{MWC}

Be forewarned: this article does not actually mention Prince or any associated artist. However, I find it extremely relevant to Prince's efforts to reclaim his masters. And this is the first reference I've ever seen to a law that allegedly allows (allowed?) a musician to reclaim his/her work 35 years after signing a recording contract.

{MWC}



This is not necessarily about but it relates to artists' rights. Something that talked extensively about.



Here is the URL and the article below:



http://www.livedaily.com/...ActCo.html



Amendment To Copyright Act Could Mean That Artists Will Never Own Their Recordings
Labels could treat sound recordings as ''works for hire.''



By Mark Lewis



A deeply controversial amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act--added without
congressional debate or input from artists--now allows record companies to treat
musicians' recordings as "works for hire." Tacked onto an omnibus appropriations bill
by a congressional staffer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 29,
the new amendment could prevent artists from reclaiming the rights to their work
after 35 years, the current legal waiting period.



The new categorization of sound recordings as "works for
hire" will give record companies firm legal ground to claim
that an artist's album is a "compilation" or "collected work,"
a category that has been used in the past only for large
collaborative efforts such as movies and anthologies of
writings.



By treating the artist as a person hired to make the
recording, the record company would own the recordings
and have the right to control their distribution and use
them indefinitely. For artists, this radical change would
mean that they are, in fact, selling the rights to their work
forever, rather than allowing a record company to use it
for a limited period of time to market, distribute and earn
profits from it.



Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording
Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests
of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment
merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label
must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or
leaves rights with the artist.



Rosen also stated that the amendment is simply a provision that legally nails down
the recording industry's view that the artist is just one of many participants, along with
backup musicians, arrangers and engineers, who jointly create an album. In the
RIAA's eyes, if the album is not treated as a collective work, then record labels
cannot easily determine who owns the rights. Calling an album a collective work
allows them to simplify the situation, they say. It would also allow them to assume
ownership of the music.



But most artists have their supporting musicians and other studio personnel sign
legal agreements stating that they do not have ownership rights to the final musical
product. The purpose of doing that is to ensure that the primary artists have the sole
rights to the work.



Moreover, many artists write and record their albums on their own, without the
involvement of a record company's studio (if it has one), which means that there are
not numerous collaborators. And artists, their agents and their lawyers almost
universally agree that the major creative individual or band behind an album is the
music's author. (Composers, songwriters and music publishing companies must be
paid if their material is used on a different performer's album.)



If the new amendment stands up against anticipated legal battles and no further
action is recommended in House Intellectual Property Subcommittee hearings (which
have not yet been scheduled), artists may never be able to own their music. Under
the current copyright law, artists who signed contracts with record companies after
Jan. 1, 1978 have the right to get the music back after 35 years, a "rights-reversion"
period that artists can take advantage of beginning in 2013. At that time, an artist
could sell a recording back to the record company, or take it elsewhere for more
money or better distribution, for example.



Artists interviewed by Billboard, including Don Henley, James Taylor, Mary Chapin
Carpenter and Coolio, were unanimous in expressing their concern over the "new
rules of the game." Several said they would be willing to join a guild or hire a
Washington lobby to watch out for their interests on Capitol Hill.



There are two existing unions that represent some musicians--the American
Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the American Federation of
Musicians--but the RIAA and Congress did not consult them before adding the
amendment.



Ron Stone, who represents Los Lobos, Ziggy Marley, Bonnie Raitt and Tracy
Chapman, told Billboard, "I've been trying to organize some sort of guild with the
managers and the artists, who usually wouldn't join anything. But the essence is this:
Between the consolidation of the record companies, radio, promoters in the
marketplace, the artist is under siege here. This law erodes, once again, the artist's
position in the industry."