independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 17th Apr 2014 5:13pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince starts getting back his album's masters in 2013 but what about the sides-projects?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 05/30/10 3:28am

databank

Prince starts getting back his album's masters in 2013 but what about the sides-projects?

A question i've always been wondered about, and with Prince renewing copyrights for the names "Mazarati" and "Good Question" recently, i was wondering...

US law says an artist can get his music's right after 35 years, but who is that "artist" exactly: the singer, the composer, the producer?

Who will get the rights to the masters for The Time, Vanity 6, The Family, Jill Jones, Mavis Staples, etc.?

It's a complex issue: 4 exemple, "Pandemonium" was half a Prince record, half a genuine Time album: even if Prince owns the name of the band, can he get the masters for the Day/Jonhson/Jam/Lewis songs? Same question with the songs he wasn't involved with on Mavis Staples' albums...

Madhouse never really was a band, but The Time or The Family or Vanity 6 & Apollonia 6 were officially some real people even though they hardly played on their own records...

& what about Jill Jones for exemple: he couldn't copyright the name "Jill Jones" because Jill Jones is a person. Now "Jill Jones" is more a Prince album than anything else, but does he or does she claim the rights to this record after 35 years?

& what about Eric Leeds' "Times Squared": Leeds reworked Prince material but the 1st song is 100% his, and he co-wrote most of the material, let alone rearranging & officially producing it.

& what about "Carmen Electra", even though she obviously didn't write a word, she got royalties for writing credits and she's a real person, not a fictious band. Same with Sheila E., who officially is behing all of "Romance 1600" even though it was a Prince record as well, except for "Merci Fot The Speed Of A Mad Clown In Summer" which was 100% Sheila. The matter is even more complex with her third album: 50% Prince/50% Sheila...

If you go farther, what about songs he recorded and wrote and gave to others: who gets the rights to (for exemple) "Sticky Wicked" or "The Sex Of It": Prince or Chaka and August Darnell? Who gets Mazarati : Prince officially was responsible for one song only (though he ghostwrote the lyrics for 2 others), so Brownmark should be able to claim this record, not Prince, or of course the bandmembers could as well claim the rights since it was their album after all even though it was Mark's pet project.

Anyone who knows about the exact meaning of this law, please explain?

It would be interesting if we knew who owns the masters for post-WB "Come 2 My House" & "GCS2000": the booklets say "NPG Records" (therefore Prince) owns these, not Chaka nor Larry, even though Prince was only arranging, playing and producing "GCS2000". I can hardly imagine Bria owning the masters to "Elixer" as well...

This is about Prince's legacy, so this is quite important. Thanks.

Thanks.
[Edited 5/30/10 3:40am]
A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 05/30/10 3:51am

lotusflw3r

the easiest thing that Prince could do to streamline theses varied releases is to release his own original vocal versions, maybe a multi-disc box set to sum up his satellite projects and songs for other artists.


...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 05/30/10 3:54am

databank

lotusflw3r said:

the easiest thing that Prince could do to streamline theses varied releases is to release his own original vocal versions, maybe a multi-disc box set to sum up his satellite projects and songs for other artists.


...


Oh and yeah, you also make me thing about that: can Prince release, say, his version of the Martika songs without Sony's approval? The instrumentation of these songs is part of the masters Sony owns, isn't it?

Definitely a complex things...
A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 05/30/10 4:00am

Spinlight

avatar

lotusflw3r said:

the easiest thing that Prince could do to streamline theses varied releases is to release his own original vocal versions, maybe a multi-disc box set to sum up his satellite projects and songs for other artists.


...


Not only will that never happen, it isn't remotely the "easiest" thing for him to do.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 05/30/10 4:03am

Spinlight

avatar

databank said:

A question i've always been wondered about, and with Prince renewing copyrights for the names "Mazarati" and "Good Question" recently, i was wondering...

US law says an artist can get his music's right after 35 years, but who is that "artist" exactly: the singer, the composer, the producer?

Who will get the rights to the masters for The Time, Vanity 6, The Family, Jill Jones, Mavis Staples, etc.?

It's a complex issue: 4 exemple, "Pandemonium" was half a Prince record, half a genuine Time album: even if Prince owns the name of the band, can he get the masters for the Day/Jonhson/Jam/Lewis songs? Same question with the songs he wasn't involved with on Mavis Staples' albums...

Madhouse never really was a band, but The Time or The Family or Vanity 6 & Apollonia 6 were officially some real people even though they hardly played on their own records...

& what about Jill Jones for exemple: he couldn't copyright the name "Jill Jones" because Jill Jones is a person. Now "Jill Jones" is more a Prince album than anything else, but does he or does she claim the rights to this record after 35 years?

& what about Eric Leeds' "Times Squared": Leeds reworked Prince material but the 1st song is 100% his, and he co-wrote most of the material, let alone rearranging & officially producing it.

& what about "Carmen Electra", even though she obviously didn't write a word, she got royalties for writing credits and she's a real person, not a fictious band. Same with Sheila E., who officially is behing all of "Romance 1600" even though it was a Prince record as well, except for "Merci Fot The Speed Of A Mad Clown In Summer" which was 100% Sheila. The matter is even more complex with her third album: 50% Prince/50% Sheila...

If you go farther, what about songs he recorded and wrote and gave to others: who gets the rights to (for exemple) "Sticky Wicked" or "The Sex Of It": Prince or Chaka and August Darnell? Who gets Mazarati : Prince officially was responsible for one song only (though he ghostwrote the lyrics for 2 others), so Brownmark should be able to claim this record, not Prince, or of course the bandmembers could as well claim the rights since it was their album after all even though it was Mark's pet project.

Anyone who knows about the exact meaning of this law, please explain?

It would be interesting if we knew who owns the masters for post-WB "Come 2 My House" & "GCS2000": the booklets say "NPG Records" (therefore Prince) owns these, not Chaka nor Larry, even though Prince was only arranging, playing and producing "GCS2000". I can hardly imagine Bria owning the masters to "Elixer" as well...

This is about Prince's legacy, so this is quite important. Thanks.

Thanks.
[Edited 5/30/10 3:40am]


In all realistic likelihood, Prince can do whatever he wants with these tracks and it doesn't matter what those people say or want. See: Girl 6 soundtrack and, frankly, any song he released with their contributions after they had already left his company.

Prince owns the songs and the productions for releases on his labels (PP and NPG).

As far as things released jointly with different labels, it depends on the contract he entered with them. Prince ain't dumb, despite what he alludes to with things like masters and CONtracts.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 05/30/10 4:29am

NouveauDance

avatar

lotusflw3r said:

the easiest thing that Prince could do to streamline theses varied releases is to release his own original vocal versions, maybe a multi-disc box set to sum up his satellite projects and songs for other artists.


...

Nice idea in theory, but it's not commercial feasable, which means the only way it would happen is a horrible, cheap nasty "best of" type of release.

*shudder*

I'd prefer a physical release of course, but this is what iTunes is for - Small, niche albums and re-issues. Of course, that's way too easy.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 05/30/10 6:28am

Se7en

avatar

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.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 05/30/10 6:29am

databank

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 wink

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 05/30/10 6:31am

databank

He also used some side-projects material in NPGMC as well, obviously without asking anyone. Now i think a proper rerelase on CD might have more legal implications. The question is: what's this law about the 35 years? The law should be able to describe exactly who owns what, wouldn't it? [Edited 5/30/10 6:32am]

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

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 05/30/10 6:39am

violetblues

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?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 05/30/10 6:48am

Se7en

avatar

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 wink

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

wink

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 05/30/10 7:00am

ernestsewell

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.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 05/30/10 9:53am

yankem

avatar

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.

"open your heart, open your mind
A train is leaving all day..."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 05/30/10 1:40pm

sms130

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.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 05/30/10 1:53pm

stillwaiting

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.

"Hello, Welcome to the Dawn...You've Just become an official member of the New Power Generation." "Your NPG Lunchbox and Membership Card will be in the mail soon." "This lame interlude will get worse each year you own this album."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 05/30/10 3:17pm

databank

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]

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 05/30/10 3:21pm

databank

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...

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 05/30/10 4:01pm

ernestsewell

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.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 05/30/10 4:36pm

lotusflw3r

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]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 05/30/10 5:51pm

errant

avatar

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.

"does my cock look fat in these jeans?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 05/30/10 10:47pm

SeeNote

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.

with Peace and Love2tha9s-
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 05/31/10 2:48am

databank

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.

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 05/31/10 3:08am

databank

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?

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 05/31/10 6:11am

Tremolina

databank said:
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?
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. -

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

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 05/31/10 6:44am

robinhood

avatar

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

this too shall pass
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 05/31/10 7:13am

NouveauDance

avatar

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 smile

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 05/31/10 7:21am

ernestsewell

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. rolleyes

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 06/01/10 8:46pm

StonedImmacula
te

avatar

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.

blunt music She has robes and she has monkeys, lazy diamond studded flunkies.... music blunt
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 06/01/10 11:08pm

rastoma

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.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 06/02/10 12:10pm

rialb

avatar

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?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince starts getting back his album's masters in 2013 but what about the sides-projects?