lotusflw3r said:

lotusflw3r said:

databank said:

lotusflw3r said:

My biggest fears regarding the masters is that Prince will:

1. Release a reworked/censored/rerecorded version to fit his current JW beliefs.

2. Lock away the original version forever without a proper remastering.

3. Do nothing.

Se7en said:

My biggest fears regarding the masters is that Prince will:

1. Release a reworked/censored/rerecorded version to fit his current JW beliefs.

2. Lock away the original version forever without a proper remastering.

3. Do nothing.

We all share such fears, but that's a bit out of the topic

[Edited 5/30/10 6:53am]

Interesting question.
Would Prince's decission to give the writting credit to the pretty girl or whomever was on the cover bite him in the ass and loose the rights to those songs or albums?

databank said:

Se7en said:

My biggest fears regarding the masters is that Prince will:

1. Release a reworked/censored/rerecorded version to fit his current JW beliefs.

2. Lock away the original version forever without a proper remastering.

3. Do nothing.

We all share such fears, but that's a bit out of the topic

Not necessarily . . . in regards to Side Projects, see Response #3.

It's Prince's material. It doesn't necessarily matter who recorded it. Prince holds the copyright and patent.

I'm not sure if he can copyright Good Question. They were just on the label, not a real side project. Prince had no real involvement in the project, to my knowledge. If that argument can be made, then the argument is there that he can own Grumpy Old Men, because a good part of it was filmed at Paisley Park Studios, as was other stuff. I think even REM recorded at Paisley Park.

ernestsewell said:

It's Prince's material. It doesn't necessarily matter who recorded it. Prince holds the copyright and patent.

I'm not sure if he can copyright Good Question. They were just on the label, not a real side project. Prince had no real involvement in the project, to my knowledge. If that argument can be made, then the argument is there that he can own Grumpy Old Men, because a good part of it was filmed at Paisley Park Studios, as was other stuff. I think even REM recorded at Paisley Park.

Yes, they did (the Out of time album), so did PJ Harvey.

I think Prince have the mastertapes of his side-projects and I do think he has copyrights 2 them all. I think Warner Bros just owns the rights 4 now just like his material that was released on the label until 2013. That's when things revert back 2 Prince. I think this was part of the issue he was having with Warner in regards 2 his name. When his publishing contract expired back in 12/31/99 and we regain the Prince name back, that came along with it. I think all of his mastertapes of those side-project recordings along with his own recordings r all in the vault. I think Prince has those mastertapes of the side-projects in his possession in the vault.

That "Do Nothing" answer seems to be the most likely. I don't think Prince or too many involved with those projects cares at this point. Sadly, we are all getting older, and I can't see anybody in 2076 wondering what ever happened to Jill Jones.

[Edited 5/30/10 15:18pm]

stillwaiting said:

That "Do Nothing" answer seems to be the most likely. I don't think Prince or too many involved with those projects cares at this point. Sadly, we are all getting older, and I can't see anybody in 2076 wondering what ever happened to Jill Jones.

1987 + 35 = 2022.

I think you underestimate the "cult" effect. Even after Prince and all of us fans die, there will always be a niche market for each and every note he ever recorded (as with every major musician), and someone (if not Prince himself as long as he lives) will want to make money out of it...

databank said:

ernestsewell said: It's Prince's material. It doesn't necessarily matter who recorded it. Prince holds the copyright and patent. I'm not sure if he can copyright Good Question. They were just on the label, not a real side project. Prince had no real involvement in the project, to my knowledge. If that argument can be made, then the argument is there that he can own Grumpy Old Men, because a good part of it was filmed at Paisley Park Studios, as was other stuff. I think even REM recorded at Paisley Park. I'm sure he does have the copyright for his own songs (and that he considers everything he touches as being "his" no matter who else was involved or who "released" the song), but in some case, as i said, it can be dubious so there might be heavy legal issues in the end, which is why i'm asking. Prince can't have the copyright for songs he wasn't involved with at all, can he? But Good Question (and even Mazarati)... it's weird...

[Edited 5/30/10 15:18pm]

Well he was involved with Mazarati. He gave them "100 MPH", and wrote lyrics two to other songs. He was more hands-on during that time. Good Question was just a band signed to PP, like Tony LeMans, and others. He didn't really produce anything, or lend them any songs. However, if he did act like a 'record company', then Paisley Park Records owns the masters to anyone who was on his label, in conjunction with WB. So Good Question, Tony LeMans, etc - all that stuff probably defaulted to WB ownership when PPR folded in the 90's. Whether Prince has a say so in their rerelease, etc is a question I don't have an answer to. However, I would think that, like other record companies who get absorbed, the parent company ultimately owns the masters and rights to things.

I never did know what happened to Good Question. Their CD was good, although it now sounds dated because they really dug into the newer "big" production sounds of the late 80's (like Taylor Dayne's sound - that sort of thing). Bobby Z's album (not a Paisley Park release) has the same sound dating on it, unfortunately.

[Edited 5/30/10 16:41pm]

he MIGHT get them back, depending on whatever other deals followed the first one or the how the first one was structured, since the law went into effect around the time he started producing music.

I wonder if The Time's 5th album - 'Old Dogs New Tricks' would be a part. I love that pop funk groove he explored as their venue.

lotusflw3r said:

I thought Prince gave Tony LeMans 'A Different Kinda Thing', at least it sounds very Prince circa 88-89. it's got that Good Love wobbly sound about it (there's a track on Times Squared that's similar too?) ............. Just to re-address the masters situation; if Prince changes just one thing from any original release, it is deemed a new version and thus can be released by Prince free of WB control - see Good Love on CB. So, A "new" vocal track (Prince's Original Vocal) on say Mia Bocca or G-Spot would be absolutely fine for him to release. .............. Even though it has the same backing track as the Jill Jones original release. ............. ..................................... Sorry text layout went weird when i edited.?????

[Edited 5/30/10 16:41pm]

A Different Kinda Thing is NOT Prince, it was put on several bootlegs as a Prince song back in the days but he had nothing to do with it or with Tony's (great) album.

ernestsewell said:

databank said:

ernestsewell said: It's Prince's material. It doesn't necessarily matter who recorded it. Prince holds the copyright and patent. I'm not sure if he can copyright Good Question. They were just on the label, not a real side project. Prince had no real involvement in the project, to my knowledge. If that argument can be made, then the argument is there that he can own Grumpy Old Men, because a good part of it was filmed at Paisley Park Studios, as was other stuff. I think even REM recorded at Paisley Park. I'm sure he does have the copyright for his own songs (and that he considers everything he touches as being "his" no matter who else was involved or who "released" the song), but in some case, as i said, it can be dubious so there might be heavy legal issues in the end, which is why i'm asking. Prince can't have the copyright for songs he wasn't involved with at all, can he? But Good Question (and even Mazarati)... it's weird...

[Edited 5/30/10 15:18pm]

Well he was involved with Mazarati. He gave them "100 MPH", and wrote lyrics two to other songs. He was more hands-on during that time. Good Question was just a band signed to PP, like Tony LeMans, and others. He didn't really produce anything, or lend them any songs. However, if he did act like a 'record company', then Paisley Park Records owns the masters to anyone who was on his label, in conjunction with WB. So Good Question, Tony LeMans, etc - all that stuff probably defaulted to WB ownership when PPR folded in the 90's. Whether Prince has a say so in their rerelease, etc is a question I don't have an answer to. However, I would think that, like other record companies who get absorbed, the parent company ultimately owns the masters and rights to things.

I never did know what happened to Good Question. Their CD was good, although it now sounds dated because they really dug into the newer "big" production sounds of the late 80's (like Taylor Dayne's sound - that sort of thing). Bobby Z's album (not a Paisley Park release) has the same sound dating on it, unfortunately.

According to the (p) on the records, Warner solely owns every PP recordings as well as the Prince albums, though i'm not sure what was the deal with the NPG Records rereleases on "The Voice" and "Hey Man... Smell My Finger" (i don't have these versions but if someone has them please check what the "(p)" says). Other labels that released Prince-written songs own the master-tapes of such songs and Prince cannot own the vocal tapes when they were recorded without his involvement and outside of his own studio.

Prince owns the NAMES The Time, Apollonia 6, Vanity 6, The Family and possibly Madhouse (though this band who covered Madonna songs a few years back was able to use it without him making a move), but he doesn't own their records' master tapes, and it seems he owns other names such as Mazarati and Good Question (though this last one indeed had nothing to do with him).

These are the facts. Now i suspect every recording artist signed something saying that the music he was involved with belongs to him but that's only speculation.

Basically what we want to know is who the law defines as "the artist" when it says that "the artist" can get his/her masters back after 35 years. Obviously it would mean the recording artist, but in some cases i guess it can be complex... For exemple what if George Clinton wanted to get back the masters to old Funkadelic and Parliament records: would it mean that each and every one of the signed members of these bands would have to agree on the rereleases, including Eddie Hazel's family? What about The JB's: do they belong to themselves or to the James Brown estate? Who owns the Brides Of Funkenstein and Parlet records: the girls? Clinton? The whole P-Funk tribe? Who'd claim The Girls' album: André Cymone or the girls themselves? Who could claim the Mary-Jane Girls and Stone City Band albums: the proper bands or the Rick James estate? That's basically the same problem with every band and every musician's side-project as it is with Prince.

Strangely, it seems no one ever used that law to his/her benefit, unless i missed something? Has any artist ever used their right to get their masters from a major in order to rerelease them on another label after 35 years?

[Edited 5/31/10 6:18am]

sounds messy, was it ever meant to be this way?

Tremolina said:

The 35 year rule was introduced with the 1976 US Copyright. This law went into effect in 1978. Artists who recorded songs before this law went into effect, therefore cannot use it to their advantage. Prince can, as one of the first artists to use this law, in 2013 with For You. This rule is valid for whatever type of work or artist, not only sound recordings and recording artists. In music, there are two relevant copyrights; the 'publishing rights'; which are the copyrights to the musical composition and lyrics of a song and the 'master rights' which are the copyrights to the sound recording of the song. Prince only transferred the copyrights of his sound recordings to WB. He never transferred his publishing rights. This means that in 2013 only the copyrights to the sound recording of For You will have to revert back to Prince. As for the associated artists who recorded for Paisley Park. They can excercise the same rights as Prince. Same goes for the band members Prince recorded several of his own albums with. The question is whether they could be succesful, or whether their contributions should be considered works made for hire, meaning that they were never the author of those recordings (and thus the initial owner of copyright), but the record company was. That question will also be crucial in Prince's case. WB will likeley fight hard for a court ruling that would make all their recording artists' contributions works for hire. In any case, the last word hasn't been said on this matter.

Interesting, thanks for expounding

databank said:

Prince owns the NAMES The Time, Apollonia 6, Vanity 6, The Family and possibly Madhouse (though this band who covered Madonna songs a few years back was able to use it without him making a move), but he doesn't own their records' master tapes, and it seems he owns other names such as Mazarati and Good Question (though this last one indeed had nothing to do with him).

These are the facts. Now i suspect every recording artist signed something saying that the music he was involved with belongs to him but that's only speculation.

Prince does not own the name of "The Family", nor could he own Madhouse necessarily. Madhouse is another group indeed that isn't associated with Prince, which already shows he can't own that name. And The Family was a band name well before Prince came up with it. However, Prince could have the right, depending on any contracts signed, to say "No" to the group of Paul, Susannah, Jellybean, and Eric performing AS The Family. Tom, Dick & Harry could form and call themselves The Family and Prince couldn't do jack shit about it. But the "version" of The Family that we know is where his alleged rule comes into play. I have a feeling despite Prince saying "no", that The Family could have used the name, but Prince and his bullying lawyers would have berated them to the point of near-bankruptcy had they tried to go forth with it - hence the name change to Fdeluxe.

The principle of not being able to copyright a song title kind of bleeds over to this idea of a band name in some regards. Madhouse was also a 1978 rock group. Three movies, as recent as 2004, have used the title Madhouse. It's also a record label, a television series, and a Japanese animation studio. The same idea of The Family might hold true here, in that Sheila E., Eric, and Levi, and whoever else, could not form under that name since they were players on the (second) album. Prince can't go around and tell the world that NO ONE can ever use the name The Family or Madhouse again. It doesn't work that way. Hell if someone wanted to call themselves The Tyme, they could, and fully be in their rights to do it.

And Prince took "Apollonia" from The Godfather. It's not exactly something he made up. If he wishes to try and hold onto it with the number 6 behind it - good for him.

Once ownership starts reverting back, regardless if its Prince, The Time, The Family, Sheila E....wouldnt ownership revert to whoever is listed as the WRITER of the song? Whoever's publishing company...Girlsongs, Controversy Music, whatever?

I cant believe there's even a question there.

StonedImmaculate said:

Once ownership starts reverting back, regardless if its Prince, The Time, The Family, Sheila E....wouldnt ownership revert to whoever is listed as the WRITER of the song? Whoever's publishing company...Girlsongs, Controversy Music, whatever?

I cant believe there's even a question there.

Ownership will revert back to the individual songs. The copyrights don't apply to albums but to individual songs.

Then separate contracts will have to exist with each person who co-wrote or played music on the song. The contract will either show co-ownership or giving up ownership.

I doubt very seriously that any people who played instruments for Prince will have any ownership at all. Surely they all signed on as 'hired workers', which means they got paychecks while employed but won't get royalties later.

databank said:

Strangely, it seems no one ever used that law to his/her benefit, unless i missed something? Has any artist ever used their right to get their masters from a major in order to rerelease them on another label after 35 years?

I would be very interested to know this also. It seems a lot of people are assuming that in 2013 Prince will start getting the rights to his albums but are there any examples of other artists using the same law to do so?