Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zifen QIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-35032
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Stephen J. Joncus, Joncus Law LLC, Clackamas, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Zifen Qian, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zifen Qian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc.’s in relation to its copyright action brought against Qian. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc.’s declaratory judgment claim because Qian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the paintings were created as works for hire for Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc. See 17 U.S.C. § 101(1) (a work made for hire is, among other things, “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment”), § 201(b) (in the case of a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author of the copyright, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 738-39, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (discussing the nature of the “work made for hire” doctrine).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.