SoulAlive said:

This brings up an interesting question: what rights do Prince's protégés have regarding the release of music and/or video that they appear on?

I would think none...if they did, wouldnt they have tried to make a buck already, even before his passing?

looney toon post from a looney toon. they can and will do whatever they want. and i highly doubt they're going to drop unreleased Cat Glover records.

UncleJam said:

petalthecat said:

Maybe she doesn't want to get lumped in with the exploitation gang. She's probably just making it clear to associates and fans she hasn't given her permission so she isn't band wagon jumping. This shiz gets nastier by the day. What a mess!

She is against what they are doing to Paisley Park (the rearranging of the place) she had that on her page

SoulAlive said:

UncleJam said:

I would think none...if they did, wouldnt they have tried to make a buck already, even before his passing?

yeah,I agree.

It depends on the contract they signed. If they made contributions that they gave Prince permission to use in his work, then the estate would have to get their permission. If they signed a contract that allowed P to use the work as he chose or if it was work for hire (there's more than one way of doing this), then the estate would not need their permission.

If they didn't sign a contract at all, then she's right, they need permission. So, it all depends.

But if they've used her image without the appropriate permission, she would need a lawyer to handle it for her, rather than taking it to FB.

[Edited 9/28/16 19:54pm]

[Edited 9/28/16 19:55pm]

She doesn't want images of her used without her permission, but wasn't there a post awhile back asking that people submit photos of her time with P for a special project? So it seems like she was willing to accept photos, was/is she going to give credit to the photographers whose photos she may end up with? And may those photographers don't want their work/pictures used? I could understand her position more easily if she didn't request the potential work of someone else.

is she serious or was she feeling left out? she could have made this statement ages ago.

SoulAlive said:

petalthecat said:

SoulAlive said:

yeah,I agree.

Are all the vault recordings copyrighted? And if so, are these people credited as collaborators/co_writers etc. Just tried reading up a bit on copyright laws but it's soooo complicated and its 4am here

If he didn't have contracts with the people who collaborated with him, then it's going to get complicated. Now, if he hired a musician to play on a recording, then the musician probably doesn't have much of a case if P wrote the music and the musician knew they were being recorded. The tricky part is going to be the collaborators on lyrics and songs...that is, if he didn't have them sign a contract.

You can't copyright someone else's work as your own. However, someone can contribute to a larger work and turn over copyright to you. Or they can give you permission to use their contributions in the larger work without turning over copyright. In the latter case, if you wanted to use thier work for some other project, you'd need to get permission from them for the new project. If they turned over copyright to you, you are free to use their work any way that you choose.

teach49 said:

petalthecat said:

SoulAlive said: Are all the vault recordings copyrighted? And if so, are these people credited as collaborators/co_writers etc. Just tried reading up a bit on copyright laws but it's soooo complicated and its 4am here

If he didn't have contracts with the people who collaborated with him, then it's going to get complicated. Now, if he hired a musician to play on a recording, then the musician probably doesn't have much of a case if P wrote the music and the musician knew they were being recorded. The tricky part is going to be the collaborators on lyrics and songs...that is, if he didn't have them sign a contract.

You can't copyright someone else's work as your own. However, someone can contribute to a larger work and turn over copyright to you. Or they can give you permission to use their contributions in the larger work without turning over copyright. In the latter case, if you wanted to use thier work for some other project, you'd need to get permission from them for the new project. If they turned over copyright to you, you are free to use their work any way that you choose.

generally speaking, prince ran PP like the 50s-60s studio system. in house players and singers on a small weekly wage with few credits and little or no royalties. think of the documentary about the funk brothers of motown. i assume the use of their likenesses is slightly different. perhaps it will have to be negotiated differently. she might be taking the jody watley approach to old photos of her with in early shalimar pictures used to advertise gigs. but that situation was false advertising, plain and simple because there was one line-up on the poster and a different line-up that played the show. CG was a featured dancer and noone is trying to book a SOTT revival tour so i'm kinda

wavesofbliss said:

teach49 said:

If he didn't have contracts with the people who collaborated with him, then it's going to get complicated. Now, if he hired a musician to play on a recording, then the musician probably doesn't have much of a case if P wrote the music and the musician knew they were being recorded. The tricky part is going to be the collaborators on lyrics and songs...that is, if he didn't have them sign a contract.

You can't copyright someone else's work as your own. However, someone can contribute to a larger work and turn over copyright to you. Or they can give you permission to use their contributions in the larger work without turning over copyright. In the latter case, if you wanted to use thier work for some other project, you'd need to get permission from them for the new project. If they turned over copyright to you, you are free to use their work any way that you choose.

generally speaking, prince ran PP like the 50s-60s studio system. in house players and singers on a small weekly wage with few credits and little or no royalties. think of the documentary about the funk brothers of motown. i assume the use of their likenesses is slightly different. perhaps it will have to be negotiated differently. she might be taking the jody watley approach to old photos of her with in early shalimar pictures used to advertise gigs. but that situation was false advertising, plain and simple because there was one line-up on the poster and a different line-up that played the show. CG was a featured dancer and noone is trying to book a SOTT revival tour so i'm kinda

So, essentially, he did work for hire agreements, in which case he owned the copyright. Can't believe he wouldn't have had a dancer sign a photo release...that's pretty much all that's necessary for her likeness, I think.

But you're right, I haven't seen anything coming out of PP so who knows what she's talking about...the PP tours I guess? I doubt there's anything she could do about that.

I once worked for a publishing company that had not made an illustrator sign an agreement to use his work. When he tried to sue 20 years later, the judge ruled that his accepting payment for the illustrations was essentially giving the publisher permission to use them in the book he drew them for. In terms of subsequent editions and other books, the publisher did have to pay him, but far less than what he sued for because they claimed joint copyright ownership since they directed his work. Judge bought it.

Anyway, I've blathered. I find copyright conversations very interesting, and I can only imagine that it might get complicated with what's in that vault.

[Edited 9/28/16 21:09pm]

wavesofbliss said:

teach49 said:

If he didn't have contracts with the people who collaborated with him, then it's going to get complicated. Now, if he hired a musician to play on a recording, then the musician probably doesn't have much of a case if P wrote the music and the musician knew they were being recorded. The tricky part is going to be the collaborators on lyrics and songs...that is, if he didn't have them sign a contract.

You can't copyright someone else's work as your own. However, someone can contribute to a larger work and turn over copyright to you. Or they can give you permission to use their contributions in the larger work without turning over copyright. In the latter case, if you wanted to use thier work for some other project, you'd need to get permission from them for the new project. If they turned over copyright to you, you are free to use their work any way that you choose.

generally speaking, prince ran PP like the 50s-60s studio system. in house players and singers on a small weekly wage with few credits and little or no royalties. think of the documentary about the funk brothers of motown. i assume the use of their likenesses is slightly different. perhaps it will have to be negotiated differently. she might be taking the jody watley approach to old photos of her with in early shalimar pictures used to advertise gigs. but that situation was false advertising, plain and simple because there was one line-up on the poster and a different line-up that played the show. CG was a featured dancer and noone is trying to book a SOTT revival tour so i'm kinda

I think this is a preemptive strike on Cat's part. She knows that there is talk of re-releasing the SOTT film. Already, there have been screenings. I know next to nothing about copyright law, but I do know that Cat was a MAJOR part of the SOTT film (and tour) and the LoveSexy tour. Since Prince's passing, I've often wondered about artists' royalties for music, films, and recorded performances in the vault. I think that conundrum was part of the reason that P never released some of the collaborations, like the Miles Davis set. Although I can't remember where I saw or heard it, he has said as much in interviews.

[Edited 9/28/16 21:29pm]

teach49 said:

wavesofbliss said:

generally speaking, prince ran PP like the 50s-60s studio system. in house players and singers on a small weekly wage with few credits and little or no royalties. think of the documentary about the funk brothers of motown. i assume the use of their likenesses is slightly different. perhaps it will have to be negotiated differently. she might be taking the jody watley approach to old photos of her with in early shalimar pictures used to advertise gigs. but that situation was false advertising, plain and simple because there was one line-up on the poster and a different line-up that played the show. CG was a featured dancer and noone is trying to book a SOTT revival tour so i'm kinda

So, essentially, he did work for hire agreements, in which case he owned the copyright. Can't believe he wouldn't have had a dancer sign a photo release...that's pretty much all that's necessary for her likeness, I think.

But you're right, I haven't seen anything coming out of PP so who knows what she's talking about...the PP tours I guess? I doubt there's anything she could do about that.

I once worked for a publishing company that had not made an illustrator sign an agreement to use his work. When he tried to sue 20 years later, the judge ruled that his accepting payment for the illustrations was essentially giving the publisher permission to use them in the book he drew them for. In terms of subsequent editions and other books, the publisher did have to pay him, but far less than what he sued for because they claimed joint copyright ownership since they directed his work. Judge bought it.

Anyway, I've blathered. I find copyright conversations very interesting, and I can only imagine that it might get complicated with what's in that vault.

[Edited 9/28/16 21:09pm]

i think u may have nailed it down right there. if u are already under contract for work than promo pics(or illustrations et al) would be considered part of that work, no?

FlyOnTheWall said:

Leopard52 said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

I think this is a preemptive strike on Cat's part. She knows that there is talk of re-releasing the SOTT film. Already, there have been screenings. I know next to nothing about copyright law, but I do know that Cat was a MAJOR part of the SOTT film (and tour) and the LoveSexy tour. Since Prince's passing, I've often wondered about artists' royalties for music, films, and recorded performances in the vault. I think that conundrum was part of the reason that P never released some of the collaborations, like the Miles Davis set. Although I can't remember where I saw or heard it, he has said as much in interviews.

[Edited 9/28/16 21:29pm]

Read between the lines... She wants MONEY. Wow. She should have just said it.

If she's entitled to royalties, I don't see anything wrong with her trying to collect. I think we might see some landmark copyright litigation involved with the music and films in Prince's vault.

Leopard52 said:

NinaB said:

I've always liked Cat. She never sold him out either.

I agree.

Latin said:

Leopard52 said:

Read between the lines... She wants MONEY. Wow. She should have just said it.

How do you know that she posted that because she wants $? It's unfair to Cat for orgers to judge her in that way based on that posting. I must add though that Cat deserves royalties for all of her hard work. Let's all hope she gets the royalties she deserves.

NinaB said:

I've always liked Cat. She never sold him out either.

Leopard52 said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

I think this is a preemptive strike on Cat's part. She knows that there is talk of re-releasing the SOTT film. Already, there have been screenings. I know next to nothing about copyright law, but I do know that Cat was a MAJOR part of the SOTT film (and tour) and the LoveSexy tour. Since Prince's passing, I've often wondered about artists' royalties for music, films, and recorded performances in the vault. I think that conundrum was part of the reason that P never released some of the collaborations, like the Miles Davis set. Although I can't remember where I saw or heard it, he has said as much in interviews.

[Edited 9/28/16 21:29pm]

Read between the lines... She wants MONEY. Wow. She should have just said it.

Seems to me that everything in the vault belonged to Prince, otherwise it would've already been released by these other artists.

And I would think that as far as SOTT goes, they can re-release it if they want, she'll still get her share of the royalties, wouldn't she? I don't think they have to have every person who was in that film, to give their ok. JMO

SoulAlive said:

This brings up an interesting question: what rights do Prince's protégés have regarding the release of music and/or video that they appear on?

None. They were paid for their work - which the estate now owns.

The special project she is working on and requested pictures and such from fans about her time with Prince, makes me question this statement. If she is planning on releasing a book of her time with Prince, she may feel that having anything out there of her likeness and being used promotionally could have an impact on any book she might release if the pictures are easily accessible. I don't know if this is the case, but I also think that anything PP uses as promotional material, they will ensure they have the rights to use it. I have no qualms about her doing that, if that is what she is doing. But it definitely makes me question the true intent behind her statement.

This woman is delusional! She doesn't hold any copyright on any of this. I am sure she was paid to be in the SOTT movie or music videos. The copyright most likely held with PRN Productions or WB or both. If Woody Allen died without a will, the copyright would then pass with his estate. It wouldn't pass to every actor, soundtrack musician, hairdresser, or costume designer. If you were hired by Woody Allen, paid by Woody Allen the copyright would pass with his estate. Same holds true in this case.

For still photography, the copyright stays with the photographer. Note that the pictures of Prince taken by Steve Park or Jeff Katz hold their watermark. Just like if you hire a wedding photographer. The photographer holds the copyright. They give you proofs, and you order prints from the photographer. Want more prints? You have to order them from the photographer. Photographers don't hand clients the film or negatives (film is the way it would have been done in the 80's) Unless Prince paid the photographers for the copyrights. But good luck in finding a photographer that would be willing to turn that over to prince. Unless Cat Glover entered into a TFP contract with the photographer. TFP stands for Time For Pay or Time For Product. In this agreement both parties acknowledge nether party (model or photographer) has received compensation or consideration. (Consideration could be stocks, real estate or services. Generally something of worth or value) Both parties then hold equal use of the photographs to promote themselves. But if either party wants to use the photos for profit, they can't do that without written consent from the other party. Seeing that the photos she did for Prince was used to help make money for him. This wouldn't be a TFP situation.

For any music created with Prince. This again is the person who wrote the lyrics and music. It is know that Prince would use things that people wrote and not properly compensate them for that. I cant see Cat being one of those people. Even if she was someone who did write something that prince used. The burden of proof would fall on her to prove it. As an example. Prince did a show last January at PP. During the show he talked about how he met Lisa. He also talked about how during a jam, Lisa came up with the music for Raspberry Beret. Well, she is not getting proper credit for this. She could use this audio recording to sue the estate for back royalties. She could argue she had no proof in the past, and it would have been her word against his. But the audio recording is now proof that supports what Wendy & Lisa have said all along. Cat would have to come up with this kind of proof.

She has nothing to stand on here......