Balt. Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n - 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986)

Rule:

A work made for hire is defined in part as a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment. Thus, an employer owns a copyright in a work if (1) the work satisfies the generally applicable requirements for copyrightability set forth in 17 U.S.C.S. § 102(a), (2) the work was prepared by an employee, (3) the work was prepared within the scope of the employee's employment, and (4) the parties have not expressly agreed otherwise in a signed, written instrument.

Facts:

After decades of negotiation concerning the allocation of revenues from telecasts of the games, the Major League Baseball Players Association ("Players") in May of 1982 sent letters to the Major League Baseball Clubs ("Clubs"), and to television and cable companies with which the Clubs had contracted, asserting that the telecasts were being made without the Players' consent and that they misappropriated the Players' property rights in their performances. On June 14, 1982, the Clubs filed an action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Clubs possessed an exclusive right to broadcast the games and owned exclusive rights to the telecasts pursuant to 17 U.S.C.S. § 201(b) and Illinois master-servant law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Clubs. The Players appealed. 

Issue:

Did the Clubs own exclusive rights to the telecast and have exclusive right to broadcast the games? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment as to the clubs’ ownership of copyrights in telecasts. Since baseball players were employees, their televised and taped performances were within the scope of their employment. Telecasts of major league baseball games, which consisted of players’ performances, were works made for hire within meaning of 17 U.S.C.S. § 201(b). Pursuant to 17 U.S.C.S. § 301, the Clubs’ copyright in telecasts of major league baseball games preempted the players' rights of publicity in their baseball game performances. However, the court vacated the lower court's decision that the Clubs, as employers, retained all rights in their employees' work product, however. The court could not determine from the record which state's law governed the master-servant claim, and the court remanded the case for the lower court to determine which state's law controlled.