New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
When is Prince able to get back his masters? WHat's the deal with that? Anyone know when he starts to see his masters comeback to him? Or know what he has to do to get them back? Will it be like the Beatles catalog, where someone can snatch them up before he does? And when/if he gets them back can he do whatever he wants with them?
I know there may not be a straight answer to this, but I'd like to know the time table...like does he already have any of them already? Christian Zombie Vampires | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
he should have thought about his contract back then, when he signed. it's like paul mc cartney crying over losing his rights 2 MJackson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
luv2lick said: he should have thought about his contract back then, when he signed. it's like paul mc cartney crying over losing his rights 2 MJackson
OK...but that doesn't answer the question. I know there is a legnth of time that he has to wait... Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
He tried to purchase them back, but WB wouldn't do it. Whether or not someone else can purchase them would really depend on the terms of his contract at the time, which most people in the general public don't know.
I don't recall if they revert back to him after a certain period of time or not. Hopefully someone can answer that. I know I have seen this discussion here before, but don't remember what the end result was. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: He tried to purchase them back, but WB wouldn't do it. Whether or not someone else can purchase them would really depend on the terms of his contract at the time, which most people in the general public don't know.
I don't recall if they revert back to him after a certain period of time or not. Hopefully someone can answer that. I know I have seen this discussion here before, but don't remember what the end result was. That's the essence of my question. Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: He tried to purchase them back, but WB wouldn't do it. Whether or not someone else can purchase them would really depend on the terms of his contract at the time, which most people in the general public don't know.
I don't recall if they revert back to him after a certain period of time or not. Hopefully someone can answer that. I know I have seen this discussion here before, but don't remember what the end result was. hmm..interesting. I didn't know that. thanx...do you know when that attempted purchas took place? "not a fan"  yeah...ok | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i saw a thread on here were someone had stated that copyright law says that the assignee of the master "can" hold them for 30 years. However, I was just reading on the US Copyright website to get more information. Apparently, this is what the law is, and I am quoting:
"Works created on or after January 1, 1978: For works created after its effective date, the U.S. Copyright law adopts the basic "life plus seventy" system already in effect in most other countries. A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author's life, plus an additional 70 years after the author's death...." so, it would appear that the only way to get the masters back is to be the highest bidder if WB is willing to sell. [Edited 1/10/06 12:59pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I thought that he just started getting back his masters starting last year with "For You" and then each year after gaining the next album in line. I swear I heard that. Maybe I'm hallucinating  2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: I thought that he just started getting back his masters starting last year with "For You" and then each year after gaining the next album in line. I swear I heard that. Maybe I'm hallucinating
I was thinking that too...so if "we're" halucinating...lucky us! "not a fan" yeah...ok | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i know what you mean, that is why I had said earlier that I thought they reverted back to him over a period of time. but, then I saw that on the website. but, the website doesnt say anything about agreements etc. so, again, it goes back to my original posting where it says we would need to know the details of the contract, and not many (or at least any willing to speak) will say what for sure what it was.
It is very possible that in the contract, he did like a 30 year deal on his masters...but, if he didn't, then the above applies. does all this make sense? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: i saw a thread on here were someone had stated that copyright law says that the assignee of the master "can" hold them for 30 years. However, I was just reading on the US Copyright website to get more information. Apparently, this is what the law is, and I am quoting:
"Works created on or after January 1, 1978: For works created after its effective date, the U.S. Copyright law adopts the basic "life plus seventy" system already in effect in most other countries. A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author's life, plus an additional 70 years after the author's death...." so, it would appear that the only way to get the masters back is to be the highest bidder if WB is willing to sell. [Edited 1/10/06 12:59pm] It's 35 years. Congress passed a "work for hire amendment" in 2000 that would have done away with it, but after an uproar from artists it was repealed. (a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:..... (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. http://www.copyright.gov/...chap2.html Your post is about copyright protection, which last for life plus 70. Copyright ownership by someone other than the author is limited to 35 years. . [Edited 1/10/06 13:53pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: I thought that he just started getting back his masters starting last year with "For You" and then each year after gaining the next album in line. I swear I heard that. Maybe I'm hallucinating
I swear I heard that too. I know he gets em back...I just can't recall when and how and on what terms. Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: txladykat said: i saw a thread on here were someone had stated that copyright law says that the assignee of the master "can" hold them for 30 years. However, I was just reading on the US Copyright website to get more information. Apparently, this is what the law is, and I am quoting:
"Works created on or after January 1, 1978: For works created after its effective date, the U.S. Copyright law adopts the basic "life plus seventy" system already in effect in most other countries. A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author's life, plus an additional 70 years after the author's death...." so, it would appear that the only way to get the masters back is to be the highest bidder if WB is willing to sell. [Edited 1/10/06 12:59pm] It's 35 years. Congress passed a "work for hire amendment" in 2000 that would have done away with it, but after an uproar from artists it was repealed. (a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:..... (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. http://www.copyright.gov/...chap2.html [Edited 1/10/06 13:49pm] So with that logic, he possibly could start getting them back now. Anyone know if he has started to get them back? Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
superspaceboy said: Universaluv said: It's 35 years. Congress passed a "work for hire amendment" in 2000 that would have done away with it, but after an uproar from artists it was repealed. (a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:..... (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. http://www.copyright.gov/...chap2.html [Edited 1/10/06 13:49pm] So with that logic, he possibly could start getting them back now. Anyone know if he has started to get them back? I thought that last year he got back For you and will be getting back "Prince" this year.... who knows. We'd still have to wait another 3 to 8 years before he started getting back the masters on his stellar work of the 80s. 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
superspaceboy said: Universaluv said: It's 35 years. Congress passed a "work for hire amendment" in 2000 that would have done away with it, but after an uproar from artists it was repealed. (a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:..... (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. http://www.copyright.gov/...chap2.html [Edited 1/10/06 13:49pm] So with that logic, he possibly could start getting them back now. Anyone know if he has started to get them back? 1978 + 35 = 2013 He could have contracted at the time to get them sooner, but as a new artist that'd be doubtful. He may have contracted with WB later to get them sooner, but with all the bad blood there was, that'd be surprising. I wanted to buy my masters back from Warner Bros.," the Artist says of his quest for control. "They said no way" http://princetext.tripod....per99.html [Edited 1/10/06 14:00pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: txladykat said: i saw a thread on here were someone had stated that copyright law says that the assignee of the master "can" hold them for 30 years. However, I was just reading on the US Copyright website to get more information. Apparently, this is what the law is, and I am quoting:
"Works created on or after January 1, 1978: For works created after its effective date, the U.S. Copyright law adopts the basic "life plus seventy" system already in effect in most other countries. A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author's life, plus an additional 70 years after the author's death...." so, it would appear that the only way to get the masters back is to be the highest bidder if WB is willing to sell. [Edited 1/10/06 12:59pm] It's 35 years. Congress passed a "work for hire amendment" in 2000 that would have done away with it, but after an uproar from artists it was repealed. (a) Conditions for Termination. — In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:..... (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. http://www.copyright.gov/...chap2.html Your post is about copyright protection, which last for life plus 70. Copyright ownership by someone other than the author is limited to 35 years. . [Edited 1/10/06 13:53pm] fantastic! thanks for providing the link and information, i started to respond, and ask where you were finding that, but didnt get to, by the time i came back you had edited it and provided it, thanks again! i see now, yep, i was looking at protection....not ownership, oops! so, as i am reading the full text, is it safe to say that Prince has to notify WB within five years after the 35 year period that he is taking back ownership though, right? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: fantastic! thanks for providing the link and information, i started to respond, and ask where you were finding that, but didnt get to, by the time i came back you had edited it and provided it, thanks again! i see now, yep, i was looking at protection....not ownership, oops! so, as i am reading the full text, is it safe to say that Prince has to notify WB within five years after the 35 year period that he is taking back ownership though, right? They do use the word "may" so it should be Prince's 'option' as to whether he will terminate WB's rights to the masters. I doubt anyone wonders whether Prince will take it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: txladykat said: fantastic! thanks for providing the link and information, i started to respond, and ask where you were finding that, but didnt get to, by the time i came back you had edited it and provided it, thanks again! i see now, yep, i was looking at protection....not ownership, oops! so, as i am reading the full text, is it safe to say that Prince has to notify WB within five years after the 35 year period that he is taking back ownership though, right? They do use the word "may" so it should be Prince's 'option' as to whether he will terminate WB's rights to the masters. I doubt anyone wonders whether Prince will take it. LOL, wouldn't that be quite the turn of events, if after all the controversy over the masters, he chose not to? Of course, I tend to agree with you...I don't see him doing it. I sure hope he has it set on his calender though! Because, if I am reading it correctly, if the author doesn't notify the claimant within five years, the claimant retains ownership? And, if this is the case, it doesn't say for how long they continue to own it, does it? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: superspaceboy said: So with that logic, he possibly could start getting them back now. Anyone know if he has started to get them back? I thought that last year he got back For you and will be getting back "Prince" this year.... who knows. We'd still have to wait another 3 to 8 years before he started getting back the masters on his stellar work of the 80s.  BLASPHEMY! Those are classics in thier own right! Don't let Handclaps hear you say that!
I'd say it'd be 3 - 8 years before he actually got around to remastering them. Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: superspaceboy said: So with that logic, he possibly could start getting them back now. Anyone know if he has started to get them back? 1978 + 35 = 2013 He could have contracted at the time to get them sooner, but as a new artist that'd be doubtful. He may have contracted with WB later to get them sooner, but with all the bad blood there was, that'd be surprising. I wanted to buy my masters back from Warner Bros.," the Artist says of his quest for control. "They said no way" http://princetext.tripod....per99.html [Edited 1/10/06 14:00pm] Damn my Math! Or wishful thinking.Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Universaluv said: txladykat said: fantastic! thanks for providing the link and information, i started to respond, and ask where you were finding that, but didnt get to, by the time i came back you had edited it and provided it, thanks again! i see now, yep, i was looking at protection....not ownership, oops! so, as i am reading the full text, is it safe to say that Prince has to notify WB within five years after the 35 year period that he is taking back ownership though, right? They do use the word "may" so it should be Prince's 'option' as to whether he will terminate WB's rights to the masters. I doubt anyone wonders whether Prince will take it. Yeah, so then it's 35 years. Christian Zombie Vampires | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
do you really see prince remastering them though? after 35 years? i mean, his whole deal is about leaving the old music in the past and moving on with the new.
btw...thanks for the info above, it has been very helpful to me personally, as I am trying to help a friend of my son's get into the business. I am new to this, and trying to learn all I can. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: do you really see prince remastering them though? after 35 years? i mean, his whole deal is about leaving the old music in the past and moving on with the new.
btw...thanks for the info above, it has been very helpful to me personally, as I am trying to help a friend of my son's get into the business. I am new to this, and trying to learn all I can. There's a good article about it here. http://www.kentlaw.edu/ho..._paper.htm Technically, whether artists will have a right to their masters in 2013 will depend on how the courts rule. There's legal support for the artists position, but there will be litigation between artists and record companies when this actually comes up. What's interesting for Prince is that music made specifically for movie soundtracks have been held to be "works for hire" with no 35 year clause applying. Think the lawyers will be busy arguing about Purple Rain? [Edited 1/10/06 15:36pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Its always been the same for Prince. From 2013, re begins the process of regaining his masters.
Unless he does a deal with WB, expect no remasters until then, and then, only year by year, starting with For You. However, I think WB will offer a deal soon, before the handover is complete, to offer remasters for an early release. It makes sense for both parties. By 2010, I expect they will hand over Purple Rain, in return for a joint remastered release. . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: Its always been the same for Prince. From 2013, re begins the process of regaining his masters.
Unless he does a deal with WB, expect no remasters until then, and then, only year by year, starting with For You. However, I think WB will offer a deal soon, before the handover is complete, to offer remasters for an early release. It makes sense for both parties. By 2010, I expect they will hand over Purple Rain, in return for a joint remastered release. Hand over PR? Purple Rain was recorded specifically for a movie. WB has a decent argument that he won't be entitled to those masters. Maybe he could buy them back, but a handover? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |