harveya said:

Ladies (sorry wonder, didn't check if you are girl/boy)!

I quote you harveye cause I think you got a point right there.

I think Harvard might need to plan on a "Prince Law" course, because on that other thread about "Creep" not even those smart cats studying copyright law had definitive answers.
Not that you guys aren’t as sharp, but……….

[Edited 6/30/08 11:48am]

violetblues said:

purplecam said:

I know what you mean.

let us not forget emancipation, lots of cover songs on that one

darlingfloor said:

Rather it has the words bleeped out or not we can hear those words on other movies, on the street, in stores, etc.etc. Im sorry but yes I am a lady but I can decide what words I can hear or not(If Prince is trying to play that advocate it dont impress me either, I AM BIG GIRL ratehr he wants to believe that or not, let alone too if that is his way to control others not even that impresses me) I have also heard other women cuss liek drunken sailors

Again, let me explain the basics of copyright:

When someone decides to make a coversong, the royalty-mechanisms are following.

When you print the cd (in a legal way..as we have done here), we have to send a form to a copyrightfirm. In Norway that firm is called Tono/NCB. On that form we have to state the correct name on the songwriter(s) and the one(s) writing the lyrics. Those people are registered in a worldspanding network of songwriters. We also have to state how many tracks the cd-contains and what the PPD (Price Per Dealer) is.
When we have sent the form, Tono/NCB will calculate how big percentage the different songwriters/lyricists wil have of the total copyright-money.
On "Shockadelica" Prince has around 98-99% and the last percentages is divided on the other songwriters/lyricists.
The PPD in this case is what the cd is sold for to the dealer. Most of the cd's are sold to shops in Norway, and the PPD is around 180 NOK (32 dollars). When we sell it directly via our website (www.ccrecords.no), those cd's have a PPD ca. 300 NOK (54 dollars).
Out of that, the songwriters/lyricists will get 9,09% of the total amount divided on the above fraction.

Example: If I sell 1 cd's to a shop with a PPD on 180 NOK = 180 NOK
9,09% out of that equals = 16,3 NOK
Prince will receive 98-99% of that AUTOMATICALLY.
That's around 3 dollars each sold cd.

If I sell directly from my webpage Prince will receive around 4,85 dollars each cd.

I haven't got a clue where the journalists have got the idea that I'm not willing to pay anything to Prince. It's actually very irritating to read that everywhere. I wish someone could ask me directly.

Then I read that a lot of people don't know what Publishing is, and starts writing No, Prince has released records at Warner, not Universal.
Let me explain:
The songs Prince has written has nothing to do with where he has released them. Warner owns nothing else than his original songs, but the song itself is owned by the person writing it. The Publishers are taking money for protecting his rights in all countries. They're sort of like "managers" for the songs. They're paid for watching out for irregularities and people doing unauthorized versions. For all the money Prince earns, they will have a certain percentage. Most publishers are interested in compilations like "Shockadelica". That's the easiest way in the world to make money. No work, and the check will automatically come. I'm not sure what kind of deal Prince has done with Universal Publishing, but no-one can refuse another person making a coverversion as long as the form is sent to the local copyright-headquarter and as long as the covers are made without significant changes. All countries have the same systems, some works better than others. In Norway it works brilliantly.
The only reason why UP or Prince can react on my compilation, is because they consider the changes TOO big, compared to the original compositions. Just because someone means the song is bad, it's not a legally good enough reason to stop it.
What is considered a unauthorized version is for example
1. Changing of lyrics.
2. Deleting or adding anything from the original composition
3. Changing the struction of the song
4. Using samples of the song/other songs

In Norway it has never been a problem re-recording a coverson (as far as I'm concerned), and I've never heard of anyone having a problem with it as long as the artists making the cover don't try to claim any rights in the original recording. For example:
When Puff Daddy made "I'll be missing you", a new version of The Police's "Every breath you take", Puffy wanted to have a lot of the songwriting-share. After all Puffy did make a completely new song, even if he kept the original refrain. The Police's Publishers said to Puffy: Sorry Mac, you shall not have any share of your new song. As unfair as it sounds, everytime you hear that song, Sting get's all the money.
BUT in our case, no-one has claimed anything. All the royalties will go directly to Prince (via Universal Publishing).
Please leave the Christer's-so-greedy-discussion. The financial part is totally taken care of!!!! I don't think this is about money at all. I think this is about principles, and that's a much more interesting discussion. Prince has enough of money. But I think it's more like he hates bad coversongs. I totally agree with him. So far I've only heard 50 really good Prince-covers, and that's quite bad out of the 1300 Prince-covers I have...still, I absolutely believe that "Shockadelica" contains some of the finest Prince-coversongs ever made. That's why I released it. That's why I soooo proud of it. And that's why I believe that it will have a happy ending. And since Prince knows the difference of a good and a bad song, I'm sure he agrees that there are several exceptionally good songs on this album when/if he get's to hear it.

christerfalck said:

Good on you! And so you should!

G0d said:

christerfalck said:

Well I'm going to ask you directly. As many keep suggesting... Prince has been covered many times on many albums. But what made this situation different. I'm sorry... I don't buy the 'favortism' theory one bit. But I'm still curious as to what the problem could be.

I'm just trying to find facts so please do not take my tone as combative or as if I'm trying to suggest you knowingly did anything wrong. I'm just trying not to be vague...so the best way to do that is to be direct.

Everything ..everywhere I've researched about this subject suggest that there is a Mechanical License fee associated to (in this case) the 5000 CDs you produced... as well as a seperate digital licensing fee associated to downloads of the product. The mechanical fee is calculated at about $.10 per cover... per CD produced as you must report the amount of CDs expected to be made available regardless of whether it would be for sale or not. Those same sources suggest that these fees must be paid in advance and are mostly an advance royalty payment.

This is where my question rest.

The digital licensing fees are much less... as the royalty portion of that fee cannot be determined until after the digital transfer. But the mechanical fees to cover the 5000 cds, if I am to believe the sources I checked, would have been pretty high considering there are 81 covers per unit. ie $40,000.00+

Everything you said about the process appears to be true and matches up with what can be researched. That is up to the point about payment of licensing fees most notably the Mechanical license which would have made the 5000 CDs produced legal because all royalties for them would have been paid.

Agsin... everything I've researched suggest that the digital license fee would have been substantially less because the royalties are calculated post download of the product. But the royalties attached to the mechanical fee is paid not on the amount of actual sales... but rather the amount of CDs made available regardless of the price... which could have been free. If you gave them away for free... it would be impossible to track for proper royalties. So in effect... the royalties for the mechanical product (CDs) are4 paid based on the amount of CDs produced not sold.

Nothing I researched made paying the fees exempt.But there may be a difference between the way they are paid in Norway vs. how they are done in the U.S. Because what you just posted doesn't seam to gel with how its been explained on sites like HFA (the Harry Fox Agency)

So did you pay the fees? If not why? Coukd there be a difference and this be the problem? And if there is something about this that I am way off base about... could you explain and please provide links to support.

Truly I appreciate the efforts of the project... but if there was a mistake or a miscommunication somewhere I just wish it could be discovered.

A more rational response to cover versions comes from Gary Numan in an interview for
Culture Bully in which he states:

"I’ve enjoyed listening to all of them (cover versions). New ones are coming in all the time in fact so it’s an ongoing thing. Some I’ve liked a little more than others but it is such an honor, as a songwriter, to have other artists cover or sample your songs, I find it a very enjoyable experience. I’m very flattered that it has happened so often and by so many high caliber
bands and I think they have helped my career considerably. Firstly they would have raised my profile to people who may not have heard of me. Secondly, the respect that it gives me as an artist and songwriter has the secondary effect of encouraging many people, including perhaps some in the media, to rethink how they see me and my contribution and, for some, to see it in a more complimentary and positive way. I’m very grateful that not only am I covered and sampled on a regular basis but that so many comments about my influence are made by artists that are themselves very influential. It makes me very proud but a little nervous that, with each new album I make, I will fail to live up to it."
[Edited 6/30/08 15:10pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

They may or may not be different... that's what I'm trying to find out.

And if they are... what country's laws would hold jurisdiction in this situation?

All intentions can be good... but there are legal issues which have to be addressed. If the laws state that the mechanical fees had to be paid before ditrubution/sale of the CDs..... then that is the law and Prince's publishing rights must be met just as they would any other artist. If this isn't the case... any charges filed would fail before reaching court... because producing covers is legal and if all conditions are met... the artist has nothing to say.

This album is incredible! Makes me appreciate Prince's song writing even more. If he were smart he would sue and negotiate the rights to release the record world wide through NPG Records. If you haven't heard it, I suggest you get it and remember what it was like to get a Prince record, rush home turn off the lights and lay on the floor and let the music take hold. It really is a trip!

We've had allot of tribute albums over the years, but this one really nails it.

not sure if I find your answer 100% accurate - the answer about copyright that I got from the ASCAP site in 2000, says that the most simple form of copyright is to copyright said work to your full birthname.

christerfalck said:

BigDaddyHQ said:

Why are YOU trying to find out? Are you reppin' Prince in this matter or something? I'm just asking.
I know this much - you don't have to ask permission to do a cover, you just have to pay once you do.

BlaqueKnight said:

Why am I trying to find out...?

Well... because I'm not some twit who likes going through life with out a clue. Some people are happy just going by what they think.. or putting their trust in another mans words... and never truly knowing for themselves. If asked... all they can say is , "He/she said..." . Me... I'm not one of those people. I'd rather 'know'..than simply 'think I know'... or rely on what another man 'knows'.

Frankly... if knowledge is power than I'd want to be a friggin' superhero. You'd never catch me looking stupid on 'Jeopardy' or walking away with out getting seriously paid on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. I am a self professed 'know it all' who feels more secure being able to back up my knowledge with facts... and with enough modesty to let it be known when I'm just giving opinion.

Practically speaking... I own copyrights to works in various media.... including music, digital illustration and short fiction. I'm a jack of all trades...pro at none type. So any issue dealing with copyrights and the like interest me to where I'd want to know all I can.

Also i like knowing as many details possible before I jump to any conclusions about any situation. As of late... Prince has earned some harsh critique due to his actions... but he has also been bashed for things which were not his fault or because their facts were twisted and they didn't care to know the actual ones.

So this is largely why I'm trying to find out all I can.

lastdecember said:

I just think it's funny that it's always some outfit in Norway that tries this type of thing and then says 'well those rules don't apply here'. And goes on to claim he's he's picking on them. A few years back wasn't that boot from the 1999 tour called "The Homecoming" being distributed in Norway? They claimed it wasn't a boot and kept selling it. Prince sued their asses and won because it in fact was a bootlegged concert.

Meloh9 said:

Well I can think of a few covers that he did ok that I'm sure he'd like to re-think. Ginuwine's version of When Doves Cry" comes immediately to mind.

Ifsixwuz9 said:

I have nightmares over that shit.

BlaqueKnight said:

According to the producer, $3 for each CD sold will go to Prince (or more likely his publisher). So...from a possible 5,000 CDs - do you guys really think Prince gives a fuck about a measly $15,000 when he's pulling in millions from private gigs?

This can not just be about money. Prince's publishers work on his behalf to maintain quality standards over his written material as it is rerecorded. That's all!

It's clear from this guy's post that the versions that were produced were okayed by Universal Sweden's standards but not by Universal USA's. Obviously, the two divisions did not communicate at all which is not surprising the way corporations operate today!
[Edited 7/1/08 17:32pm]

I don't know where to begin...

#1. When it comes to the legal department, I am Norwegian, and I have released my CD in Norway under Norwegian laws.
In Norway I interpret the rules the way I discribed them in an earlier post.

#2 I'm perfectly aware that Prince is a Jehovah's Witness. My dentist is too, and I asked him if he would mind to get a birthdaygift even tho he is a JW. He just laughed and said "Of course I won't be angry, I just don't celebrate birthdays". I suppose that means that June 7th is just another day for Prince and the rest of the JW's. But for me, and thousands of Prince fans, we celebrate Prince's birthday. I've done so for almost 25 years. Sometimes just a cake. Sometimes a whole day with Prince-music, and sometimes we have a big Prince-party in Oslo, like we did this year. If you honestly Bid Daddy HQ think that Prince is disgusted with people celebrating his birthday, you know more about the man than I could possibly imagine.

#3 When it comes to the economical part, we chose to make 5000 copies. It's a numbered limited edition cd-box, and it's more or less meant for the Norwegian market. Someone accuses me for making this hype to sell more records. I'm sure the 5000 copies will disappear in time, with or without Housequake and Prince.org's "help". The reason why we did 5000 copies, is BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT WE DID THIS FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY!!!!!
I'd be happy to show you the numbers. We're reaching breakeven on ca. 4500 sold copies. We're sending 500 cd's as promotion for the bands involved, prizes for competitions and the press.
At the moment we have sold 3500 cd's. Which is a LOT in little Norway. I suppose we have sold around 3-400 to foreigners (this actually helps a little bit on the result, since we earn a litle bit more money on the direct-to-fans-sales). The rest have been sold to record-shops in Norway.

#4 To me a tribute-album is either
a) done to earn money - such as the newly released "Controversy", where they had gathered already released Prince-songs. Nothing new, just good shit in different packing. BUSINESS is the keyword.
or
b) done with love to the artist without the urge to earn money. "Shockadelica" contains 81 exclusively recorded songs (well, 80 to be honest, Susanna & The Magical Orchestra didn't have time to finish "Dance On", so we had to use her already released "Condition Of The Heart" instead..."Dance On" will appear on her next album btw). They are all made by artists loving Prince, and the artists have NO chance in earning their money they have spent on the recording back. FUN is the keyword.

#5 I'd like to discuss what you mean by the ethical side of this project, Mr Big Daddy HQ. You mean it's unethical to make this tribute-cd? You mean it's unethical to salute your biggest musical hero with Norways finest artists? What on earth is unethical with this. You say that I should know what Prince feels about coversongs? How should I possibly know? All I know is that Prince makes a lot of coversongs on his albums, and I haven't seen ONE SINGLE Prince-aftershow where he hasn't played a cover. As far as I'm concerned Prince LOVES coversongs. He plays covers of artists that he has told are his biggest influences. He went public saying he loved Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U" and D'Angelo's "She's Always In My Hair" plus a lot of others.
I'm sorry I'm not his best friend, so that I can call him up and say "Prince, got a new cover for ya". And I'm sorry I can't call Beyonce or Rihanna and ask her to join (even tho I did ask StarGate, the ones that has written "Umbrella", and they sayd YES!! Thanks for asking", and did a lovely version of "Sometimes it snows in April".
I just have to use my ethical sense of good taste in music and ask artists that I knew would put a lot of effort, ethics and love in this project. The result wasn't up to me to decide weather it's good or not. It's simply a just-another-day-present from one artist to another, coincidentially released on June 7th:-)

Come on, Big Daddy. I don't believe you when you sound intimidated and disappointed on behalf of Prince because of my coversongs. I'm sure you just want to have the same phonecall from Prince as all the people here at Housequake do: "Thanks for supporting me buddy...I want to invite you to Paisley Park as my very best fan-friend. We'll have some cake, and we're gonna talk all night about which of my songs you like the most". But neither you, me or any of my artists will probably ever get that one. Either you like my songs, or you don't. I listened to yours on your website, and I think that all of my 81 songs were way better, but I'm not gonna hassel you with my opinions (more than this one time). Keep on making coversongs in your garage. As long as you enjoy yourself, and follow your American rules, it's cool:-)

Peace from Norway!
And if you want to buy the album, get it here:

http://www.thegarden.no/?...5080&gid=0 (Paypals-users)

or here

www.ccrecords.com

does the post above answer the question if a mechanical license was required or paid?




[Edited 7/1/08 15:28pm]

wonder505 said:

I have no idea. I ain't reading all of that.

I think Prince has been talking to that cheeky little clown puppet in the mirror again!

However, having said that, I have listened to some samples of the album and while it is a nice gesture, they are pretty awful!!

rubberfish said:

Nah.. If you listen to the whole thing you will find a lot to like. Great variety on it. From the bad to the very good. Anyway more than anything it is a lot of fun to listen to. Surely that can't be a bad thing.

!

rubberfish said:

With over 10,000 views I thought this would be an interesting topic...

Not really.

christerfalck said:

I really don't get where you got this from. Anything I've said..or any emotion I've displayed has been far from intimidated or dis-appointed.


Wrong Site.


Where is this coming from...? Again... i think you are referring to comments and post which I DID NOT MAKE.


Until now... I hadn't commented on the songs themselves. My sole concern was trying to find out why Universal/Prince would send you a threatening letter. I presented a couple of possibilities keeping in mind that covers are legal. I asked you to read and comment to what I said here... because it was minus the garbage said by people whom I have a negative history with... who twisted and added things to what I said which I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED.

But you didn't. You instead choose to single me out past page after page of people actually making negative remarks to your project... even though I made no negative remarks concerning the project or the quality of it what so ever. You shouldn't beleive what other say.

But since you decided you wanted to critique something I made... I in turn will give my opinion since I no longer respect the project at all It sucks. A couple decent tracks... but over all very ..very... bad. IMO. Maybe the reason Universal /Prince sent you anything was because they didn't like what they heard.

p.s. My song was made in two hours in front of a PC. I wouldn't expect it to sound as good as songs made in a studio for thousands of dollars. But I do feel you wasted your money.

This is my last comment on the situation. Have a nice day... I couldn't care less if Prince sued you or not