
    MOOFLY PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, Helena Pasquarella; Raleigh William Souther, individually; Thomas Joel, individually; Joel Media Group, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Counter-defendants-Appellees. v. Sandra Corralas FAVILA; Estate of Richard Charles Corrales, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants, Motion Graphix, Inc., a California Corporation in Dissolution, Counter-claimant-Appellant. Moofly Productions, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. Sandra Favila, Defendant, and Estate of Richard C. Corrales; Motion Graphix, Inc., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants, v. Thomas Joel; Joel Media Group, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Counter-defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56136, No. 15-56702
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 7, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Nina Riley, General Counsel, Nina Riley LAW, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee
    James K. Cameron, Esquire, Attorney, James K. Cameron & Associates, APC, Encino, CA, Timothy James Toohey, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Counter-claimant-Appellant
    James K. Cameron, Esquire, Attorney, James K. Cameron & Associates, APC, Encino, CA, Timothy James Toohey, Morris Polich <& Purdy LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants Sandra Córralas Favila, Estate of Richard Charles Corrales
    Nina Riley, General Counsel, Nina Riley LAW, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Counter-defendant-Appellee Helena Pasquarella
    Raleigh William Souther, Pro Se
    Lewis Richard Walton, Jr., Attorney, Walton & Walton, LLP, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Counter-defendants-Appellees Thomas Joel, Joel Media Group, Inc.
    Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The Corrales Estate (“Estate”) and its executrix, Sandra Favila (“Favila”) appeal the dismissal of their copyright infringement counterclaim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

1. The rulings of the California Court of Appeal and Los Angeles County Superior Court in Favila v. Souther awarded 51% of the subject copyrights to the Estate. The remaining 49% interest in the copyrights either remained with Raleigh Souther (“Souther”) or with Souther’s transferee, Get Flipped, Inc. (“GFI”). “A co-owner of a copyright cannot be liable to another co-owner for infringement of the copyright.” Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1984). As co-owner of the copyrights, Souther or GFI was further entitled to grant non-exclusive licenses to the other Appellees. See Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008); Oddo, 743 F.2d at 633.

The defenses of co-ownership and license were not forfeited by their omission from Appellees’ pleadings. This Court has “liberalized the requirement that affirmative defenses be raised in a defendant’s initial pleading.” Rivera v. Anaya, 726 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1984). A defendant may raise an affirmative defense for the first time in a summary judgment motion so long as there was no prejudice to the plaintiff. Healy Tibbitts Constr. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am, 679 F.2d 803, 804 (9th Cir. 1982). The district court permitted Appellants ample opportunity to brief the co-ownership and license defenses before their counterclaim was dismissed. There was thus no prejudice.

2. Attorney’s fees were properly awarded to Appellees Joel and Joel Media Group, Inc., as the prevailing parties on the copyright counterclaim. 17 U.S.C. § 505.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ copyright infringement counterclaim and its award of attorney’s fees are

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The question of how any profits from such licenses should be accounted for or distributed, see, e.g., Corbello v. DeVito, 777 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2015), is not before us, all non-copyright claims having been remanded back to state court.
     