Opinion ID: 852355
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Work Made for Hire

Text: Under the Copyright Act a work made for hire is (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Act further provides that [i]n the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared [here, POA] is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 201(b). Copyright ownership vests initially in the author or authors of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). A copyright gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce the work, to prepare derivative works based on the original, to distribute copies of the work to the public, and to display the work publicly. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. In determining whether a work is a work made for hire under the Copyright Act a court must first examine whether the seller is an employee or an independent contractor under rules of agency law. If the work was within the scope of employment, an agency law employee is a copyright employee, and the employer is the author, according to 17 U.S.C. § 101(1). By contrast, works specially ordered or commissioned from independent contracts are not works for hire unless the work comes within one of the nine narrow statutory categories and parties agree in a signed instrument. 17 U.S.C. § 101(2). [11] Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 846 F.2d 1485 (D.C.Cir.1988), aff'd, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989), quoting Easter Seal Soc. for Crippled Children & Adults, Inc. v. Playboy Enters., 815 F.2d 323, 329 (5th Cir.1987). The Supreme Court has provided a framework for this analysis: In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. No one of these factors is determinative. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. at 751-752 (citations omitted). Considering these factors, it seems plain enough that Gray Loon was an independent contractor rather than POA's employee. The website was thus not a work made for hire.