txladykat said:

How can that be in the contract when at the time of signing there were no such things as "digital remasters"?
[Edited 5/4/07 13:59pm]

Tremolina said:

digital or not, it is still a release, and many contracts limit how many re-releases you can do from masters (such as Best of Albums, etc.). Wasn't Prince's deal something like 3?

txladykat said:

But those are best of compilations, made of the original recordings, not digital remasters of them.

It's crucial that at the time of signing (at least of his first contract), the digital remaster technology wasn't invented yet, because it's impossible to transfer a right to use a technology that doesn't exist yet.

Courts take that fact, the rest of the language of the transfer and the artist experience with transfers into account when considering whether any and all rights comprised under Copyright were transferred. Check the jurisprudence

Since the tecnique wasnt invented yet and Prince was still an unexperienced artist at that time, I think it's likely that a court will rule that it's impossible that Prince ever wanted to transfer the right to digitally remaster his recordings to WB.

The only way to TRY and avoid that situation is to explicitly mention so-called "future rights" in the contract, explaining in detail that the record company will be free to use whatever recording, reproduction, publishing and distribution technique to be invented in the future.

But then a court may still throw it out and I don't think Prince has such clauses in his early contracts.

Hence, what I think is the reason why WB doesn't release digital remasters; They need permission from Prince (and perhabs his former band members too!) to do that and they don't get it.

Then again, I am not that fly on the wall, so I could be wrong.
[Edited 5/4/07 15:05pm]

Tremolina said:

I think we got off track again, cause that is what I was trying to say, LOL. I don't think WB can remaster his original masters without his permission, and I don't think Prince will give it to them. I also don't think he has the time or the inclination to create all new masters of his old material.

I am almost certain I saw some case law talking about future rights which pretty
sums up what you said. I will have to go back and look for that case.

txladykat said:

I'll be here waiting for it!

A couple things:

1) I hope that Prince does NOT release his re-recorded "New" master series. Who knows if he did indeed re-record them, but he said he was in the "process" of doing that. If 1999:TNM was any indicator of quality, then those need to stay hidden forever. Purple Medley was a nice redo though, but that's a one-off ... I doubt I'd like a whole catalog like that.

2) 6 more years until 2013, and we will see if the remastered For You album comes out. Considering that The Rainbow Children was only 6 years ago, that doesn't seem so far away in music terms.

3) I'm worried about the integrity of Prince's Vault material. I've read several reports on the Org ... I hope for legacy reasons that Prince starts maintaining those (and releasing them!)

i havent found that case yet. But, here is some interesting history I came across

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 added to Section 101 of Title 17, United States Code "sound recordings" as being works for hire.

The history:
There are two classifications of "works for hire" as delineated by the 1976 Copyright Act. The first are those made by employees in the normal course of work. If you show up to a job where somebody tells you what to do and when to do it, and for that you're rewarded with a paycheck, then your work product is classified as a work for hire and you don't own the copyright on it. The second type of work for hire is a bit more complex, and involves independent contractors -- such as musicians. For independent contractors to create works for hire, two criteria must both be met. This is the important part here.

The first criterion is that the work has to fit within one of the nine specific categories outlined in section 101 of Title 17. Prior to the passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, the categories were: a work specially commissioned for use (1) as a contribution to a collective work; (2) as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; (3) as a translation; (4) as a supplementary work; (5) as a compilation; (6) as an instructional text; (7) as a test; (8) as answer material for a test; or (9) as an atlas.

The second criterion is that there has to be a contract stipulating that it's a "work for hire." If either of those two elements is missing, then the work in question is not a work for hire.

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 added "sound recordings" as the 10th category. Why? You can thank the RIAA for that one. That is is when the Artists' Coalition was formed and the fight began. This resulted in hearings before congress in an attempt to have sound recordings removed. A settlement was reached wherein the new language basically had no force and effect.

Although, this was a major step, clear legislation was needed. In stepped Clinton.

In 2000, Clinton signed into law the Works Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act which overturns the law that the RIAA slipped into the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 discussed above. The law doesn't technically go into effect until 2013, therefore, the signing of this law enables artists to have ownership to their master recording for works created after 1978.

Hence, here is the answer to the question. We don't have to be the fly on the wall, regardless of what he signed in 1978, his work cannot be considered a work for hire.

I can't find the case I was talking about on the net, so I am going to jump on Westlaw this afternoon and search. Gotta get some work done now. LOL

Tremolina said:

Let's hope for that, now. Like I said before, I hope by 2013 the storm can be finally over once and for all. I just hope Prince can regain his master recordings by then because at the end of the day he deserves it. Warner Bros. should not be holding him up about his work. Prince should have the right to own and control his own work, period. By the way for those concerned if I can recall, Prince has new master versions/re-recorded versions of his entire back catalogue (Which is owned by Warner Bros. Records) ready in the vault but, why release those and I can release the original master tape. What's would this say if he was to release a re-recorded version of 'Purple Rain' album as oppose to releasing the original 1984 'Purple Rain' album with bonus material? Oh yeah, I think Prince's vault is safe his unreleased materials are safe. He own possession of his master tapes of his entire back catalogue (1978-Present). He just don't own it on paper. The paper work is under Warner Bros.

sms130 said:

SMS read my posts above. He can re-record his masters at any time and release them when he chooses. WB only has copyright assignment in the ORIGINAL master sound recordings, not the lyrics or compositions. He can re-record those at any time and release them whenever he chooses. As for the original masters of the sound recordings, thanks to Bill Clinton, he will get those back 35 years after the copyright creation date. Which means, he doesn't get them all back in 2013, only the first album, and each one 35 years thereafter from their date of copyright.

txladykat said:

I know that but, what's the point of releasing the new mastered/re-recorded versions and all you have to do is wait until 2013 and the storm can began to end one year at a time. Why do you think Prince has not start releasing re-recorded/new master versions of his back catalogue at Warner Bros. after the release of the '1999' [New Master] single. What would that say? When he did release '1999' [New Master] single after Warner Bros. re-released the '1999' single, it was like fans had to pick and choose between the singles. It's not a real point to putting fans in that kind of position with your music. I think Prince may have saw that. Maybe he could do that later when he has total ownership of his work of art but as of now it's no point. Think about what happened with the 'Ultimate Prince' album when it was originally going to be released around the time of the release of the '3121' album. WB only has copyright assignment in the ORIGINAL master sound recordings, not the lyrics or compositions. True but, it's crazy that they even have that much ownership of his master recordings. I'm more concern in what would happen next, once Prince does start to regain ownership of his master recordings.
[Edited 5/8/07 12:12pm]

sms130 said:

of course anything is possible, but i dont think Prince will do anything with them personally.

We'll have to wait and see.

Yes.
And Dez is a modernaire.


Modernaire, modernaire.