In the present case, an artist sued the owner of an art studio in order to have her authorship or alternatively her co-authorship, of 221 pictorial artworks recognised.

The plaintiff and the defendant collaborated for ten years, during which time the plaintiff painted pictures in the defendant’s studio, following the defendant’s instructions and sketches. However, it was the plaintiff who executed the paintings, although the defendant also added some of their own strokes. Furthermore, the disputed paintings were released under the defendant’s signature. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s role involved carrying out mechanical tasks under his creative direction. This can be seen because the pictorial style of the disputed works is realistic, unlike the abstract style of the plaintiff.

The claim was dismissed at the first instance because it was not possible to prove that the claimant had executed all of the works on her own during the duration of the professional relationship, or to establish her degree of involvement in their creation. The subsidiary claim was also dismissed on the basis that co-authorship should not be recognised in the context of a hierarchical or subordinate relationship between the authors.

The plaintiff appealed against the decision, and in the second instance, the co-authorship of the disputed paintings was upheld. It was considered that the plaintiff had played a significant role in their execution, since she had painted alone in the studio for hours and had necessarily had to make decisions in order to capture the painted image. In this regard, a distinction is made between the conception and execution phases of a pictorial artwork, and the latter cannot have less importance, since the material and specific expression are of great importance.

The defendant appealed against the judgment, arguing that it had not been verified whether the plaintiff’s contribution to the disputed paintings met the  originality requirement essential for copyright protection, according to the established doctrine.

The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that, in order to be considered original, a work must reflect the personality of its author and demonstrate their free and creative decision-making process. For this reason, the defendant’s appeal is dismissed, as the plaintiff painted the works alone and was able to capture the defendant’s ideas in the paintings. Even when receiving directions or instructions, the plaintiff made decisions that expressed her personality in each painting. This reasoning therefore favours the assessment of originality, insofar as both authors’ contributions to the creation and execution phases are creative.

Judgement of the Spanish Supreme Court 4097/2025, 30 September 2025.