Final answer:
Ellen is likely an employee as she fulfills the criteria of creating work as part of regular duties under Arnold's supervision and receives an hourly fee.
Step-by-step explanation:
In this scenario, Ellen is considered an employee rather than being self-employed. The key factor here is that she is under Arnold's supervision, he reviews her work and pays her an hourly fee. These factors indicate an employer-employee relationship, where Arnold has control and direction over Ellen's work.
In contrast, if Ellen were self-employed, she would have more control over her work and operate as an independent contractor. She would have the freedom to set her fees, manage her clients, and make decisions without direct supervision.
Ellen is likely considered an employee rather than self-employed in this scenario. As an employee, Ellen's work is created as part of her regular duties, and she is under the supervision of Arnold, who reviews her work and compensates her with an hourly fee. According to the criteria for a work made for hire, an individual is considered an employee if the work is a part of the employee's regular duties, which appears to be the case for Ellen. Furthermore, the nature of the supervision and the hourly payment arrangement suggests that Arnold retains control over how Ellen performs the services, which is characteristic of an employer-employee relationship.