## Facts

- Amanda Lewis worked for Activision Blizzard, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, Blizzard) as a “game master” for *World of Warcraft* from May 2005 to August 2006.
- Game masters appeared in the game as characters, provided customer service to players, and (per Blizzard’s training materials) assisted with content creation during ongoing game development.
- In July 2005, a Blizzard writer emailed game masters inviting open auditions for voice-over work connected to *World of Warcraft*; roughly 120 game masters signed up.
- Lewis auditioned and was selected to record a voice for a new character referred to as the “baby murloc,” described as a smaller, cuter version of the existing “murloc” creature.
- Lewis recorded the voice at Blizzard’s offices during normal workdays in September 2005, using Blizzard’s equipment and staff (including a sound engineer who edited the raw audio into usable sound files).
- Lewis was paid her usual hourly wage for the recording sessions; she did not negotiate extra compensation, royalties, or a separate contract governing ownership or use.
- Before recording, Lewis was told the character would be unveiled at BlizzCon 2005 and used in videos and other marketing materials tied to *World of Warcraft*.
- Lewis did not ask whether the recordings could be used in the game itself, did not request copies of the recordings, and did not place written limits on Blizzard’s use.
- Blizzard later used the recordings to create and include a baby murloc character in *World of Warcraft*.
- Lewis filed suit alleging Blizzard infringed her copyright by using the recordings in the game without her consent; she also asserted state-law claims (including misappropriation of voice and quantum meruit), which the court had dismissed earlier as preempted, leaving only the federal copyright claim for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Lewis’s baby‑murloc voice recordings were a “work made for hire” because they were created by an employee within the scope of employment under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 201(b), making Blizzard the copyright owner.
2. If the recordings were not a work made for hire, whether Blizzard’s involvement in creating the final audio supported joint authorship, barring an infringement claim against Blizzard.
3. Whether Lewis’s state-law claims based on Blizzard’s use of the recordings were preempted by the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. § 301.

## Decision

- The court granted Blizzard’s motion for summary judgment on Lewis’s copyright infringement claim.
- The court held the recordings were a work made for hire created within the scope of Lewis’s employment; Blizzard was deemed the author and owned the copyright as a matter of law.
- Because Blizzard owned the copyright, Blizzard’s use of the recordings in *World of Warcraft* could not infringe Lewis’s copyright.
- The court noted Blizzard’s alternative joint-authorship argument but did not need to rely on it given the work-made-for-hire ruling.
- Lewis’s related state-law claims had already been dismissed earlier in the case as preempted by the Copyright Act.

## Legal Principles

- A “work made for hire” includes a work prepared by an employee within the scope of employment. 17 U.S.C. § 101.
- For a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author and, absent a written agreement signed by the parties providing otherwise, owns all rights in the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b).
- In determining whether an employee acted within the scope of employment for work-for-hire purposes, courts apply common-law agency principles, including whether: (1) the work is of the kind the employee is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits; and (3) it is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
- State-law claims are preempted by the Copyright Act when they concern subject matter within the Copyright Act and assert rights equivalent to the exclusive rights in 17 U.S.C. § 106, absent an additional element that makes the state claim qualitatively different. 17 U.S.C. § 301.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Blizzard because Lewis recorded the baby‑murloc voice during working hours at Blizzard’s offices, was paid her regular wage, and the activity fit within her role as a game master expected to assist with game content; the recordings therefore qualified as a work made for hire owned by Blizzard under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 201(b), defeating Lewis’s infringement claim, and her related state-law theories were preempted under 17 U.S.C. § 301.


Lewis v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149784 (2013)