Mr. Khan's Case: Forward V. Bid Case

701 Words 3 Pages
Short Answer
Most likely, yes. After factors in Khan’s case and precedent cases were compared, it showed that the majority of the factors examined by courts in theses cases to determine whether the work was for hire are satisfied in Khan’s case. Therefore, the work was for hire.

The work done by Mr.Khan is likely to be considered as a work for hire which is excluded from the Visual Artists Rights Act. VARA stipulates that “ A work made for hire is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment“. There were several cases involving the same issue presented here. In these cases, there were many factors courts looked at in order to decide whether the work was for hire or not. In Forward v. Thorogood case,
…show more content…
Reid case heard by the US supreme court shows these factors could not exclude person’s work from being a work for hire when other factors are satisfied. The court in this case examined others factors before it reached a decision. The court looked at the right to sign an addition project, whether the defendant was provided tools, supervision and if the plaintiff was paying regularly to the defendant. Furthermore, it looked at the skills the defendant had and the freedom to choose when to finish the work. The majority of these factors were not satisfied in Creative Non-Violence v. Reid case. Therefore, the defendant was an independent contractor. On the other hand, Mr.khan was provided the tools, regularly paid, did not have the appropriate skills, and his employer had the right to sign an addition project. It is obvious that most of these factors satisfied in Mr.Khan case played a crucial role in determining the Reid …show more content…
Reid case , in Carter v. Helmsley-Spear case heard by U.S. court of appeals second circuit, the court looked at the same factors to determine the issue. Although some of them were not satisfied, The majority of them were satisfied such as providing him tools , the right to sign a project and the paying vacation which led the court to consider the plaintiff as an employee. As a result, the work done by him was for hire. Comparing to Mr.Khan case, although some factors were not satisfied, many factors were satisfied such as providing him tools, paying him salary, and giving him paying vacation. Consequently, the work Mr.Khan made is probably going to be a work for hire. Finally, although Mr.Khan was not originally to produce a sculpture, his job requirements changed during the course of his employment as the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida decided in Sterpetti v. E-Brands Acquisition case where the plaintiff’s work was considered as work for hire although he was not originally hired to create

Related Documents