I would, in whatever contract, insist that my name as the arranger be
used, otherwise the composer can find someone else to do it. That way,
even though I'm not going to get anymore money from it, my name would be
on the arrangement and somewhere down the line someone might hear this
arrangement and hire me to do something else. Of course the arrangement
for this author I could not do anything with due to copyright issues
(http://www.mpa.org/). But it is only fair that you get some credit for
it. I insist on this with any arrangements that I do, or I won't do it.
The computer comparison seems somehow hollow. The arranger is in no way
obliged to agree to this at all.
Phil Daley wrote:
At 3/14/2006 12:44 PM, Scott Amort wrote:
>The arrangement would become the property of the composer.
>
>Is this a usual requirement? Does this mean that I am essentially
>signing away any claim to this arrangement (i.e. the composer will not
>need to credit me, nor obtain my permission to use, alter or perform
>it)? It seems to me that the composer is looking for someone else to do
>his work for him and still retain ownership, but maybe I'm just not
>aware of how this sort of thing usually works. He is offering union
rates.
>
>Any advice? Thanks very much.
Compare this to computer programming.
If you are employed by someone to write original computer programs,
you have to sign a contract that your work is owned by the employer.
It seems to me that being hired to arrange something would be the same
situation.
Phil Daley < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
