Tallulah, Inc. signs a contract with Theodore to translate a successful Spanish-language

Tallulah, Inc. signs a contract with Theodore to translate a successful Spanish-language text book into English. The agreement contains a clause stating that Tallulah, Inc. will be the author of the work. Theodore works on the translation from his home office, in New Orleans. A few weeks into the work, Tallulah Inc. threatens to fire Theodore because he refuses to accept any comments from Tallulah, Inc.'s editorial staff. Reluctantly, Theodore agrees to come finish the translation at Tallulah, Inc.'s office, but continues to reject the editorial staff's suggestions, except with respect to the page margins and type spacing. Theodore turns in the work and is paid a one-time lump sum fee for his work, without benefits or tax withholdings. A few months after completing the English translation, Theodore notices that Tallulah Inc. has released the textbook, but has included some very racist commentary added to Theodore's work. The cover of the textbook credits Theodore as a co-writer. He is mortified. His reputation is getting assailed. He may never work in New Orleans again. Theodore sues for infringement based on the theory that the Tallulah Inc. release is an unauthorized derivative work because their original agreement never mentioned anything about Tallulah Inc. being able to create different versions. Who will prevail?