Dispute Over Cat Logo Continues
Since June 2024, we have been following a case involving Sophia Boyages (“Boyages”), a former employee of the University of Vermont (the "University”), who is suing the University for allegedly using, without her permission, a logo that she created and copyrighted (the "SophCat" logo). We most recently posted on this case in July of 2024.
In November 2024, Boyages submitted a Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting the court to compel the University to provide the metadata of drafts of SophCat and other documents, including copies of communications among employees regarding the production of SophCat. Judge Sessions granted the request for metadata in part and ordered the University to ask its employees to turn over all communications related to SophCat. Additionally, Boyages requested the court to compel the University to provide a description of the policies the University has regarding rebranding, but Judge Sessions denied this request. The University claimed that such policies do not exist, and the court stated in its Opinion and Order on the Motion that, “[t]he Court cannot compel information that does not exist” (10).
Since then, the case has experienced considerable back-and-forth. Initially, the discovery process was scheduled to be completed by February 2025. However, at the parties' request, Judge Sessions rescheduled the discovery deadline twice. Discovery was first extended to April 20th and then to May 19th. Subsequently, it was pushed again to July, with the trial set for August 1st.
Prior to trial, Boyages’ attorneys filed a motion to substitute counsel, and the University requested an increase in the page limits for its Motion for Summary Judgment. In the Resulting Motion, the University argues that it is the owner of the original catamount logo and that Boyages’ Sophcat logo is merely a derivative of that original and also a work made for hire. The University cites excerpts from Boyages’ deposition, including one in which she was asked whether she drafted the logo in the hope that it would be used by the University as its new logo. She responded affirmatively, stating that she felt the “[drawing] was strong enough to show” (13). In the University’s view, this statement supports its position that Boyages created the logo during her employment and at the University’s request, within the scope of her job duties. The University also argues that even if she performed some work at home to complete the logo, it still qualifies as a work made for hire because it was related to the assigned logo project. In addition, the University claims that Boyages’ copyright registration is unenforceable in this case because the design is a derivative of the University’s preexisting logo and that only the University can authorize derivative works under 17 U.S.C. § 409(9).
On the other hand, in her own Motion for Summary Judgment, Boyages reaffirms that the facts that she worked outside business hours and used her own resources to create the logo do not make it a work made for hire. She further argues that creating logos was not part of her assigned duties and that her position did not require her to produce original artwork. Regarding the allegation that her work is derivative, Boyages contends that the two works differ in perspective, expression, design details, and overall artistic choices, making hers a distinct work rather than a derivative one.
The parties now await Judge Sessions’ decision on which arguments will prevail. We will provide a full report once the Court issues its ruling.