Editing Work for hire (section)

=== Works created by employees ===
[[File:Android robot (2014-2019).svg|thumb|right|200px|This 2-D artwork of "[[Bugdroid]]", created by [[Irina Blok]] as the mascot of [[Google]]'s Android operating system, has been registered as a work for hire.<ref name="VA0001789579">{{Cite web|url=https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/voyager_25029026|title=ANDROID Robot Design. (VA0001789579)|website=Copyright Public Records System|publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]]|date=October 5, 2011|access-date=May 21, 2025}}</ref>]]

If a work is created by an employee, the first prong of the work-for-hire definition applies. The determination of whether an individual is an employee for the purposes of the work made for hire doctrine is determined under the common [[law of agency]],<ref name="circ30"/> in which a court looks to a multitude of factors to determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists. To help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court in ''[[Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid]]'' identified certain factors that characterize an employer–employee relationship as defined by agency law:

# Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create work)
# Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the employee's assistants)
# Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee's payment)

==== Business owners and startups ====

In ''Woods v. Resnick'' (2010), the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin|Western District of Wisconsin]] found that a business owner is neither an employee nor an independent contractor for copyright purposes. Since "an owner has an inherent right to control the business", the owner cannot be considered an agent, let alone an employee, so the work for hire doctrine does not apply to them.<ref name="startup-wfh"/><ref name="Woods v. Resnick">{{cite court |litigants=Woods v. Resnick |vol=725 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=809 |pinpoint=23 |court=W.D. Wis. |date=2010 |url=https://casetext.com/case/woods-v-resnick-2 |quote=In contrast, as a co-owner of the company, Woods does not have an agency relationship with F I Source. Unlike an employee or independent contractor, an owner has an inherent right to control the business.}}</ref>

Where [[Startup company|startup technology companies]] are concerned, some courts have considered that the traditional factors for finding that an author is an "employee" can be less important than in more-established companies, for example if the employee works remotely and is not directly supervised, or if the employee is paid entirely in equity without benefits or tax withholding.<ref name="startup-wfh">{{cite web |url=http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/content/2011/04/keepingcurrent-ip.shtml |title=The 'Work for Hire' Doctrine and Start-up Technology Companies |first=Elaine D. |last=Ziff |date=April 12, 2011 |access-date=March 9, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170705211828/http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/content/2011/04/keepingcurrent-ip.shtml | archive-date=July 5, 2017}}</ref>

==== Teacher exception ====
{{Expand section|date=May 2025}}

The application of the law to materials such as lectures, textbooks, and academic articles produced by teachers is somewhat unclear. The near-universal practice in education has traditionally been to act on the assumption that they were ''not'' work for hire.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/41_3/02_TXT.htm |title=Who Owns the Copyright to Faculty-Created Web Sites?: The Work-For-Hire Doctrine's Applicability Tto Internet Resources Created for Distance Learning and Traditional Classroom Courses|access-date=April 28, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212020422/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/41_3/02_TXT.htm |archive-date=December 12, 2008 }}</ref>

==== Analogy to works of the United States government ====

{{Main|Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States}}

Works created by officers and employees of the [[United States federal government]] as part of their official duties are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. House Report 94-1476, published in connection with the [[Copyright Act of 1976]], explains that "although the wording of the definition of 'work of the United States Government' differs somewhat from that of the definition of 'work made for hire,' the concepts are intended to be construed in the same way."<ref name="HR 94-1476">{{cite wikisource |title=Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476) |wslink=Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 058.djvu|page=58|publisher=United States House of Representatives}}</ref> Cases regarding the status of works prepared by employees of the U.S. government have been cited in work-for-hire cases: for example, in ''Williams v. Weisser'', a case establishing the [[#Teacher exception|teacher exception]], the court discussed ''Sherrill v. Grieves'', in which a book written by a professor at a U.S. Army officers' school for a course he was teaching was held not to be a "publication of the United States Government" under the Copyright Act of 1909.<ref name="townsend-teacher-exception-2003"/><ref name="holmes-levin-teaching-2000">{{cite journal|url=https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=elj|title=Who Owns Course Materials Prepared by a Teacher or Professor? The Application of Copyright Law to Teaching Materials in the Internet Age|last=Holmes|first=Georgia|last2=Levin|first2=Daniel A.|date=2000|volume=2000|issue=1|journal=Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal|pages=165-189|access-date=May 21, 2025}}</ref>