Who Owns University-Created Art? A Work Made For Hire Showdown Offers A Cautionary Tale For Higher Ed

In a decision potentially implicating a number of universities and creative employees, a federal court in Vermont recently held that the University of Vermont (UVM) owned the copyright to a new athletic logo created by a staff member—despite her undisputed authorship—under the "work made for hire" doctrine. The ruling in Boyages v. University of Vermont (Case No. 2:24-cv-538) underscores how higher education institutions may want to handle intellectual property created by staff, particularly when graphic design and branding projects blur traditional job descriptions.

The Dispute: Who Owns the "Rally Cat"?

Sophia Boyages, an administrative assistant in UVM's athletics department with a background in graphic illustration, created a bold, front-facing "catamount" logo after attending a departmental branding meeting. The image was enthusiastically embraced, edited by a colleague, and ultimately rolled out as UVM's new "Rally Cat Head" secondary logo.

When the university began displaying the design across merchandise and filed for trademark registration—without offering Boyages compensation or credit—she filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming she was the sole author of the work. UVM countered that the design was a "work made for hire" and thus belonged to the university.

Legal Foundation: Work Made for Hire in the University Context

The Copyright Act defines a "work made for hire" as one created by an employee within the scope of employment. Ownership vests automatically in the employer unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. This doctrine is especially significant in higher education, where staff often engage in creative work that may not align with narrow job descriptions.

In granting summary judgment for UVM, the court applied the Restatement (Second) of Agency test for scope of employment:

1. Was the work of the kind the employee was hired to perform?
2. Was it created within authorized time and space limits?
3. Was it actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer?

The court answered "yes" to all three.

Key Findings: How the Court Applied the Doctrine

"Kind of Work" Includes Incidental Creative Contributions

Although Boyages wasn't hired as a designer, her resume highlighted graphic skills, and her duties included creating flyers and certificates. The court likened her evolving role to that in Sterpetti, where an employee originally hired as a cook was later asked to run a pasta program and create manuals.

Her work on the logo was deemed within the "ultimate objective" of her employment, even if more sophisticated than her prior projects.

Time and Space: Both Office and Off-Hours Use Count

Boyages worked on the logo at home using her personal equipment but also sought input and presented drafts during work hours. The court emphasized that working off-hours doesn't defeat the work-for-hire designation when the project is work-related.

Motivated to Serve Employer

While Boyages cited personal motivation to grow as a designer, she testified that her goal was for UVM to adopt the design. The court found that this motivation—combined with the logo's genesis during a university branding initiative—confirmed it was created to benefit UVM.

The Derivative Work Argument: A Reinforcing Backstop

Even if the work weren't considered a "work for hire," the court held that the design would be an unauthorized derivative of UVM's preexisting "V-Cat" logo. It emphasized that the new image maintained the same "aesthetic appeal" as the original, simply from a head-on perspective. Because copyright holders have the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, the court concluded Boyages couldn't claim copyright in a design that heavily borrowed from UVM's existing IP.

Strategic Takeaways for Universities and Creatives

Universities: Tighten IP Policies and Onboarding Protocols

This decision affirms that non-faculty staff—even if not expressly hired for creative output—can produce work that becomes university property if done within the scope of employment. Institutions should:

• Ensure clear IP ownership clauses in staff contracts and policies.
• Reiterate IP terms during onboarding and in project-based workgroups.
• Consider whether attribution or compensation policies are appropriate for morale and risk mitigation.

Employees: Don't Assume Personal Ownership Without Explicit Written Agreement

Creative staff should understand that employment context—especially purpose and use—can override personal equipment or off-hours work. If you want to retain ownership of what you create, secure a written agreement before the work begins.

Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Campus Creators

This case is a textbook application of the work made for hire doctrine to university staff—and a cautionary tale for employees who assume authorship equals ownership. Institutions should review their IP frameworks and ensure policies are not only legally sound but clearly communicated. Meanwhile, creative professionals should be wary of informal assumptions about rights to work created within the collaborative—and often ambiguous—university environment.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.