At 8:29 PM -0500 11/14/06, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 14 Nov 2006 at 10:13, Mark D Lew wrote:
By
default, under American law, the copyright of any work for hire falls
to the one who is hiring. If a client hires you to write something,
the resulting product belongs to him unless both parties agree
otherwise.
Er, no, I think that's wrong. Work for hire is only work for hire if
the contract explicitly specifies that it is. Otherwise, the creator
owns the copyright. The exception is if you're an employee of a
company and create the content as part of your daily work. Then it's
work for hire without there being a contract, because it was created
on time paid by the employer.
David, I think the slip in logic here is that in a computer program
(or literature or poetry), the programmer (or writer) is the creator.
In the case of music the "original work" and the copyright that
accompanies it belong similarly to the creator, but someone who
arranges that work is making a derivative work, no matter how
creative the arrangement may actually be.
As an arranger I am much more familiar with the copyright
implications of arranging than of engraving, but it seems as if you
are arguing that a derivative work (i.e. a Finale file of a
copyrighted work) is a new creation, while Mark is arguing that it is
not. Back in the good ol' days of hand copying and hand copyists,
there was never any question of the copyist claiming copyright in his
work, or claiming to own his "work product." It seems to me that a
Finale engraver does nothing more and nothing less than what a good
hand copyist used to do, but does it using modern technology.
The problem is that analogies are never 100% identical, and arguing
from analogy is the kind of thing that could get thrown out of court.
The important thing is that the paying party specify what they think
they are buying and that the creating party then price the product
accordingly.
Well of course! Otherwise, caveat emptor!!
But the default is that the creator owns the copyright, not the other
way around.
Yes, and neither an arranger nor an engraver is the creator of a
previously existing copyrighted work. Problem is, the only way to
settle the question is through court cases, in which someone is
always bound to be hurt.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
