Does anyone have an update on Prince remasters of his old albums? Does Warner Bros. still own the rights to all his music? Is this even being discussed? It really irritates me that Prince, my favorite, is the only artist in my music collection who has not been remastered. Madonna,Michael Jackson, Notorious B.I.G., N.W.A., Ice Cube, and all the old school Death Row albums of Snoop and Dre have all been reissued. I desperately want these albums re-done, they are lost classics that I feel are never fully appreciated. Is a deal between P and WB in the making to redo his works?

PimpandCircumstance said:

WB still retain rights to the masters of most of the recordings they issued whilst Prince was under contract to them. It seems likely that these rights will revert to Prince 30 years after their release ... i.e. starting with his first album, 'For You', in 2008.

In the meantime, the double CD, 'Ultimate' was due to be re-released in March, but was at least postponed, and this included remastering of tracks approved by Prince. The first CD was effectively a 'Greatest Hits', with the second CD being a selection of extended versions.

There's no indication that this will be a prelude to Prince approving a remastered back catalogue under WB before the rights begin to revert.


.
[Edited 4/29/06 9:50am]

its 35 years, not 30...and the only albums he gets back are ones not considered "work for hire". most likely, batman will stay with WB, and if they considered PR to be a work for hire as a soundtrack to the movie, then they keep that too.

txladykat said:

Do you have any evidence that it's 35 years as opposed to 30 (I know 35 can be a standard recording contract period of rretention, but it is open to negotiation)?

The reason I have mentioned 30 is because I believe I have heard Prince state 2014 as the date that the masters to Purple Rain revert to him, which would also indicate that it is not treated as a work for hire.
.

txladykat said:

langebleu said:

yes i do. intellectual property law is my field of work. the 30 years that confuses people is the time frame when you can begin providing notice to the assignee that you are terminating the grant.

to find the copyright law, simply go to the us copyright office. it is there in plain english. but, to save you the time, here you go:

Here is the synopsis:
Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors (or, if the authors are not alive, their surviving spouses, children or grandchildren, or executors, administrators, personal representatives or trustees) to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met. Notices of termination may be served no earlier than 25 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 30 years after the execution of the grant or 25 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first). However, termination of a grant cannot be effective until 35 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).

Here is the full text of Title 17 of the United States Code that relates to copyrights:


Copyright Law - Chapter 2

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Circular 92


-----

Chapter 2
Copyright Ownership and Transfer
201. Ownership of copyright
202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author
204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
205. Recordation of transfers and other documents

§ 201. Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowner of copyright in the work.

(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

(c) Contributions to Collective Works. — Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.

(d) Transfer of Ownership. —

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.

(e) Involuntary Transfer. — When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title, except as provided under title 11.2

§ 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object

Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

§ 203. Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author

(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:

(1) In the case of a grant executed by one author, termination of the grant may be effected by that author or, if the author is dead, by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's termination interest. In the case of a grant executed by two or more authors of a joint work, termination of the grant may be effected by a majority of the authors who executed it; if any of such authors is dead, the termination interest of any such author may be exercised as a unit by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's interest.

(2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and may be exercised, as follows:

(A) The widow or widower owns the author's entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author's interest.

(B) The author's surviving children, and the surviving children of any dead child of the author, own the author's entire termination interest unless there is a widow or widower, in which case the ownership of one-half of the author's interest is divided among them.

(C) The rights of the author's children and grandchildren are in all cases divided among them and exercised on a per stirpes basis according to the number of such author's children represented; the share of the children of a dead child in a termination interest can be exercised only by the action of a majority of them.

(D) In the event that the author's widow or widower, children, and grandchildren are not living, the author's executor, administrator, personal representative, or trustee shall own the author's entire termination interest.

(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.

(4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing, signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title.

(A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.

(B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

(b) Effect of Termination. — Upon the effective date of termination, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grants revert to the author, authors, and other persons owning termination interests under clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a), including those owners who did not join in signing the notice of termination under clause (4) of subsection (a), but with the following limitations:

(1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

(2) The future rights that will revert upon termination of the grant become vested on the date the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of subsection (a). The rights vest in the author, authors, and other persons named in, and in the proportionate shares provided by, clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a).

(3) Subject to the provisions of clause (4) of this subsection, a further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is signed by the same number and proportion of the owners, in whom the right has vested under clause (2) of this subsection, as are required to terminate the grant under clauses (1) and (2) of subsection (a). Such further grant or agreement is effective with respect to all of the persons in whom the right it covers has vested under clause (2) of this subsection, including those who did not join in signing it. If any person dies after rights under a terminated grant have vested in him or her, that person's legal representatives, legatees, or heirs at law represent him or her for purposes of this clause.

(4) A further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effective date of the termination. As an exception, however, an agreement for such a further grant may be made between the persons provided by clause (3) of this subsection and the original grantee or such grantee's successor in title, after the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of subsection (a).

(5) Termination of a grant under this section affects only those rights covered by the grants that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.

(6) Unless and until termination is effected under this section, the grant, if it does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the term of copyright provided by this title.

§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

(b) A certificate of acknowledgment is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if —

(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or

(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an officer.

§ 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents

(a) Conditions for Recordation. — Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document.

(b) Certificate of Recordation. — The Register of Copyrights shall, upon receipt of a document as provided by subsection (a) and of the fee provided by section 708, record the document and return it with a certificate of recordation.

(c) Recordation as Constructive Notice. — Recordation of a document in the Copyright Office gives all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document, but only if —

(1) the document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title or registration number of the work; and

(2) registration has been made for the work.

(d) Priority between Conflicting Transfers. — As between two conflicting transfers, the one executed first prevails if it is recorded, in the manner required to give constructive notice under subsection (c), within one month after its execution in the United States or within two months after its execution outside the United States, or at any time before recordation in such manner of the later transfer. Otherwise the later transfer prevails if recorded first in such manner, and if taken in good faith, for valuable consideration or on the basis of a binding promise to pay royalties, and without notice of the earlier transfer.

(e) Priority between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. — A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent, and if

(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or

(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it.

Chapter 2 Endnotes
1In 1978, section 201(e) was amended by deleting the period at the end and adding “, except as provided under title 11.”

2Title 11 of the United States Code is entitled “Bankruptcy.”

3In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act amended section 203 by deleting “by his widow or her widower and his or her grandchildren” from the first sentence in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) and by adding subparagraph (D) to paragraph (2). Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827, 2829.

4 The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 amended section 205 by deleting subsection (d) and redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively. Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853, 2857.


-----

Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Library of Congress

U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Ave. S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20559-6000
(202) 707-3000

http://www.copyright.gov/...2.html#203

txladykat said:

I've always been curious how they will deal with PR with the whole soundtrack issue. That could be interesting. As movie soundtracks, Parade and Graffiti Bridge might have the same issue. P's fortunate he took a different approach with SOTT.


.
[Edited 5/1/06 8:37am]

The good news is that his tapes R not in danger of deteriorating. The vault is completely climate - humidity controlled, and it's a huge concrete bunker, from what I've been told. Now I'm not sure if the mastertapes 4 his releases under WB R there... I assume they R not, so I can't vouch 4 the condition of those.

It's bothersome 2 me that my 2 most significant influences in my music, Stevie Wonder and Prince, R 2 major artists that have not had their original releases remastered. This is particularly disturbing with Stevie, because the Tamla label had about the worst quality vinyl I've ever seen-heard. Flimsy, 2 many grooves per inch, and scratchy, even when they were new. In Prince's case, the CD versions of all of his albums up to and including Lovesexy, were simply copied, with low levels, and horrible EQing. You'd think that an album like '1999' or 'Sign O The Times' would really deserve remastering. Otherwise, your best bet is to clean your vinyl really well, use a top notch audiophile turntable, and do your own digital transfer, then burn 2 CD. Make sure U use the RIAA EQ curve when U digitaize anything from records. U can do this quite simply, by getting a phono preamp, but make sure it does have the RIAA curve. I can explain what this curve is, if you'd like 2 know.

Easy,

Giovanni.
[Edited 5/1/06 9:00am]

txladykat said:

Thanks for this. txladykat ... I'd read the Circular 1 entry at the LOC some time ago.

Although I deal in copyright law, it's all English law, so forgive my lack of understanding in this area.

What I'm interested to understand is why it was felt necessary to embody the principle of a minimum period of copyright licence transfer in statute in the first place.

As I read this, any artist in the US that assigns copyright in a work is bound to do so for a minimum period of time set by statute and then has to serve notice to ensure reversion of said rights.

Why has this area of law not been allowed to evolve based on contract, enabling the author (at least in theory) to negotiate a shorter period of transfer in contract given that the rights originally vest in the author?

It seems to me that it's rather like saying to an owner of real estate that they are free to lease their home to a lessee, but the tenant will always be allowed to occupy the property for a minimum of 35 years, and the lessor must also serve notice to ensure the property rights revert at the end of that period.

Has this area of US law particularly evolved at the behest of businesses lobbying to secure long term assignment of rights?

lang...thanks for your orgnote. in response to your request, that actually IS the new law in response to lobbying by artists. The old law was was much more stringent. I believe it changed in the late 90's....can't remember for sure when it changed.

NPGMC mentioned in 99 that the masters begin returning in 2013!?!

SquirrelMeat said:

Thanks, Squirrelmeat.

As I've mentioned to txladykat separately, Prince spoke in 2001 at Paisley Park about the return of his masters - but it was so late at night there was every chance the dates would get confused in my head.

Now you've mentioned this, I'm off to explore my archives ... but thanks for all this clarification.

listen to the songs Crucial, Crystal Ball, Dream Factory, Moviestar, and Sexual Suicide for a tantalizing tease of what remasters of old stuff would sound like!

Also eat blueberries to improve your mind.

SquirrelMeat said:

that sounds right because 1999 is when the new law took effect kinda ironic if you think about it....1999?

Universaluv said:

I thought the law applied to the songs indiviually, not the compilation.

If Prince doesn't get his masters back to Purple Rain in 2019 then I'm afraid that I will hear his head explode all the way down here in Australia.

dumbass said:

it does apply to compilations. the determination lies in two factors (1) was there something in writing that specifically said PR was a "work for hire" and what is the specific wording in the original contract regarding what is considered "work for hire". Since we don't know what was in his original contract, everything else is speculation at this point. No doubt that Batman is considered a "work for hire" since he was approached about doing the "soundtrack", but did the PR album come before the idea for the movie or vice versa? I imagine if the movie idea came about first, they most likely negotiated a "work for hire" which means that WB owns the copyright to PR. A search on the copyright website does not show PR as a "work for hire", but strangley The Gold Album shows as a "work for hire". Im going to do some more searching on the copyright website on his copyrights and see what I can find as far as any works claimed to be work for hire.

Too bad Ill be dead before I ever get to hear any remastered catalogue.

It's insane that Prince and WB cant negotiate a compromise that makes him happy and them rich enough.

Giovanni777 said:

I have Music of My Mind to Songs in the Key and they are all remastered. Do u mean ones before those?

langebleu said:

Are you sure it was remastered? I have it and it doesn't sound any better than the Hits CDs. I don't think it says anywhere in the packaging that it was remastered, which I'd think would be a selling point.

Giovanni777 said:

I imagione they have peanut butter all over the tapes and such