II: the financial architecture of music copyright — royalties, publishing, writer’s share, publisher’s share, mechanical rights, performance rights, sync and master rights.

---

The most important distinction can be expressed in one sentence:

Transferring rights in a work is not the same thing as transferring the fact of having created it.

In the music industry, the author, rights holder, publisher, master owner and recipient of income may all be different persons or entities.

That is why the statement:

“The company bought the song, so now the company is the author”

is legally incorrect in most of the systems examined here.

A more accurate formulation is:

A company may acquire the economic rights in a work. The author, as a rule, remains the person whose creative activity produced that work.

That is why every music contract should begin not with the single question:

“How many rights am I selling?”

but with two separate questions:

“What remains mine as a rights holder?”

and

“What remains mine as an author?”

The answers may be completely different.

---

International Law

Berne Convention, Article 6bis — authorship and integrity rights exist independently of economic rights and survive their transfer.

WIPO — Guide to the Berne Convention

European Union

Directive 2001/29/EC — moral rights remain outside the Directive’s harmonization and are governed by Member State law and international conventions.

EUR-Lex — Directive 2001/29/EC

Directive (EU) 2019/790 — licensing and transfer of authors’ rights, transparency, contract adjustment and revocation mechanisms.

EUR-Lex — Directive (EU) 2019/790

France

Code de la propriété intellectuelle, Article L121-1 — the author’s right to respect for name, authorship and work; the right is personal and inalienable.

Légifrance — Article L121-1

Germany

Urheberrechtsgesetz, Section 29 — general rule on the non-transferability of copyright itself and the granting of rights of use.

German Federal Ministry of Justice — §29 UrhG

Russia

Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Article 1228 — authorship and inalienability of personal rights.

Consultant.ru — Article 1228

Civil Code, Article 1265 — authorship and the right to a name remain inalienable even after the exclusive right has been transferred.

Consultant.ru — Article 1265

Civil Code, Article 1285 — transfer of the exclusive right in a work in full.

Consultant.ru — Article 1285

Kazakhstan

Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Copyright and Related Rights, including Articles 15, 16 and 31.

Adilet — Copyright and Related Rights

Armenia

Law of the Republic of Armenia on Copyright and Related Rights — moral and economic rights of authors.

ARLIS — Copyright and Related Rights Act

Uzbekistan

Supreme Court guidance concerning protection of copyright and related rights — continued existence of personal rights after economic rights are transferred.

LEX.UZ — Judicial Guidance

United States

U.S. Copyright Act, Chapter 2 — initial ownership and transfer of copyright ownership.

U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright Ownership and Transfer

U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 30 — Works Made for Hire.

U.S. Copyright Office — Works Made for Hire

U.S. Copyright Office — Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States.

U.S. Copyright Office — Moral Rights Study

---

This article is intended for research and informational purposes only and does not constitute individual legal advice. The legal consequences of transferring rights depend on the applicable law, the wording of the agreement, the territory concerned, the nature of the work and the circumstances in which it was created.