Editing Work for hire (section)

===Employer–employee relationship under agency law===
If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copyright code's definition of a work made for hire applies. To help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court in
''CCNV v. Reid'' identified certain factors that characterize an "employer-employee" relationship as defined by agency law:

# Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create work)
# Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the employee's assistants)
# Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee's payment)

In ''Woods v. Resnick'' (2010), the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin|Western District of Wisconsin]] found that a business owner is neither an employee nor an independent contractor for copyright purposes. Since "an owner has an inherent right to control the business", the owner cannot be considered an agent, let alone an employee, so the work for hire doctrine does not apply to them.<ref name="startup-wfh"/><ref name="Woods v. Resnick">{{cite court |litigants=Woods v. Resnick |vol=725 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=809 |pinpoint=23 |court=W.D. Wis. |date=2010 |url=https://casetext.com/case/woods-v-resnick-2 |quote=In contrast, as a co-owner of the company, Woods does not have an agency relationship with F I Source. Unlike an employee or independent contractor, an owner has an inherent right to control the business.}}</ref>