MEMORANDUM **

Zifen Qian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc.’s in relation to its copyright action brought against Qian. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Carol Wilson Fine Arts, *702 Inc.’s declaratory judgment claim because Qian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the paintings were created as works for hire for Carol Wilson Fine Arts, Inc. See 17 U.S.C. § 101(1) (a work made for hire is, among other things, “a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment”), § 201(b) (in the case of a work made for hire, the employer is considered the author of the copyright, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 738-39, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (discussing the nature of the “work made for hire” doctrine).

AFFIRMED.