In Simplified Information Systems, Inc. v. Cannon, under the work-for-hire doctrine, who owns the computer process created during employment?

In Simplified Information Systems, Inc. v. Cannon, under the work-for-hire doctrine, who owns the computer process created during employment?

• A. The employer (SIS)
• B. The employee
• C. The client who commissioned the project
• D. The creator retains ownership unless transferred

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that when a worker creates something as part of their job, the work-for-hire rule typically assigns ownership to the employer. In this case, the computer process was created by Cannon while employed by Simplified Information Systems as part of his ordinary duties. Because it was produced within the scope of employment, it falls under a work-for-hire situation, so the employer owns the rights to the work. This default can be overridden only by a written agreement explicitly transferring ownership to the employee or by a situation where the work is specially commissioned and meets the written-contract requirement; otherwise, the employer is the owner. The client would own a commissioned work only if there’s a qualifying, explicit written agreement assigning rights, which is not the scenario described here.

The key idea is that when a worker creates something as part of their job, the work-for-hire rule typically assigns ownership to the employer. In this case, the computer process was created by Cannon while employed by Simplified Information Systems as part of his ordinary duties. Because it was produced within the scope of employment, it falls under a work-for-hire situation, so the employer owns the rights to the work. This default can be overridden only by a written agreement explicitly transferring ownership to the employee or by a situation where the work is specially commissioned and meets the written-contract requirement; otherwise, the employer is the owner. The client would own a commissioned work only if there’s a qualifying, explicit written agreement assigning rights, which is not the scenario described here.