Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc. v. Zifen Qian

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROL WILSON FINE ARTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ZIFEN QIAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-35032
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00587-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Zifen Qian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of
Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc.’s in relation to its copyright action brought against
Qian. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Funky
Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F,3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-35032
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carol Wilson Fine
Arts, Inc.’s declaratory judgment claim because Qian failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether the paintings were created as works for hire
for Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc. See 17 U.S.C. § 101(1) (a work made for hire is,
among other things, “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or
her employment’), § 201(b) (in the case of a work made for hire, the employer is
considered the author of the copyright, unless the parties have expressly agreed
otherwise in a written instrument signed by them); Cmty. for Creative Non-
Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 738-39 (1989) (discussing the nature of the “work
made for hire” doctrine).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --