The Work-for-hire Doctrine and Software Agreements in the United States of America

software agreementsCopyright Law vests in the creator of certain works, or those deriving rights from such creators, a bundle of rights, from the moment of creation and fixation of such works[i]. However, one broad exception to this is the emerging work-for-hire doctrine, according to which the ‘employer or another person for whom the work is created’ is considered the author of the work, and would own all the rights flowing from it, unless the parties have expressly agreed to otherwise.[ii]The US Copyright Act lists two broad ways in which the work created by an individual will be considered a work for hire.[iii]

  1. It is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of her employment
  2. It is a work specially ordered or commissioned for use. To classify as a work-for-hire under this category, the work must fall under one of the following nine heads
  3. as a contribution to a collective work,
  4. as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
  5. as a translation,
  6. as a supplementary work,
  7. as a compilation,
  8. as an instructional text,
  9. as a test,
  10. as answer material for a test, or
  11. as an atlas,

Thus, for a work to qualify as a work-for-hire, it must necessarily fall under either one of the conditions mentioned above. This categorization becomes complicated while dealing with works such as the development of software. With the advancement of technology, several companies outsource the development of software to independent contractors. Without clear terms and conditions to the agreements involved this might lead to considerable confusion between parties with respect to ownership over the copyright. To that end, this article will analyze the applicability of the work-for-hire doctrine to the development of software, specifically in cases where this has been outsourced to independent contractors or in cases where the scope of employment remains ambiguous. The paper will also look at the necessary procedure that needs to be adhered to in order for a software program to classify as a work-for-hire.

Software as work-for-hire

Under the first category of 17 U.S.C §102 of the US Copyright Act (“Copyright Act”), a work would be considered to fall under the category of work for hire as long as it was created within the scope of employment. The application of this portion is not particularly contentious but would involve looking at the employment agreement and ascertaining the scope of the employment.

However, things become ambivalent while looking at the software created by a group of coders, either independently or when the terms of the employment agreement do not include specific provisions for software developments. A literal interpretation of the second part of 17 U.S.C. §102 of the Copyright Act would automatically disqualify software as a part of work-for-hire as it is not explicitly enumerated in the provision.

However, the United States courts over a few cases have held in dicta, that the work done for the development of software could be categorized as a work-for-hire; primarily because they are contributions to ‘collective works as listed in the second part of the conditions laid down. This was held in the case of IXL, Inc. v. AdOutlet.Com, Inc, where the court held that the ‘source code’ which was specifically commissioned for a particular software, would qualify as a contribution to a collective work. It further clarified that ‘the source code written for each section [of the website] would constitute a separate, independent work and is a contribution to the collective whole, i.e the website’.

Similarly, in the case of Stancard LLC v Rubard LLC, the court held that software developed for a particular company would be classified as a work for hire as long as there existed a written agreement between the parties. This case clarifies the necessary requirements which need to be fulfilled for software to be classified as a work-for-hire under the second category. An NDA titled “Inventions and work for hire” was considered sufficient to prove the intent and understanding of the parties for entering into a transaction that would confer ultimate rights on the employer. Additionally, the court held that the agreement should be signed by both the parties and that the party claiming ownership should prove that the parties had a prior understanding that the program was to be created as a work for hire. The given case interestingly also points out the fact that even though work might not qualify to be a work-for-hire, it might fall under the ‘assignment of copyright’ under 17 USC § 204. Thus, even if a particular software does not fall under the strict categorization of work-for-hire, it might still constitute an assignment of copyright according to the terms and nature of the agreement entered into.

Thus, the following three prongs would have to be fulfilled to categorize software as a work for hire under the second part of 17 U.S.C §102. This was also expanded on in the case of Inc. v. W.P. Stewart & Co

  1. The work should be “specially ordered” or commissioned: The court while relying on the case of Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Dumas, held that the test to be applied would be to determine what the motivating factor in the creation of the work was. If the parties enter into a contract for the creation of software for the motivation of a particular party or at the “instance and expense” of one party, they would in all probability be considered the owner. Thus, one would have to determine at which instance the software was created, or what purpose it ultimately served.
  2. That the work was commissioned for use as one of the nine categories listed in subsection (2): The court, in this case, held that the non-literal elements of a computer program are considered a “compilation” in so far as the ‘selection’, ‘arrangement’ and ‘organization’, central to the compilation doctrine, were included in the analysis of a computer program’s structure.
  • That the parties expressly agreed in a written instrument signed by them that the work would be considered as a work for hire: Interestingly, in this case, the court held that a specific work would classify as work-for-hire, despite there being no explicit mention of the same in the agreement. In the given case the court held that the language used in the contract was sufficient to stipulate a work-for-hire agreement. [ Similarly held in the case of Warren v Fox Family Worldwide]


Through an analysis of the cases mentioned above and the relevant statutory provisions, it can be ascertained that a piece of software could constitute a work-for-hire, even in cases where it was developed by an independent group of people or when it was outside the scope of employment. However, this would be contingent upon the existence of a written agreement, signed by both parties. The nature and form of this agreement might vary, but the person claiming copyright over the final software, created by the third party should be able to prove that there was an understanding among the parties that the work so produced would fall under the scope of work-for-hire.

Author: Shrudula Murthy, a student of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad intern at IIPRD. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at


[i]Copyright Law of the United States, 17 U.S.C § 106

[ii] Copyright Law of the United States, 17 U.S.C § 201(b)

[iii] Copyright Law of the United States, 17 U.S.C §102

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

14 + one =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010