Im in skool now and have to do a project on an entrepreneur. I wanted to know if he would be a good one? For example what would make him one? Help!!

Ashleynbuffalo said:

Buy cheap, sell expensive, but make people happy about their purchase - works everytime

HUH! lol ok u got me so conused now! Did prince fund anything as far as labels cuz i went to wikipedia and it said that warner bros funded the npg and stuff! Does he own anything?

Does selling music online instead of going thru a record company make Prince an entrepeneur?

sexxydancer said:

Hmm that might work...but it sounds like hes not much of an entrepreneur. I heard he used to own sum restaurants but i believe theyre closed now! Oh well thank you for the help....i guess i have to use someone else,lol!

Ashleynbuffalo said:

Good luck on ur project!

Ashleynbuffalo said:

Yes. Prince is an entrepeneur. Go over to Housequake.com and read the Alan Leeds interview---he gives some good talk on Prince's business savvy.

Ashleynbuffalo said:

wow.harsh. give people a chance to respond before you presume the worst.

some of his ownerships:

Controversy Music (record label been in existence since day 1)
Emancipation Music (record label came in the 90's, still in existence)
Glam Slam Nightclub (closed)
3121 Club (technically still in existence)

and Paisley Park Studios is owned by Prince, the building of the studio was funded by WB.

take your pick of any of the above

Prince is many things, but he's probably not the best choice for a study on entrepeneurship. Not that he's not one; it's just that his projects are very small and narrowly-focused.

Also, finding out information on what Prince did and how he did it will be very hard, because he won't talk about it.

You'll have a much easier time if you pick someone else.

txladykat said:

Controversy Music and Emancipation Music are Prince's publishing companies (that owns the rights to his music recordings in some repects) for his music. He owns several publishing companies under those two as well that were for music that was given away or side projects. Along with a few other publishing companies for music that was given away or for side projects (that also owns the rights to some respect of material recorded by The Time, Sheila E., Madhouse, The Family, Mazarati, Vanity 6., Apollonia 6, Jill Jones, etc.) he can still cash in on this stuff.

He owns NPG Records and Paisley Park (multi-media complex and then-label). If I can recall, he does own rights to his films like Purple Rain with the Purple Film Company (look at he credits of the movies). Mostly everything (if not close to everything) he's involved in he has some kind of ownership to it. He owns alot of stuff involving his career.

One of the few things that Prince don't own is his master recordings of his recordings/albums that was released by Warner Bros (1978-96). He does own all of his previously unreleased material and recordings/albums post Warner Bros (1996-Present).

sms130 said:

Right..like the Six Girls publishing company

as far as the master recordings...why do people always get this one wrong? LOL Prince DOES own his master recordings. WB DOES NOT own them, they merely have an assignment of the copyrights, which expires after 35 years, provided Prince provided them the statutorily required notice with the statutorily specified time.

txladykat said:

Now, since you put it that way then OK. Yes, that's true. I think Prince has even stated this in some respect in the NPGMC online interview some years ago.

Ashleynbuffalo said:

Dude, Prince has had and still has plenty business in music. He has always had publishing companies and he has had Paisley Park records and NPG Records as his record companies and recording studio. He has been selling his music via the internet since 1998. He is an entrepeneur in music alright. A different ? is if he is a good one. He tried to do other things too but those didnt work out. Prince has made some great business decisions and some real terrible ones during his carreer as a songwriter/singer/musician/producer/actor/businessman. Just get of your lazy butt and search this site and other prince sites. There is TONS of info to find.

Geez.
.
[Edited 4/19/07 13:22pm]

txladykat said:

That is a nice way of looking at it.

Still have to wait and see if he can get them back after 35 years. Prince will be among the first of the artists to have a try at this provision in the US Copyright Act of 1978. WB however will claim all his WB recordings are works for hire and that thereby they are the statutory creator and owner of copyright in his WB recordings. So it will be an interesting fight, if it ever happens.
[Edited 4/19/07 13:20pm]

Tremolina said:

they will never win on the works for hire grounds and they know it. i honestly dont see them trying that one. now, as far as the batman, that is possible because he was specifically commissioned for that as a "work for hire". They have a good legal argument there.

txladykat said:

Why for Batman and how do you know that one was "specifically commissioned"? Whats' so different about all the other commsioned works he produced for them? Or do you mean that it could be a work for hire because it's a sound track of a WB movie?
I gotta say, the law on works for hire is not a simple one. Check out some of the jurisprudence on it. Very interesting.
I think Prince could win it too, but dont think it would be an easy decision for a court to make.
[Edited 4/19/07 16:21pm]

Im sorry if i offended anyone...i could have had a bit more patience but i was in my computer class sneakin on this website{still in hs} and my class period had only so much time left,lol! But thank you guys for helpin me out...cuz i was so lost and i guess im just gonna pick someone else like suggested. Prince keeps all his business on tha low,lol!Anyways thank u!

Try Ron Popiel that is an easy one and your teach will get a giggle out of it.

SKOOL"S fine but I don't think he smokes 2 much

Tremolina said:

I hope it don't go that far, even then Prince will still win. It's his art and who are they 2 own it. Prince deserves the rights to his masters recordings. If anybody who should own their work, it's Prince. The Work 4 Hire law should be a major discussion with all artist. It's interesting, Prince was trying 2 put his fellow musicians and artists on game as far as this stuff even 2 this day. He's been doing it since he's left Warner Bros. and some of his fellow friends in the industry still don't get it. It's a shame. The Work 4 Hire law should be a discussion 4 all artist, not executives.
[Edited 4/20/07 6:53am]

Tremolina said:

this is going off the top of my head, but i remember an article way back when saying he had specifically been commissioned to do the soundtrack for batman. it was not part of the contract deal where he had to give them X number of albums. A contract deal requiring a certain number of albums keeps it from being a "work for hire". would love to see some of the jurisprudence you are referring to though!

sms130 said:

I think they "get it", but you have to consider that for alot of artists when you repeatedly have doors shut to you, and repeated no's...that one yes tends to draw them in.....I have talked to many artists who, to this day, still say they would take such a deal just to get their foot in the door. it isn't easy to even get your big toe through...

I would have to say yes. If you look back at the "NPGMC" website. That answers your question.

sms130 said:

I see your point. Creatively speaking WB doesn't have any right to claim authorship of his recordings. The law also doesn't just let them but it's tricky.
[Edited 4/25/07 15:06pm]

txladykat said:

Most indeed do. I have adviced plenty of them to confirm that and estimate 95% signed whatever deal they could get.

txladykat said:

I will do a search for it. be back in a sec

oopps
[Edited 4/25/07 14:38pm]

Tremolina said:

Did he & Mayte also have a gift shop? I think? He's definitely an entrepeneur.

People just have different views on whether he's a successful one or not. Maybe your paper can touch up on how some ventures may work and how some may not, but to keep trying.

This what the law states:
http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#101


To my knowledge by common law standards and US supreme court jurisprudence Prince can't be considered to have been an employee and according to the statutory defintion sound recordings don't fall under the scope of paragraph 2 above. So a provision stating his records are works for hire wont be usefull. Contributions to motion pictures are included in the list do tho', so Batman could indeed probably be a legitimate work for hire if it was commisioned that way. However, Graffiti Bridge and Purple Rain could then also be legitimate.

The last paragraph of this provision is interesting. It refers to an attempt by the RIAA to include sound recordings in the second prong.
[Edited 4/25/07 15:28pm]

This is a very informative bit from the US Copyright office on works made for hire and refering to an important US supreme court decision.

http://www.copyright.gov/...circ09.pdf

Determining Whether a Work Is Made for Hire

Whether or not a particular work is made for hire is determined
by the relationship between the parties. This determination
may be difficult, because the statutory definition of a work
made for hire is complex and not always easily applied.

That definition was the focus of a 1989 Supreme Court decision
(Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730
[1989]). The court held that to determine whether a work is
made for hire, one must first ascertain whether the work was
prepared by (1) an employee or (2) an independent contractor.

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory
definition applies, and generally the work would be considered
a work made for hire. Important: The term “employee”
here is not really the same as the common understanding
of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee
under the general common law of agency. This is explained
in further detail below. Please read about this at “Employer-
Employee Relationship Under Agency Law.”

If a work is created by an independent contractor (that
is, someone who is not an employee under the general
common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered
or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition
applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both
of the following conditions are met:

(1) it comes within one
of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition
and
(2) there is a written agreement between the parties
specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Employer–Employee Relationship Under Agency Law

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copyright
code’s definition of a work made for hire applies. To
help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court in
CCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that characterize an
“employer-employee” relationship as defined by agency law:

1 Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer
may determine how the work is done, has the work done
at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or
other means to create work)
2 Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer
controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the
right to have the employee perform other assignments,
determines the method of payment, and/or has the right
to hire the employee’s assistants)
3 Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in
business to produce such works, provides the employee
with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee’s
payment)

These factors are not exhaustive.

The court left unclear which of these factors must be present
to establish the employment relationship under the work for hire
definition,
but held that supervision or control over creation of the
work alone is not controlling.

All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salaried
employment relationship, and it is clear that a work created
within the scope of such employment is a work made for
hire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).
Examples of works for hire created in an employment
relationship are:
• A software program created within the scope of his or her
duties by a staff programmer for Creative Computer Corporation
• A newspaper article written by a staff journalist for publication
in the newspaper that employs him
• A musical arrangement written for XYZ Music Company
by a salaried arranger on its staff
• A sound recording created by the salaried staff engineers
of ABC Record Company


The closer an employment relationship comes to regular,
salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created
within the scope of that employment would be a work
made for hire. However, since there is no precise standard for
determining whether or not a work is made for hire under
the first part of the definition, consultation with an attorney
for legal advice may be advisable.

Who Is the Author of a Work Made for Hire?

If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or other
person for whom the work was prepared is the author and
should be named as the author in Space 2 of the application
for copyright registration. The box marked “work-made-forhire”
should be checked “yes.”
Who Is the Owner of the Copyright
in a Work Made for Hire?
If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or other
person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner
of the copyright unless there has been a written agreement to
the contrary signed by both parties.
[Edited 4/25/07 15:34pm]