Community For Creative v. Reid, NON-VIOLENCE

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMARSHALL
Citation104 L.Ed.2d 811,490 U.S. 730,10 USPQ2d 1985,109 S.Ct. 2166
Decision Date05 June 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-293,NON-VIOLENCE
PartiesCOMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE, et al., Petitioners, v. James Earl REID

490 U.S. 730
109 S.Ct. 2166
104 L.Ed.2d 811
COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE, et al., Petitioners,

v.

James Earl REID.

No. 88-293.
Argued March 29, 1989.
Decided June 5, 1989.
Syllabus

In the fall of 1985, petitioners—the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV), a Washington, D.C., organization dedicated to eliminating homelessness, and one of its trustees—entered into an oral agreement with respondent Reid, a sculptor, to produce a statue dramatizing the plight of the homeless for display at a 1985 Christmas pageant in Washington. While Reid worked on the statue in his Baltimore, Md., studio, CCNV members visited him on a number of occasions to check on his progress and to coordinate CCNV's construction of the sculpture's base in accordance with the parties' agreement. Reid accepted most of CCNV's suggestions and directions as to the sculpture's configuration and appearance. After the completed work was delivere to Washington, CCNV paid Reid the final installment of the agreed-upon price, joined the sculpture to its base, and displayed it. The parties, who had never discussed copyright in the sculpture, then filed competing copyright registration certificates. The District Court ruled for CCNV in its subsequent suit seeking, inter alia, a determination of copyright ownership, holding that the statue was a "work made for hire" as defined in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, and was therefore owned exclusively by CCNV under § 201(b), which vests copyright ownership of works for hire in the employer or other person for whom the work is prepared, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the sculpture was not a "work made for hire" under the first subsection of the § 101 definition (hereinafter § 101(1)), since it was not "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" in light of Reid's status as an independent contractor under agency law. The court also ruled that the statue did not satisfy the second subsection of the § 101 definition (hereinafter § 101(2)), since sculpture is not one of the nine categories of "specially ordered or commissioned" works enumerated therein, and the parties had not agreed in writing that the sculpture would be a work for hire. However, the court remanded for a determination whether the statue was jointly authored by CCNV and Reid, such that they were co-owners of the copyright under § 201(a).

Page 731

Held:

1. To determine whether a work is a "work made for hire" within the § 101 definition, a court should first apply general common law of agency principles to ascertain whether the work was prepared by an employee or an independent contractor, and, depending upon the outcome, should then apply either § 101(1) or § 101(2). Although the Act nowhere defines "employee," "employment," or related terms, it must be inferred that Congress meant them in their settled, common-law sense, since nothing in the text of the work for hire provisions indicates that those terms are used to describe anything other than the conventional relation of employer and employee. On the contrary, Congress' intent to incorporate agency law definitions is suggested by § 101(1)'s use of the term "scope of employment," a widely used agency law term of art. Moreover, the general common law of agency must be relied on, rather than the law of any particular State, since the Act is expressly intended to create a federal law of uniform, nationwide application by broadly preempting state statutory and common-law copyright regulation. Petitioners' argument that a work is "prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" whenever the hiring party retains the right to control, or actually controls, the work is inconsistent with the language and legislative history of the work for hire provisions, and would distort the provisions' structure, which views works by employees and commissioned works by independent contractors as mutually exclusive entities. Pp. 737-751.

2. The sculpture in question is not a "work made for hire" within the meaning of § 101. Reid was an independent contractor rather than a § 101(1) "employee" since, although CCNV members directed enough of the work to ensure that the statue met their specifications, all other relevant circumstances weigh heavily against finding an employment relationship. Reid engages in a skilled occupation; supplied his own tools; worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from Washington; was retained for a relatively short period of time; had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work in order to meet his deadline; and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants. Moreover, CCNV had no right to assign additional projects to Reid; paid him in a manner in which independent contractors are often compensated; did not engage regularly in the business of creating sculpture or, in fact, n any business; and did not pay payroll or Social Security taxes, provide any employee benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation funds. Furthermore, as petitioners concede, the work in question does not satisfy the terms of § 101(2). Pp. 751-753.

3. However, CCNV nevertheless may be a joint author of the sculpture and, thus, a co-owner of the copyright under § 201(a), if, on remand,

Page 732

the District Court determines that the parties prepared the work with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. P. 753.

270 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 846 F.2d 1485 (1988), affirmed.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Robert Alan Garrett, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Joshua Kaufman, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Lawrence S. Robbins, Washington, D.C., for Register of Copyrights as amicus curiae supporting respondent, by special leave of Court.

Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, an artist and the organization that hired him to produce a sculpture contest the ownership of the copyright in that work. To resolve this dispute, we must construe the "work made for hire" provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 (Act or 1976 Act), 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 201(b), and in particular, the provision in § 101, which defines as a "work made for hire" a "work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" (hereinafter § 101(1)).

Page 733

I

Petitioners are the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV), a nonprofit unincorporated association dedicated to eliminating homelessness in America, and Mitch Snyder, a member and trustee of CCNV. In the fall of 1985, CCNV decided to participate in the annual Christmastime Pageant of Peace in Washington, D.C., by sponsoring a display to dramatize the plight of the homeless. As the District Court recounted:

"Snyder and fellow CCNV members conceived the idea for the nature of the display: a sculpture of a modern Nativity scene in which, in lieu of the traditional Holy Family, the two adult figures and the infant would appear as contemporary homeless people huddled on a streetside steam grate. The family was to be black (most of the homeless in Washington being black); the figures were to be life-sized, and the steam grate would be positioned atop a platform 'pedestal,' or base, within which special-effects equipment would be enclosed to emit simulated 'steam' through the grid to swirl about the figures. They also settled upon a title for the work—'Third World America'—and a legend for the pedestal: 'and still there is no room at the inn.' " 652 F.Supp. 1453, 1454 (DC 1987).

Snyder made inquiries to locate an artist to produce the sculpture. He was referred to respondent James Earl Reid, a Baltimore, Maryland, sculptor. In the course of two telephone calls, Reid agreed to sculpt the three human figures. CCNV agreed to make the steam grate and pedestal for the statue. Reid proposed that the work be cast in bronze, at a total cost of approximately $100,000 and taking six to eight months to complete. Snyder rejected that proposal because CCNV did not have sufficient funds, and because the statue had to be completed by December 12 to be included in the pageant. Reid then suggested, and Snyder agreed, that the

Page 734

sculpture would be made of a material known as "Design Cast 62," a synthetic substance that could meet CCNV's monetary and time constraints, could be tinted to resemble bronze, and could withstand the elements. The parties agreed that the project would cost no more than $15,000, not including Reid's services, which he offered to donate. The parties did not sign a written agreement. Neither party mentioned copyright.

After Reid received an advance of $3,000, he made several sketches of figures in various poses. At Snyder's request, Reid sent CCNV a sketch of a proposed sculpture showing the family in a creche like etting: the mother seated, cradling a baby in her lap; the father standing behind her, bending over her shoulder to touch the baby's foot. Reid testified that Snyder asked for the sketch to use in raising funds for the sculpture. Snyder testified that it was also for his approval. Reid sought a black family to serve as a model for the sculpture. Upon Snyder's suggestion, Reid visited a family living at CCNV's Washington shelter but decided that only their newly born child was a suitable model. While Reid was in Washington, Snyder took him to see homeless people living on the streets. Snyder pointed out that they tended to recline on steam grates, rather than sit or stand, in order to warm their bodies. From that time on, Reid's sketches contained only reclining figures.

Throughout November and the first two weeks of December 1985, Reid worked exclusively on the statue, assisted at various times by a dozen different people who were paid with funds provided in installments by CCNV. On a number of occasions, CCNV members...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1112 practice notes
  • Part III
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 15, 2007
    • November 15, 2007
    ...Insurance Company v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S. Ct. 1344, 117 L. Ed. 2d 581 (1992) and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S. Ct. 2166 (1989). The cases held that the following criteria are to be considered in determining whether there is an employer-employee Th......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 30, 2009
    • March 30, 2009
    ...a statute is the result of a series of carefully crafted compromises.' '' Id. at 1545 (citing Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, n. (1989)). ``Accordingly, the best indicators of congressional intent in this narrow instance are the language and structure of the Code ......
  • Federal Election Commission,
    • United States
    • Federal Register July 29, 2002
    • July 29, 2002
    ...Commission makes this change for reasons articulated by the United States Supreme Court. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989) the High Court held that the defining of statutory terms should be guided by ``settled meaning under * * * the common law * * * u......
  • Separate Parts In This Issue Part III Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 15, 2007
    • November 15, 2007
    ...Insurance Company v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 112 S. Ct. 1344, 117 L. Ed. 2d 581 (1992) and Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S. Ct. 2166 (1989). The cases held that the following criteria are to be considered in determining whether there is an employer-employee Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1086 cases
  • Moland v. Bil-Mar Foods, No. C 96-4023-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 13, 1998
    ...whether an individual is an employee: (1) the common-law agency test, first set forth in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) and more recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 1......
  • In re Kaplan, Bankruptcy No. 93-10625S. Adv. No. 93-0507S.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Third Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 26, 1993
    ...determining who qualifies an "employee" under ERISA, a test we most recently summarized in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166 104 L.Ed.2d 811 "In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the common law of agency, we consider the hiring pa......
  • U.S. v. McGlory, Nos. 90-3604
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 19, 1992
    ...interpret the statute based on the overall structure and purposes of the Act. See generally Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 2172-73, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (relying on structure of statute to construe its This statute appears, however, to have had ......
  • Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 5870 (RWS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 1997
    ...the 1976 [Copyright Act was] enhancing predictability and certainty of copyright ownership." Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 749, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 2177, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 A cause of action accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on inquiry as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Human Creativity v. Machine Autonomy In Identifying Copyright Authors Of Generative NFTs
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 24, 2022
    ...taken a consistent view in interpreting the statute as requiring human authorship. See, e.g., Cmty. For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) ("As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed......
  • Human Creativity v. Machine Autonomy In Identifying Copyright Authors Of Generative NFTs
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 24, 2022
    ...taken a consistent view in interpreting the statute as requiring human authorship. See, e.g., Cmty. For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) ("As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed......
  • The Importance Of A Work Made For Hire Agreement
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 16, 2022
    ...determine whether the individual was an employee of another or an independent contractor. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), the Supreme Court set out a nonexclusive seven-part analysis to determine whether a work is created by an employee as contemplated b......
  • Second Circuit Gives Halloween Treat To Friday The 13th Screenwriter
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 1, 2021
    ...the Court looked to the thirteen non-exhaustive factors established by the Supreme Court in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) ("Reid"), the first five of which the Second Circuit assigned greater the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 12-3, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...9. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). 10. Id. § 101. 11. Id. § 204. 12. Id. § 203. 13. Id. § 101. 14. See Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (discussing factors considered in agency law when determining whether or not a person is an employee). 15. 17 U.S.C. § 101. 16. Thomson ......
  • Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 12-3, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...9. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). 10. Id. § 101. 11. Id. § 204. 12. Id. § 203. 13. Id. § 101. 14. See Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (discussing factors considered in agency law when determining whether or not a person is an employee). 15. 17 U.S.C. § 101. 16. Thomson ......
  • What Does the California Consumer Privacy Act Mean for IP Attorneys and Law Firms?
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 11-2, November 2018
    • November 1, 2018
    ...§ 203(a)(3)–(4). 14. Id. § 203(a)(3). 15. Id. § 203(a)(4). 16. Id. 17. Id. § 203(a)(5). 18. Id. §§ 203(a), 304(c)–(d). 19. Id. § 101. 20. 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989). 21. Id. 22. Id. (footnotes omitted). 23. Id. 24. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324 (1992) (“Since th......
  • Strategic Considerations for IP Litigators and Corporate Counsel Prosecuting and Defending IP Disputes: Securing Coverage Despite Limited Intellectual Property Coverage
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 11-2, November 2018
    • November 1, 2018
    ...§ 203(a)(3)–(4). 14. Id. § 203(a)(3). 15. Id. § 203(a)(4). 16. Id. 17. Id. § 203(a)(5). 18. Id. §§ 203(a), 304(c)–(d). 19. Id. § 101. 20. 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989). 21. Id. 22. Id. (footnotes omitted). 23. Id. 24. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324 (1992) (“Since th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT