databank said:

jaawwnn said:

No, it's about both as far as I can tell. There's two copyrights involved and both fall under the same rules in regards ownership because the 35 year rule applies to "copyrights", not to "recordings":

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#102

102 (a) - 2 and 7 are separate copyrights for the same song.

I appreciate in Prince's case the issue was mainly to do with his recordings for Warner, but i'm just speculating on the possibilities since this thread is about other recordings, some of which he was involved with and some of which he was not.

My bad, I had always assumed that 1976 law was exclusively for sound recordings when, in fact, it applies to any sort of copyright (I've just checked).

I assume 2 applies when an artist gives up on his publishing? I know Oliver Lieber said he had given up half his share of royalties to the label's publisher for his Paula Abdul songs and he'd like to get this back for his old days and children. And Prince is famous for rejecting an attempt to purchase his publishing rights before he signed with WB.

I fail to see how one determines who the author of a collective work such as a recording is. A music recording involves:

- Writers/composers

- Arrangers/producers

- Session musicians

- The "official" performer(s)

- And why not even sound engineers.

.

I am absolutely convinced that the estate wil never bother to struggle for any song given to another: what matters is the "Prince" catalogue and they have this. They'll go for licencing when it comes to using backing tracks, if they must.

.

On the other hand, it is not unthinkeable that one day, the estate of George Clinton, Mavis Staples, Larry Graham or Chaka Khan may try and get back their Paisley Park/NPG albums from Prince's estate. But maybe they won't bother and try and negociate a mere rerelease instead. I know Chaka has been vocal about getting her masters back from WB, but I don't know that she did anything to make it happen. I think George also had some desire to get back the 70's P-Funk classics somehow?

Currently it's George's mission in life to get his music back.

As for Chaka & Larry, if you watch those interviews from '98 it seemed then like they've had their masters from the beginning. They all talked like that was the deal, anyway.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

No, it's about both as far as I can tell. There's two copyrights involved and both fall under the same rules in regards ownership because the 35 year rule applies to "copyrights", not to "recordings":

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#102

102 (a) - 2 and 7 are separate copyrights for the same song.

I appreciate in Prince's case the issue was mainly to do with his recordings for Warner, but i'm just speculating on the possibilities since this thread is about other recordings, some of which he was involved with and some of which he was not.

My bad, I had always assumed that 1976 law was exclusively for sound recordings when, in fact, it applies to any sort of copyright (I've just checked).

I assume 2 applies when an artist gives up on his publishing? I know Oliver Lieber said he had given up half his share of royalties to the label's publisher for his Paula Abdul songs and he'd like to get this back for his old days and children. And Prince is famous for rejecting an attempt to purchase his publishing rights before he signed with WB.

I fail to see how one determines who the author of a collective work such as a recording is. A music recording involves:

- Writers/composers

- Arrangers/producers

- Session musicians

- The "official" performer(s)

- And why not even sound engineers.

Yes I wonder about that as well. I imagine the session musicians and engineers are considered work for hire so not included. Writers/composers wouldn't count because they have a copyright of their own for the song. Arrangers/Producers/"official" performers could lead to all sorts of problems.

This was what the Smiths court case was about wasn't it? The drummer (and bassist, at first) felt his arrangement contributions should be more than 10% of the value of the recordings.

eep, it boggles the mind

.

I am absolutely convinced that the estate wil never bother to struggle for any song given to another: what matters is the "Prince" catalogue and they have this. They'll go for licencing when it comes to using backing tracks, if they must.

Yes I would tend to agree with you on that. Your question on other labels kicking up a stink if Prince versions of songs that are the same in everything bar vocals is a good one, hopefully it won't come up...

[Edited 11/16/16 19:44pm]

djThunderfunk said:

databank said:

My bad, I had always assumed that 1976 law was exclusively for sound recordings when, in fact, it applies to any sort of copyright (I've just checked).

I assume 2 applies when an artist gives up on his publishing? I know Oliver Lieber said he had given up half his share of royalties to the label's publisher for his Paula Abdul songs and he'd like to get this back for his old days and children. And Prince is famous for rejecting an attempt to purchase his publishing rights before he signed with WB.

I fail to see how one determines who the author of a collective work such as a recording is. A music recording involves:

- Writers/composers

- Arrangers/producers

- Session musicians

- The "official" performer(s)

- And why not even sound engineers.

.

I am absolutely convinced that the estate wil never bother to struggle for any song given to another: what matters is the "Prince" catalogue and they have this. They'll go for licencing when it comes to using backing tracks, if they must.

.

On the other hand, it is not unthinkeable that one day, the estate of George Clinton, Mavis Staples, Larry Graham or Chaka Khan may try and get back their Paisley Park/NPG albums from Prince's estate. But maybe they won't bother and try and negociate a mere rerelease instead. I know Chaka has been vocal about getting her masters back from WB, but I don't know that she did anything to make it happen. I think George also had some desire to get back the 70's P-Funk classics somehow?

Currently it's George's mission in life to get his music back.

As for Chaka & Larry, if you watch those interviews from '98 it seemed then like they've had their masters from the beginning. They all talked like that was the deal, anyway.

I didn't know that George was that much into this. I wonder what he's attempted regarding his 2 PP records, if anything.

I've heard those interviews regarding Chaka and Larry but fact is that album booklets say (p) 1998 NPG Records and that's a legal notice. Maybe their contracts allow them to reclaim the masters at any time without any condition. I can see only that.

databank said:

djThunderfunk said:

Currently it's George's mission in life to get his music back.

As for Chaka & Larry, if you watch those interviews from '98 it seemed then like they've had their masters from the beginning. They all talked like that was the deal, anyway.

I didn't know that George was that much into this. I wonder what he's attempted regarding his 2 PP records, if anything.

I've heard those interviews regarding Chaka and Larry but fact is that album booklets say (p) 1998 NPG Records and that's a legal notice. Maybe their contracts allow them to reclaim the masters at any time without any condition. I can see only that.

What's even more confusing, in the interviews they CLAIMED there were NO contracts at the same time as claiming they would all own their own masters. I wonder if they could use the interviews as proof that Prince verbally agreed to their ownership?

As for George, I recommend his book as he has lots to say on the subject. Mostly though, it's about copyrights being stolen from him while he was too busy (high) to notice.

https://www.amazon.com/Br...1476751072

djThunderfunk said:

databank said:

I didn't know that George was that much into this. I wonder what he's attempted regarding his 2 PP records, if anything.

I've heard those interviews regarding Chaka and Larry but fact is that album booklets say (p) 1998 NPG Records and that's a legal notice. Maybe their contracts allow them to reclaim the masters at any time without any condition. I can see only that.

What's even more confusing, in the interviews they CLAIMED there were NO contracts at the same time as claiming they would all own their own masters. I wonder if they could use the interviews as proof that Prince verbally agreed to their ownership?

As for George, I recommend his book as he has lots to say on the subject. Mostly though, it's about copyrights being stolen from him while he was too busy (high) to notice.

https://www.amazon.com/Br...1476751072

Oh fucking hell i didn't even KNOW George had written an autobio! Thx for this, I will definitely read it!