Marvin Siebersma, Doing Business as Semco v. Don L. Vande Berg, Doing Business as Vande Berg Scales Wilma Vande Berg, Doing Business as Vande Berg Scales David Vande Berg, Doing Business as Vande Berg Scales

Citations: 64 F.3d 448; 35 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1861; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24604Docket: 94-3176

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; September 1, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the copyright dispute between Marvin Siebersma and Vande Berg Scales (VBS), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's partial summary judgment and dissolved the preliminary injunction favoring Siebersma. Siebersma, an independent contractor since 1988, claimed ownership of copyrights for two programs he wrote in 1991, asserting he created them on his own time, outside of any specific contract with VBS. VBS countered that Siebersma contributed to the programs during his hourly employment and that a VBS employee's transcription of his pseudocode into computer language constituted joint authorship.

The case hinges on the nature of Siebersma's relationship with VBS, as copyright ownership is influenced by whether the creator is considered an independent contractor or an employee. Independent contractors typically retain copyright ownership, while employees usually do not. The court noted that if Siebersma was a regular employee or if the programs were written exclusively for VBS, then VBS could claim joint ownership of the copyrights. The district court had found no genuine issue of material fact to support VBS's claims, but the appellate court identified such a dispute, warranting a reversal of the lower court's decisions.

The district court determined that VBS did not establish a genuine dispute regarding copyright ownership of two programs. However, this conclusion is contested based on a 1990 agreement between the parties, which outlines royalties for Siebersma from VBS sales. While the district court interpreted this agreement as evidence of Siebersma's status as an independent contractor and copyright owner, it could also imply that the parties did not consider Siebersma the copyright owner and that royalties were contingent on the agreement. Furthermore, a clause in the agreement stating it would terminate when Siebersma left VBS suggests he may have sold the copyrights to VBS for a royalty stream ending with his employment. VBS's rationale for the agreement as an incentive for Siebersma to remain with the company is plausible, and VBS need only show a non-frivolous dispute regarding ownership, which it has done. 

The district court also found that Siebersma met the criteria for a preliminary injunction against VBS, relying on the partial summary judgment favoring Siebersma. Consequently, the preliminary injunction is to be dissolved, and the motion reconsidered. VBS's argument regarding the bond requirement for the injunction is rendered moot by its dissolution. The court reverses the partial summary judgment, dissolves the injunction, and remands the case for further proceedings, with Chief Judge Paul A. Magnuson presiding.