Common Misconception of Ownership Under the Work for Hire Doctrine

Software copyrights continue to be an important intellectual property for many companies. Such prominence can be seen by several recent cases pertaining…

August 25, 2017 at 08:25 PM

6 minute read

The original version of this story was published on Law.com


Software copyrights continue to be an important intellectual property for many companies. Such prominence can be seen by several recent cases pertaining to software copyrights. For example, a recent verdict against Oculus VR, a Facebook subsidiary, for $500 million in damages included claims of copyright infringement of video game developer ZeniMax Media's software. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HP) is facing a claim for vicarious copyright infringement asserted by Oracle alleging that HP support companies distributed copyrighted Oracle code without its permission. With the prominence of ensuring a company's copyrights are adequately protected, there is renewed focus by the legislature to address any oversight in the Copyright Act pertaining to software. More specifically, the issue of ownership rights to copyrighted materials, especially when created by independent software developers, is an issue that may be interpreted differently by the Federal Circuit courts. Therefore, it may be time for Congress to clarify this issue by amending the work for hire doctrine as defined in the U.S. Copyright Act.

Copyright Act

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, authors of a copyrighted work have exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, and publicly perform, display or perform the copyrighted works they create. However, at times, ownership rights to copyrighted works are not vested in the original author. The Copyright Act enumerates specific categories when, absent a separate agreement, ownership rights to copyrighted works may be automatically vested to a party other than the original author (better known as the work for hire doctrine). Under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 of the Copyright Act, a work for hire is: a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his employment would be owned by the employer; and a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. 

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Go To Lexis →

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Go To Bloomberg Law →

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

NOT FOR REPRINT

Latest
Trending

Who Got The Work

J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Read More

Law.com Pro