No. The sculpture does not automatically belong to the charity. For a creation to be a 'work made for hire,' the creator must be a regular employee, not an independent contractor. The Court decided that the best way to tell the difference is by using a checklist of factors from employment law. Looking at these factors, Reid was an independent contractor: he was a skilled artist, used his own tools, worked in his own space, was paid per project, and didn't get employee benefits or have taxes withheld. Since Reid was an independent contractor and his sculpture wasn't in a special category that requires a written contract, he owns the copyright.

No, the sculpture doesn't automatically belong to CCNV because the artist, James Earl Reid, was hired for a special job, not as a regular employee. The Court looked at things like who provided the tools, where the work was done, how long the artist was hired for, and how he was paid. All these things showed that Reid was his own boss for this project. So, he owns the sculpture unless a future decision finds that both Reid and CCNV made it together. The decision also points out that it's important to look at who has the control over how the work is done, which is a key part of deciding if someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

No, the sculpture doesn't automatically belong to CCNV because the artist, James Earl Reid, was hired for a special job, not as a regular employee. We looked at things like who provided the tools, where the work was done, how long the artist was hired for, and how he was paid. All these things showed that Reid was his own boss for this project. So, he owns the sculpture unless a future decision finds that both Reid and CCNV made it together. We also point out that it's important to look at who has the control over how the work is done, which is a key part of deciding if someone is an employee or an independent contractor.

—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 …

For purposes of Title VII and other federal acts that use the term "employee" without defining it, the Supreme Court has held that Congress intended to describe the conventional master-servant relationship as understood by common-law agency doctrine.

" `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.'"

An author is "the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection."

"It is... well established that [w] here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under... the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms."

—noting that, in the past, "we have concluded that Congress intended terms such as `employee,'`employer,'and `scope of employment'to be understood in light of agency law

Such a result would contradict the Copyright Act's "express objective of creating national, uniform copyright law by broadly preempting state statutory and common-law copyright regulation."

Since the parties agree that Sparig worked for SRE as an independent contractor, not an employee, the photos are not works made for hire.

However, in the case of a work made for hire, "the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author..., and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright

No. A work created by an independent contractor is not a 'work prepared by an employee' under § 101(1) of the Copyright Act. To determine whether a creator is an employee or an independent contractor, courts must apply the general common law of agency test, which considers multiple factors beyond the hiring party's right to control the final product. The Court rejected the tests that focused solely on the hiring party's right to control or actual control over the work, finding them inconsistent with the statute's language and structure. The legislative history shows Congress intended to create two distinct categories: works by employees under § 101(1) and commissioned works by independent contractors under § 101(2). Applying the multi-factor agency test, Reid was an independent contractor because he was a skilled sculptor, supplied his own tools, worked in his own studio, was paid a lump sum, and CCNV did not pay social security taxes or provide benefits. Because Reid was an independent contractor and sculpture is not one of the nine categories of commissioned works listed in § 101(2), the work is not a 'work made for hire'.

No, the sculpture 'Third World America' is not a 'work made for hire' under the Copyright Act because Reid was an independent contractor, not an employee of CCNV under agency law principles. The Court considered factors such as the skill required, source of tools, location of work, duration of relationship, method of payment, and tax treatment, which all indicated that Reid was not an employee. Since the sculpture does not meet the criteria for a 'work made for hire' under section 101(2) of the Copyright Act, Reid is the copyright owner, unless on remand it is determined that CCNV and Reid are joint authors. The Court's analysis emphasizes the importance of the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished, which is a central theme in determining the status of employment under common law agency principles.

No, the sculpture 'Third World America' is not a 'work made for hire' under the Copyright Act because Reid was an independent contractor, not an employee of CCNV under agency law principles. We considered factors such as the skill required, source of tools, location of work, duration of the relationship, method of payment, and tax treatment, which all indicated that Reid was not an employee. Since the sculpture does not meet the criteria for a 'work made for hire' under section 101(2) of the Copyright Act, Reid is the copyright owner, unless on remand it is determined that CCNV and Reid are joint authors. Our analysis emphasizes the importance of the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished, which is a central theme in determining the status of employment under common law agency principles.

Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot