No---joint authorship falls short of recognizing indigenous norms.
Farley 97 (Christine Haight Farley a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law and an expert on intellectual property, Protecting Folklore of Indigenous Peoples: Is Intellectual Property the Answer?, Connecticut Law Review (1997). Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/725, 1997---gm)
Three mechanisms in copyright law could be utilized to attempt to overcome this problem: (1) joint authorship; (2) the transfer of rights; and (3) the work made-for-hire provision. These mechanisms may, however, in the end, be unsatisfactory. The most logical possibility is the provision for joint authorship. 127 This provision is the only nod to collective ownership in the acts. It allows the multiple authors of a work to be co-owners of the copyright in the work. Unfortunately, this provision is very narrow. In order to be deemed a joint author, two requirements must be satisfied. First, the joint authors must in fact collaborate in the work's preparation, and second, they must intend, at the time the work is prepared, that their contributions be merged into "inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. 128 Thus, under the first requirement, joint authorship vests the rights only in the persons who actually make the work (or their designees). That is, only those clan members who are involved in the creation of the work can be joint authors. The rest of the clan or community could not be considered co-owners unless they actually contributed to the creation of the work. 129 Furthermore, to be a joint author each person's contribution must be copyrightable. Thus, a clan elder who dictates the composition to an artist who executes it will not be a joint author with the artist.