Checking the Wrong Box Not of Consequence
Pritchett v. Pound No. 05-41445 December 18, 2006 (5th Cir)
Pound was an employee of Pritchett; and his employment agreement/ job description included that he would be“completing regular written
assignments and the development of new products and procedures;” and that “[s]hould the Employee produce any written materials in the course of
his work with the Employer, then such shall be done for and on behalf of the Employer and all work produced shall be the exclusive property of the Employer.”
While still employed in 1988 and 1989, Pound co-authored two books which Pritchett both filed for copyright applications at the United States Copyright Office, and published and sold successfully.
When completing the copyright application, Pritchett erroneously checked “NO” in response to the question, “Is this a Work Made For Hire?”; and went on to identify Pound as an “author” on that form. The copyright applications resulted in registrations; and an effort to correct that error at the Copyright Office was blundered in 1990.
In 1995, Pound died. Pritchett was generous in accomodating the widow including paying the entire one million dollar bonus that year even though Pound had only worked one quarter of that year.
In 2002, Pound’s widow sued Pritchett as a joint author demanding an accounting and damages.
Pritchett defended that Pound was not an author, and that the Work Made For Hire doctrine trumped the errors in the copyright application.
The Fifth Circuit agrees with Pritchett stating that a more clear agreement of the parties was needed to change the status of Work Made For Hire. The error in the copyright application was not substantive or effective in changing ownership.