## Facts

- Hi-Tech Video Productions, Inc., a small Michigan video company owned by Stan Akey, produced a travel video titled *Mackinac Island: The Mackinac Video* (released May 1990).
- Akey produced and directed the video and hired freelance contributors, including an aerial videographer, a scriptwriter/narrator, and a principal videographer.
- Hi-Tech funded the project itself (not for a commissioning client) and registered the video in Hi-Tech’s name as a “work made for hire,” effective August 3, 1990.
- *Good Morning America* planned a segment on Mackinac Island’s Lilac Festival and sought approximately one minute of footage.
- ABC obtained two tapes from the Mackinac Island Chamber of Commerce, including Hi-Tech’s video, and used portions of Hi-Tech’s footage in the broadcast.
- Hi-Tech sued ABC for copyright infringement; ABC challenged ownership/registration validity and asserted fair use.

## Issues

1. Whether Hi-Tech’s registration and claimed sole ownership were valid under the “work made for hire” doctrine when key creative contributions came from individuals treated as independent contractors.
2. If the registration was invalid, whether Hi-Tech could maintain an infringement action based on that registration.
3. (Not reached) Whether ABC’s broadcast use was fair use and whether enhanced damages and attorney’s fees were proper.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment for Hi-Tech.
- The court held the “work made for hire” registration was invalid because the principal contributors were not employees under the common-law agency test and there was no written transfer of their rights.
- Because the defective registration materially misstated ownership, Hi-Tech could not proceed on the infringement claim as pleaded.
- The court did not reach fair use, damages (including trebling for willfulness), or attorney’s fees and costs.

## Legal Principles

- “Employee” status for work-made-for-hire purposes is determined by common-law agency factors; the hiring party’s control is only one factor and is not dispositive.
- When a work is created by independent contractors, copyright ownership in their copyrightable contributions remains with them absent a written assignment or a qualifying statutory work-for-hire agreement.
- A registration premised on a material misrepresentation of authorship/ownership—such as incorrectly claiming a work was made for hire and asserting sole ownership—can be invalid.
- Without a valid registration accurately reflecting ownership, a plaintiff may be unable to maintain an infringement action based on that registration.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit rejected Hi-Tech’s attempt to claim sole authorship through a work-for-hire registration where key creative participants were independent contractors without written rights transfers, and it reversed the infringement judgment without addressing fair use or remedies.


Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc. v. Cap. Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1995)