Case Name: CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zifen QIAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 671 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 15-35032
Parties: CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zifen QIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.