Lewis v. Activision

7/27/2019 Lewis v. Activision

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lewis-v-activision 1/12

U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

F o r t h e N o

r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

AMANDA LEWI S,Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.

ACTI VI SI ON BLI ZZARD, I NC. , andBLI ZZARD ENTERTAI NMENT, I NC. ,

Def endants. ________________________________/

No. C 12- 1096 CW ORDER GRANTI NGDEFENDANTS’ MOTI ONFOR SUMMARY J UDGMENT ( DocketNo. 39)

Pl ai nt i f f Amanda Lewi s br ought t hi s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement

act i on agai nst her f or mer empl oyer , Def endant s Act i vi si on

Bl i zzar d, I nc. , and Bl i zzar d Ent er t ai nment , I nc. ( col l ecti vel y,

Bl i zzar d) . Bl i zzar d moves f or summar y j udgment . Pl ai nt i f f

opposes t he mot i on. Af t er consi der i ng t he par t i es’ submi ssi ons

and oral argument , t he Cour t gr ant s t he mot i on.

BACKGROUND

The f ol l owi ng f act s ar e undi sput ed. Bl i zzar d i s a vi deogame

company t hat devel ops, markets, and di st r i but es comput er games.

Secrest Decl . ¶ 26. One of i t s most popul ar games i s Wor l d of

War cr af t , a “mul t i pl ayer r ol e- pl ayi ng game, i n whi ch t housands of

peopl e pl ay si mul t aneousl y i n a ‘ vi r t ual wor l d’ cr eat ed by

Bl i zzar d. ” I d.

Pl ai nt i f f was empl oyed at Bl i zzar d as a “game mast er ” f or

Wor l d of Warcr af t f r omMay 2005 t hr ough August 2006. Lewi s Decl .

¶¶ 2- 4. I n t hat r ol e, she was responsi bl e f or answer i ng

cust omers’ quest i ons about t he game, assi st i ng t hemwhen t hey

encount er ed di f f i cul t i es wi t h ot her pl ayer s or game mechani cs, and

sol vi ng any pr obl ems wi t h game f unct i onal i t y. I d. ¶¶ 3- 5.

Case4:12-cv-01096-CW Document52 Filed10/17/13 Page1 of 12



U n i t e

d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

F o r t h e N o


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accor di ng t o t he “Game Mast er J ob Descr i pt i on” i n Bl i zzard’ s

t r ai ni ng manual ,

Game Mast er s are cust omer ser vi ce speci al i st s wi t h

exper t knowl edge of t he game who are [ ] present aschar act er s wi t hi n Wor l d of War cr af t ’ s epi c f ant asyset t i ng t o pr ovi de assi st ance and gui dance t o pl ayer swhi l e al so coor di nat i ng wor l d f unct i onal i t y. I n t hi scapaci t y, GM’ s serve as t he di r ect l i nk bet ween Bl i zzar dand i t s cust omer s. Addi t i onal l y, GM’ s ar e r esponsi bl ef or i n- game cust omer support , hel pi ng manage our onl i necommuni t y, and assi st i ng wi t h t he cr eat i on of cont entdur i ng t he ever ongoi ng devel opment of t he game.

Secr est Decl . ¶ 29, Ex. P, Apr i l 2005 Tr ai ni ng Manual , at 4.

Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved a copy of t hi s manual dur i ng an empl oyee

t r ai ni ng sessi on t hat she at t ended dur i ng her f i r st week on t he

j ob. Lewi s Decl . ¶ 6; Mayer Decl . , Ex. U, Lewi s Depo. 50: 4- : 6,

51: 11- : 20.

I n J ul y 2005, a Bl i zzar d game wr i t er sent an e- mai l t o al l

game mast er s i nvi t i ng t hem t o par t i ci pat e i n “open audi t i ons” f or

voi ceover wor k r el at ed t o Wor l d of War cr af t . Far r Decl . ¶ 3, Ex.

A, 7/ 7/ 2005 E- Mai l , at 1. Roughl y one hundr ed and t went y game

mast er s si gned up t o par t i ci pat e i n t he audi t i ons, i ncl udi ng

Pl ai nt i f f . I d. Af t er Pl ai nt i f f audi t i oned i n l at e J ul y, she was

i nvi t ed t o record a voi ce f or a newl y creat ed game char act er

cal l ed t he “baby mur l oc. ” Far r Decl . ¶¶ 5- 6. The char act er was

concei ved by Bl i zzar d’ s desi gn t eam as a “cut er , smal l er ver si on

of t he or i gi nal mur l oc, ” a myt hi cal creat ur e f eat ur ed i n ear l i er

ver si ons of t he game. I d. Bef or e t he r ecor di ng sessi on,

Bl i zzar d’ s sound engi neer t ol d Pl ai nt i f f t hat t he char act er woul d

be unvei l ed at Bl i zzCon 2005, an annual f an convent i on, and used

i n vi deos t o pr omote t he game. Mayer Decl . , Ex. U, Lewi s Depo.

125: 18- : 24. He di d not say whet her Bl i zzar d woul d ul t i mat el y use




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

t he recor di ng f or any ot her pur pose - - such as t o voi ce any

char act er s wi t hi n t he game i t sel f - - and Pl ai nt i f f never asked

whet her t he r ecordi ngs mi ght be used out si de of Bl i zzCon. I d.

Lewi s Depo. 104: 16- 105: 4.

On Sept ember 7, 2005, Pl ai nt i f f par t i ci pat ed i n a r ecor di ng

sessi on at Bl i zzar d’ s of f i ces. Lewi s Decl . ¶ 12. The sessi on

l ast ed about t en mi nut es and yi el ded r oughl y f i ve mi nut es of r aw

audi o r ecor di ng. Far r Decl . ¶¶ 9, 23. Bl i zzar d’ s sound engi neer

subsequent l y edi t ed t he r aw r ecor di ng t o pr oduce a condensed set

of sound f i l es. I d. ¶¶ 20- 21.

Two weeks l at er , Pl ai nt i f f was i nvi t ed t o par t i ci pat e i n

anot her r ecor di ng sessi on t o devel op a shor t “dance” song f or t he

baby mur l oc char act er usi ng her voi ce. I d. ¶ 4; Lewi s Decl . ¶ 18.

On Sept ember 22, Pl ai nt i f f at t ended a second r ecor di ng sessi on at

Bl i zzar d’ s of f i ces. Far r Decl . ¶ 15; Lewi s Decl . ¶¶ 19- 20. The

sessi on yi el ded r oughl y f our mi nut es of r aw audi o recor di ng, whi ch

Bl i zzar d’ s sound engi neer once agai n edi t ed and condensed i nt o

smal l er sound f i l es. Far r Decl . ¶¶ 18- 21. Pl ai nt i f f was

compensated f or her par t i ci pat i on i n bot h r ecor di ng sessi ons at

her usual hour l y rat e and never sought addi t i onal compensat i on f or

her wor k on ei t her r ecor di ng. Mayer Decl . , Ex. U, Lewi s Depo.

137: 16- 138: 7.

Somet i me i n 2006, short l y bef ore she was t ermi nat ed by

Bl i zzar d, Pl ai nt i f f di scover ed t hat her voi ce f r om t he r ecor di ngs

had been used t o creat e a baby mur l oc charact er t hat appear ed i n

t he game i t sel f . Lewi s Decl . ¶ 23. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f was

“sur pr i sed t o f i nd out t hat [ her ] voi ce had been used beyond t he

scope of what [ she] had been t ol d i t woul d be used f or , ” she di d




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

not convey her sur pr i se t o any of her f r i ends, co- wor ker s, or

super vi sors. Mayer Decl . , Ex. U, Lewi s Depo. 148: 5- : 24, 151: 11-

: 25; Lewi s Decl . ¶ 22.

I n November 2010, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed t hi s l awsui t agai nst

Bl i zzard al l egi ng t hat t he company had i nf r i nged her copyr i ght i n

t he baby mur l oc r ecor di ngs by usi ng par t s of t he recor di ngs i n t he

game wi t hout her consent . Pl ai nt i f f al so asser t ed var i ous st at e

cl ai ms agai nst Bl i zzard i n her compl ai nt but t hose cl ai ms wer e

di smi ssed i n Oct ober 2012. Docket No. 26, Or der on Mot i on t o

Di smi ss Second and Thi r d Cl ai ms f or Rel i ef , at 13. I n August

2013, Bl i zzar d f i l ed t he i nst ant mot i on f or summar y j udgment on

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s sol e r emai ni ng cl ai m f or copyr i ght i nf r i ngement .

LEGAL STANDARD

Summar y j udgment i s proper l y grant ed when no genui ne and

di sput ed i ssues of mat er i al f act r emai n, and when, vi ewi ng t he

evi dence most f avorabl y t o the nonmovi ng part y, t he movant i s

cl ear l y ent i t l ed t o pr evai l as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v.

P. 56; Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477 U. S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) ;

Ei senber g v. I ns. Co. of N. Am. , 815 F. 2d 1285, 1288- 89 ( 9t h Ci r .

1987) .

The movi ng par t y bear s t he bur den of showi ng t hat t her e i s no

mat er i al f act ual di sput e. Ther ef or e, t he cour t must r egar d as

t r ue t he opposi ng par t y’ s evi dence, i f suppor t ed by af f i davi t s or

ot her evi dent i ar y mat er i al . Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 324; Ei senber g,

815 F. 2d at 1289. The cour t must dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf erences

i n f avor of t he part y agai nst whom summary j udgment i s sought .

Mat sushi t a El ec. I ndus. Co. v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475 U. S. 574,




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

587 ( 1986) ; I nt el Cor p. v. Har t f or d Acci dent & I ndem. Co. , 952

F. 2d 1551, 1558 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) .

Mater i al f act s whi ch woul d pr ecl ude ent r y of summary j udgment

ar e t hose whi ch, under appl i cabl e subst ant i ve l aw, may af f ect t he

out come of t he case. The subst ant i ve l aw wi l l i dent i f y whi ch

f act s ar e mat er i al . Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S.

242, 248 ( 1986) . Wher e t he movi ng par t y does not bear t he bur den

of pr oof on an i ssue at t r i al , t he movi ng par t y may di schar ge i t s

bur den of pr oduct i on by ei t her of t wo methods:

The movi ng par t y may produce evi dence negat i ng anessent i al el ement of t he nonmovi ng par t y’ s case, or ,af t er sui t abl e di scover y, t he movi ng par t y may show t hatt he nonmovi ng par t y does not have enough evi dence of anessent i al el ement of i t s cl ai m or def ense t o car r y i t sul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on at t r i al .

Ni ssan Fi r e & Mar i ne I ns. Co. , Lt d. , v. Fr i t z Cos. , I nc. , 210 F. 3d

1099, 1106 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) .

I f t he movi ng par t y di schar ges i t s bur den by showi ng an

absence of evi dence t o suppor t an essent i al el ement of a cl ai m or

def ense, i t i s not r equi r ed t o pr oduce evi dence showi ng t he

absence of a mat er i al f act on such i ssues, or t o suppor t i t s

mot i on wi t h evi dence negat i ng t he nonmovi ng par t y’ s cl ai m. I d. ;

see al so Luj an v. Nat ’ l Wi l dl i f e Fed’ n, 497 U. S. 871, 885 ( 1990) ;

Bhan v. NME Hosps. , I nc. , 929 F. 2d 1404, 1409 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) . I f

t he movi ng par t y shows an absence of evi dence t o suppor t t he non-

movi ng par t y’ s case, t he bur den t hen shi f t s t o the nonmovi ng

par t y t o pr oduce “speci f i c evi dence, t hr ough af f i davi t s or

admi ssi bl e di scover y mat er i al , t o show t hat t he di sput e exi st s. ”

Bhan, 929 F. 2d at 1409.




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I f t he movi ng par t y di schar ges i t s bur den by negat i ng an

essent i al el ement of t he nonmovi ng par t y’ s cl ai m or def ense, i t

must pr oduce af f i r mat i ve evi dence of such negat i on. Ni ssan, 210

F. 3d at 1105. I f t he movi ng par t y pr oduces such evi dence, t he

bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonmovi ng par t y t o pr oduce speci f i c

evi dence t o show t hat a di sput e of mat er i al f act exi st s. I d.

I f t he movi ng par t y does not meet i t s i ni t i al bur den of

pr oduct i on by ei t her method, t he nonmovi ng part y i s under no

obl i gat i on t o of f er any evi dence i n suppor t of i t s opposi t i on.

I d. Thi s i s t r ue even t hough t he nonmovi ng par t y bear s t he

ul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on at t r i al . I d. at 1107.

DI SCUSSI ON

Bl i zzard ar gues t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s copyr i ght i nf r i ngement cl ai m f or t wo r easons. Fi r st ,

i t cont ends t hat Pl ai nt i f f does not own a copyr i ght i n t he baby

mur l oc recor di ngs because t he recor di ngs const i t ut e a “work made

f or hi r e” under t he Copyr i ght Act , 17 U. S. C. § 201( b) . Second,

and i n t he al t er nat i ve, Bl i zzar d ar gues t hat i t i s a j oi nt aut hor

of t he r ecor di ngs and t hus cannot be hel d l i abl e f or copyr i ght

i nf r i ngement .

I . Wor k Made f or Hi r e

The Copyr i ght Act provi des, “I n t he case of a wor k made f or

hi r e, t he empl oyer or other person f or whomt he work was pr epared

i s consi der ed t he aut hor . . . and, unl ess t he par t i es have

expr essl y agr eed ot her wi se i n a wr i t t en i nst r ument si gned by t hem,

owns al l of t he r i ght s compr i sed i n t he copyr i ght . ” 17 U. S. C.

§ 201( b) . The Act def i nes a “work made f or hi r e” as “a work




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pr epared by an empl oyee wi t hi n t he scope of hi s or her

empl oyment . ” I d. § 101.

“Al t hough t he Copyr i ght Act does not def i ne ei t her ‘ empl oyee’

or ‘ scope of empl oyment , ’ t hese t er ms must be ‘ under st ood i n l i ght

of t he general common l aw of agency. ’ ” U. S. Aut o Par t s Network,

I nc. v. Par t s Geek, LLC, 692 F. 3d 1009, 1015 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012)

( ci t i ng Cmt y. f or Cr eat i ve Non–Vi ol ence v. Rei d, 490 U. S. 730,

739- 41 ( 1989) ) . Var i ous ci r cui t s, i ncl udi ng t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ,

r el y on t he thr ee- pr ong “scope of empl oyment ” t est set f or t h i n

sect i on 228 of t he Rest atement ( Second) of Agency t o determi ne

whether a gi ven work was “made f or hi r e” under t he Copyr i ght Act .

I d. Under t hat t est , an empl oyee’ s conduct f al l s “wi t hi n t he

scope of empl oyment i f , but onl y i f : ( a) i t i s of t he ki nd he i s

empl oyed t o per f or m; ( b) i t occur s subst ant i al l y wi t hi n t he

aut hor i zed t i me and space l i mi t s; [ and] ( c) i t i s act uat ed, at

l east i n par t , by a pur pose t o serve t he [ empl oyer ] . ” Rest at ement

( Second) of Agency § 228.

Her e, t he undi sput ed f act s demonst r at e t hat Pl ai nt i f f was an

empl oyee of Bl i zzar d and t hat her cont r i but i ons t o t he baby mur l oc

r ecor di ngs f el l squar el y wi t hi n t he scope of her empl oyment .

A. “Empl oyed To Per f orm”

Bl i zzard’ s t r ai ni ng manual st at es t hat game mast er s are

r esponsi bl e f or “assi st [ i ng] wi t h t he creat i on of cont ent dur i ng

t he ever ongoi ng devel opment of t he game. ” Secr est Decl . ¶ 29,

Ex. P at 4. Pl ai nt i f f admi t s t hat she r ead t hi s j ob descri pt i on

i n t he t r ai ni ng manual when she f i r st began wor ki ng at Bl i zzard i n

2005. Lewi s Decl . ¶ 6. She argues, however , t hat because she was

not r equi r ed t o pr oduce or i gi nal cont ent f or t he game on a r egul ar




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

basi s, her cont r i but i ons t o the baby mur l oc r ecor di ngs do not

qual i f y as t he ki nd of work she was “empl oyed t o per f orm. ”

Thi s ar gument f ai l s f or several r easons. Fi r st , as not ed

above, t he t r ai ni ng manual Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved speci f i cal l y

i dent i f i ed cont ent - creat i on as one of her of f i ci al

r esponsi bi l i t i es. Even i f she onl y per f or med t hi s r esponsi bi l i t y

on occasi on, i t was st i l l expr essl y l i st ed i n her j ob descr i pt i on

and t her ef or e f el l wi t hi n t he scope of her st at ed dut i es. What ’ s

mor e, pr oduci ng cont ent i s ver y si mi l ar t o t he ot her dut i es t hat

game mast ers were r out i nel y expected t o per f orm. Al t hough

Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o cast game mast er s as cust omer servi ce

r epr esent at i ves who l acked any i nf l uence over game cont ent , she

acknowl edged i n her decl arat i on t hat game mast ers f r equent l y

exer ci sed di r ect cont r ol over el ement s of t he game wor l d. See i d.

¶ 7 ( “I woul d go i nt o t he game wor l d about 3- 5 t i mes ever y shi f t

t o assi st pl ayers who were exper i enci ng i ssues such as becomi ng

st uck, not r ecei vi ng ‘ l oot , ’ or t o remove a monst er i n an i mpr oper

l ocat i on. ”) . Thus, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s own evi dence suggest s t hat game

mast er s di d not si mpl y i nt er act wi t h Bl i zzar d’ s cust omer s but al so

engaged di r ect l y wi t h game cont ent .

Bl i zzard’ s evi dence conf i r ms t hat game mast ers somet i mes

pr oduced or i gi nal cont ent f or t he game. The company’ s human

r esour ces manager asser t ed i n her decl arat i on t hat other game

mast er s besi des Pl ai nt i f f wer e asked t o cont r i but e - - and di d, i n

f act , cont r i but e - - or i gi nal cont ent t o t he game, i ncl udi ng vi sual

ar t wor k and desi gns, whi l e Pl ai nt i f f was empl oyed t her e. Secr est

Decl . ¶ 30. The human r esour ces manager al so asser t ed t hat , i n

addi t i on t o t hei r day- t o- day r esponsi bi l i t i es, game mast er s wer e




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“expect ed t o assi st wi t h any ot her [ game] - r el at ed t asks t hat t hey

may be asked t o do. ” I d. ¶ 27. Pl ai nt i f f does not di sput e ei t her

of t hese asser t i ons.

I ndeed, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s own descr i pt i on of her exper i ence

r ecor di ng t he baby mur l oc voi ce suggest s t hat t hi s wor k f el l

wi t hi n t he scope of her or di nar y j ob dut i es. Pl ai nt i f f t est i f i ed

at her deposi t i on t hat she was pai d her normal hour l y wage f or

par t i ci pat i ng i n each r ecor di ng sessi on and never sought any

addi t i onal compensat i on f or her voi ce wor k. Mayer Decl . , Ex. U,

Lewi s Depo. 134: 16- : 25, 136: 2- : 7. I n addi t i on, she admi t t ed t hat

her super vi sor pr ai sed her wor k on t he r ecor di ngs dur i ng a

November 2005 r evi ew of her j ob per f ormance. I d. , Lewi s Depo.

147: 4- 148: 2; see al so Secrest Decl . Ex. Q, Empl oyee Revi ew For m,

at 1 ( “Amanda was t hr i l l ed t o be chosen as t he voi ce of t he baby

mur l oc. ”) . Taken t oget her , t hi s evi dence i ndi cat es t hat bot h

Pl ai nt i f f and her co- wor ker s under st ood t hat her cont r i but i ons t o

t he baby mur l oc recor di ngs const i t ut ed t he ki nd of work she was

“empl oyed t o per f orm. ”

Pl ai nt i f f at t empt s t o anal ogi ze t hi s case to TAP Wor l dwi de,

LLC v. Becker , where a cour t f ound that an export manager f or an

aut o- par t s manuf act ur er was act i ng out si de t he scope of hi s

empl oyment when he desi gned a sof t ware pr ogr am t o expedi t e t he

pr ocess i ng of expor t shi pment s. 2010 WL 2757354, at *4 ( C. D.

Cal . ) . TAP Wor l dwi de i s i napposi t e, however , because i n t hat case

t he expor t manager ’ s j ob descr i pt i on di d not i ncl ude sof t war e

devel opment . I n f act , t he cour t speci f i cal l y used t hi s f act t o

di st i ngui sh TAP Wor l dwi de f r om anot her case wher e “i t was f ound

t hat t he empl oyee’ s j ob descr i pt i on coul d be i nt er pr et ed t o




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i ncl ude t he devel opment of t he comput er pr ogr amt hat was at

i ssue. ” I d. ( emphasi s added; ci t i ng Genzmer v. Publ i c Heal t h

Tr ust of Mi ami - Dade County, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1275 ( S. D. Fl a.

2002) ) . The TAP Wor l dwi de cour t al so noted t hat t he export

manager had not r ecei ved any “pr ai se” or “gui dance” f r omhi s

super vi sor r egardi ng t he sof t war e he devel oped, whi ch f ur t her

suggest ed t hat t hat he was not “empl oyed t o per f orm” t hat ki nd of

wor k. I d. Her e, i n cont r ast , Pl ai nt i f f has acknowl edged not onl y

t hat her j ob descr i pt i on i ncl udes “t he cr eat i on of [ game] cont ent ”

but al so that her super vi sor pr ai sed her cont r i but i ons t o t he baby

mur l oc r ecor di ngs. Thus, TAP Wor l dwi de i s di st i ngui shabl e f r om

t he pr esent case.

B. “Subst ant i al l y Wi t hi n Aut hor i zed Ti me and Space Li mi t s”

Bot h of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s r ecor di ng sessi ons wer e conduct ed at

Bl i zzar d’ s of f i ces, usi ng Bl i zzar d’ s equi pment , and under t he

super vi si on of Bl i zzar d’ s sound engi neer . Far r Decl . ¶¶ 8- 16.

Fur t hermore, bot h sessi ons occur r ed on weekdays dur i ng normal

wor ki ng hour s whi l e Pl ai nt i f f was empl oyed at Bl i zzard. Al t hough

t he sessi ons t ook pl ace on her days of f , Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved her

nor mal hour l y wage f or al l of t he t i me she spent i n t he recor di ng

st udi o. Fi nal l y, Pl ai nt i f f never r equest ed or r ecei ved her own

copi es of t he r ecor di ngs f r om ei t her sessi on. I d. ¶¶ 20- 22. I n

shor t , Pl ai nt i f f ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he r ecor di ng sessi ons

occur r ed subst ant i al l y wi t hi n t he aut hor i zed t i me and space l i mi t s

of her posi t i on at Bl i zzar d.

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s asser t i on t hat she devel oped t he baby mur l oc

voi ce “on [ her ] own t i me” and t hr ough her “own cr eat i ve ef f or t , ”

Lewi s Decl . ¶¶ 12, 14, 20, does not change t hi s out come. The




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Copyr i ght Act makes cl ear t hat , whi l e “sound r ecor di ngs” may be

copyr i ght ed, t he Act ’ s pr ot ect i ons do not “ext end t o any i dea,

pr ocedur e, pr ocess, syst em, met hod of oper at i on, concept ,

pr i nci pl e, or di scover y, r egar dl ess of t he f or m i n whi ch i t i s

descr i bed, expl ai ned, i l l ust r at ed, or embodi ed i n such wor k. ” 17

U. S. C. § 102. Because t he “voi ce” t hat Pl ai nt i f f al l egedl y

creat ed i s mer el y an i dea - - and, t hus, i s not copyr i ght abl e - - i t

does not mat t er when or where she concei ved of i t . She has not

pr esent ed any evi dence to suggest t hat t he r ecor di ngs t hemsel ves

were made out si de of t he t i me and space l i mi t s of her j ob.

C. “Act uat ed, At Least I n Par t , By a Pur pose To Ser ve t heEmpl oyer”

At or al ar gument , Pl ai nt i f f conceded t hat she was mot i vat ed

by a desi r e t o ser ve Bl i zzar d’ s i nt er est s when she par t i ci pat ed i n

t he baby mur l oc recor di ng sessi ons. She al so admi t t ed i n her

decl ar at i on t hat , when she f i r st agr eed t o wor k on t he recor di ngs,

she under st ood that t he recor di ngs woul d be used pr i nci pal l y t o

pr omot e t he game. Lewi s Decl . ¶ 21. Thus, i t i s undi sput ed t hat

her wor k on t he recor di ngs was “act uat ed, at l east i n par t , by a

pur pose to ser ve” her empl oyer .

I n sum, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s cont r i but i ons t o t he baby mur l oc

r ecor di ngs sat i sf y al l t hr ee pr ongs of sect i on 228’ s “scope of

empl oyment ” t est . The r ecor di ngs t her ef or e const i t ut e a “wor k

made f or hi r e” under t he Copyr i ght Act . I I . J oi nt Aut horshi p

Because t he baby mur l oc r ecor di ngs are a “work made f or

hi r e, ” as expl ai ned above, Bl i zzar d i s t he sol e copyr i ght hol der




U n i t e


F o r t h e N o


12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i n t he r ecor di ngs. Accor di ngl y, t her e i s no need t o addr ess

whet her t he r ecordi ngs are a “j oi nt wor k” under t he Copyr i ght Act .

CONCLUSI ON

For t he r easons set f or t h above, Def endant s’ mot i on f or

summar y j udgment ( Docket No. 39) i s GRANTED. Def endant s’

evi dent i ary obj ect i ons ( Docket No. 49) are DENI ED as moot .

The cl er k shal l ent er j udgment and cl ose t he f i l e. Each

par t y shal l bear her or i t s own cost s.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

Dat ed: CLAUDI A WI LKENUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


Lewis v. Activision

Documents

Transcript of Lewis v. Activision