Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) p.279
copyrightable material - work for hire
P hired sculptor to create a work for a specific show. After the show, the sculptor wanted to take it on tour. The P did not want it to go. D took it anyway. CCNV argued the sculpture was a work for hire and that it was theirs.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 652 F.Supp. 1453, Thomas Penfield Jackson, J., found association to be owner of copyright. Sculptor appealed. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 846 F.2d 1485, reversed and remanded.
Was this a work-for-hire? Whether or not the sculptor was an employee.
Copyright is seperate from the physical design. Copyright is part of a bundle of rights.
This was not a work for hire. Therefore the sculptor owns the copyright to the original design. The copyright is seperate from the sculpture itself.
Looked to what Congress intended by what they meant by employee. The Court looked at the legislative history. Factors for determining whether an individual is an employee:
- hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished
- the skill required
- the source of the instrumentalities and tools
- the location of the work
- the right to assign additional projects to the hired party
- 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
- method of payment
- whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party
- whether the hiring party is in business
- the provision of employe benefits
- the tax treatment of the hired party