Excuse my ignorance, but I thought a mechanical license was only for the use of the masters, like if this was a compilation of actual Prince recordings, or sampled works.

These are new recordings that Prince does not own, but I understand that royalties for songwriting/publishing are due which have already been addressed.

I don't quite understand what the mechanical license would be for in this case?

christerfalck said:


I have to say I'm really enjoying it. Lot's of interesting stuff. Very sorry for you that there is hassle about it, I hope you don't lose too much money, but I'm guessing it's just disappointing that Prince is taking umbrage with something that was meant as a compliment. Again.
Keep the faith!
Bx

christerfalck said:

Maybe that's the problem - that YOU simply interpret the rules your way ?

Just because you are norwegian and have released the CD in Norway doesn't neccessarily equal your release is subject to only norwegian laws.International copyright laws ain't THAT easy.I bet in this case quite a number of different laws from different countries apply since the copyright owner (Prince, Universal or whoever else) is from the U.S, but the distributor is not, also the fact the cd box can be ordered through the internet of course doesn't limit the release to Norway only.And i am sure there are other factors that make this release not so simple in legal terms as you make it sound.

Somehow it sounds like a $ 40,000 payment to Prince's account has not been made yet but it may very well be the case that this in fact should have been made, depending on which laws from which countries apply.

What do i know - i'm not a lawyer (although being a musician myself and a graphic designer who is working for international clients i have had my share of international copyright issues) so here comes my question that for me it all boils down to:

For this release, have you hired a lawyer with experience in international copyright laws ?

If you haven't - and i mean that as in hiring a lawyer BEFORE the project starts and gets released - you'd really be the one to blame.

You don't start a project like this without consulting an experienced lawyer first.
.
[Edited 7/2/08 16:03pm]

For this release, have you hired a lawyer with experience in international copyright laws ?

I don't hire a lawyer before I release an album. But I did contact Universal Publishing in advance, and I got a written answer that "no-one can stop a straight cover". To me (and all the lawyers I have talked to in retrospect) have agreed that this was the formal and right progress.



Somehow it sounds like a $ 40,000 payment to Prince's account has not been made yet but it may very well be the case that this in fact should have been made, depending on which laws from which countries apply.

The payment to Prince will be pais as we sell the records. This is a standard procedure in all civilized pats of the world. If I would be a independent label releasing the cd on my own and only sell it through my website, I'd have to pay upfront, but since I have a deal with the distributors, they handle the copyright-payment for me. At the end of every month, I get a statement from my distributors, and they deduct Prince's copyright-money from my invoice. That means: June 30th Prince will get the money for all sales in June. July 31st, he will get the money for the sales of July etc...

OK?

christerfalck said:

LOL, there you go.Well, you should have.Especially if you have no experience with international copyright law; remember it's not like you released an album with your own songs, it's not like you released an album with only one cover version on it - you released a box set with 80+ cover versions of the same artist.


What makes you believe Universal was the right and only choice to talk to ? It's not like Prince's songs are solely published through Universal only, there are many more publishers that are involved wit these songs.Plus note that their answer is just general information they gave you about cover songs in general; it's not looking like they got into a legally binding agreement specifically for this project with you.


To contact a (potentially only partially related) publishing company and leave it at that is not the formal and "right" process, be assured.Hiring an experienced lawyer who on your behalf would contact publishers, labels and the artist himself would have been more like it.With a cd box containing more than 80 cover songs of the same artist the very least would have been to contact that artist beforehand.No doubt.


This again tells me you should have hired a lawyer.There is no international standard procedure, this is no standard situation/project and there is no legal term like "civilized parts of the world".Next, just because you have a deal with a distributor doesn't change anything in regards to the legal obligations that you might have.Just for a thought - maybe there are legal factors other than only "copyright payments" to consider in this case ?

Like, for instance the fact that the trademark "Prince" is not limited to the songwriter credits but quite the contrary you use it in advertising and in big fat letters on the front cover of the cd box ?! You see, it's a big difference between a cover song and using the name of the songs' author for advertising.

Did you ask all the stakeholders in the "Prince" trademark beforehand for permission to use it for advertising and as part of the package design ?

Lemme guess - the honest answer is "no" ? I'm almost 100% sure this is one of the main reasons for Prince's lawyers wanting you to abandon the project.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not bashing you or anything - it's just that you still seem to believe international copyright law was that easy and that you could cover the legal aspects yourself when it's obvious your knowledge of these matters is very limited.Why you still insist that you don't need a lawyer before "you release an album" is beyond me - record companies have legal departments for this kind of stuff, especially for releases where issues like non-original material, international distribution etc are touched.Still you insist you in contrary to these companies don't need any legal expertise beforehand.Well you should know better by now.

To sum it up: Just the fact you have received a letter from Prince's camp and you getting only the slightest bit concerned should be evidence enough that you are not *exactly* sure where you are standing legally.But it's something you absolutely should have been 100% sure of *before* even the start of the project.

.
[Edited 7/3/08 3:39am]

Here we go again! Is it really that depressing to be 50 that Prince feels the need to sue everyone that comes near his music. Prince is starting to act like an old grump and his thing about sueing people is getting old, too!

beatz01 said:

wow, so very well put! you sound like the only adult in this place,

no disrespect to all the other posts

Well Christerfalck,
I want to thank you for putting the set together. I have gotten great enjoyment out of the tracks. It comes across as sincere and fun. ignore the bitching if you can. Look on the bright side, you have now created a controversial collectable Prince item!


Love the Minor Majority track, great band, caught them live once in Alesund, but where are a-ha?

GiGi319 said:

Surprisingly, Prince has not sued anyone.

I doubt he would sue these musicians. seems like a step or two was missed or he hates the covers. not sure what he could do at this point. i'm still confused but i have definately learned a lot. They should definately have a course on this stuff.

Prince needs to change his first name to "Sue", since he seems to be threatening everybody with lawsuits these days. Then he would be like the person that Johnny Cash sings about in his song,"A Boy Named Sue". Just being silly, ya'll.

sue = use

sue covers = use fakes

not much point suing when ur using a fake in ur own backyard Prince.

psychodelicide said:

toots said:

psychodelicide said:

Thanks for the laugh I so needed that this morning.

"next thing you'll know they'll be wanting to use his motorcycle!"

rubberfish said:

Funny responce but it got me thinking a bit( o...o...scary thought...)

*slowly backs out of responding on that part*

In addition to what i've said before, i'd like to set a few things straight.

First, the common misconception of copyright law and trademark law being the same.They're not.In fact, they're totally different and to be looked at seperately.However as the circumstances have it, they often come into play at the same time which is exactly what seems to have happened here.

Let me elaborate a little:

1) Copyright laws

In the situation here, copyright law is concerned in terms of songwriter royalties and publishing rights.Say you are an artist releasing an album with mainly your own original songs but a few cover versions included.As far as these cover versions go, you'd have to make sure the songs are not altered (harmonies, melody, lyrics etc) and that the songwriters and publishers get their shares according to the laws that apply.Often this part is taken care of by national organisations which in Norway might indeed be TONO/NCB, in Germany it would be GEMA for instance.Generally speaking, and without looking at further details and legal aspects that indeed might apply additionally, these would be the key aspects to take care of in a scenario like that in terms of copyright law.

Now, would the case we're talking about be a situation like that, the information "you can't stop a cover as long as it's untouched" would - while still being generalizing - indeed be correct.Just that the actual situation might be and probably is different (remember we're still talking copyrights here) as it's a 80+ cover versions compilation all exclusively by the same songwriter.

This fact alone would deserve an extra close look at the legal circumstances in terms of copyright law.

However, here comes the more tricky part...

2) Trademark law

In essence, the main purpose of a trademark is to protect the trademark owner, especially and foremost protecting and securing the control of the use of their trademark.This is EXACTLY what applies in this case.Note that this specific purpose of a TM (control of its use) wasn't made especially for Prince, evil corporations or whoever - it's there to protect ALL trademark owners.

Now, why is TM law so important in this case ?

Because what has happened here is exactly what TM law was made for:

Someone is using the TM "Prince" in advertising, design and as part of a commercial product without the permission of or agreement with the TM owner.

Believe it or not, in cases like this TM owners are LEGALLY REQUIRED to take action against the TM violation because failure to do so could result in losing their TM rights - the TM could be taken away from the owner because of not taking action.

Furthermore, financial compensation is not automatically covered through copyright royalties.Because in terms of TM law it's not a question of songwriter royalties but the cost of TM licensing which is subject to free negotiation, including of course the TM owners right to not grant a license at all.Often these negotiations result in a license through which the TM holder is financially compensated by a portion of the profits per sold unit in addition to the copyright royalties but note that this is not the only possible way; another could be the TM owner is payed an advance flat fee for the license or a combination of both shares of actual profit and flat fee.

Again, this freely negotiable license doesn't take away anything from the copyright royalties - it's always IN ADDITION.

In very, very layman terms, what probably has happened here is this:

Someone created a "Prince" product because it says "Prince" on the cover.Yes, copyright payments may have been taken care of, but the TM license is totally missing.

That's why the Prince camp has no choice but taking action.Simple as that.They legally HAVE TO take action in order to not risk loss of their TM rights.

To show you the difference between copyright and TM law, here is another real world example:

As a graphic designer from Europe i do a lot of logo design work for international clients, including companies from the U.S.Now, where i live copyright cannot be sold or transferred (it always stays with you) but in the U.S. it's perfectly legal.So what i do is i grant my clients an unlimited license but don't sell the copyright itself.The funny thing is, although i created the logo and despite the fact that i'm still the copyright owner, at least as soon as my client has registered the logo as a TM i have to ask my client (now TM owner) for permission to use the logo on my portfolio website - and my client has every right to deny that permission.Most times i am granted with the permit, but in no way my client has an obligation to do so.Remember, this is while i'm still the copyright owner and sole creator of the logo.

So there you have it, kids: Don't mistake copyright law for TM law.

.
[Edited 7/3/08 7:40am]

toots said:

You're welcome. Glad I helped you to feel better.

beatz01 said:

There are no international copyright laws, but most countries have similar legislations. Copyright is protected through conventions that most Western countries have agreed to, like the Berne convention. By following Norwegian law, Christer should be safe when it comes to recording covers. I know a few Swedish artists, and they have never hired a lawyer to do that. They pay their dues and that is fine.

I have yet to see anyone sue Prince for the way he changes lyrics and arrangements when he records covers for his albums. People seem too flattered to take any sort of legal action.

beatz01 said:

Is Prince a trademark? I'm not doubting your knowhow, but is it really possible to trademark generic words? The word "Prince" is minimal on the cover and is a part of an elaborate sentence that clearly states what it is all about. Could someone sue all the unofficial Prince biographies in the bookstores as well because they use "Prince" in the title?

This is starting to sound an awful lot like when Prince sued Uptown magazine. When he changed his name to he distributed the official symbol as a special font for media to use, but when it turned out that Uptown was the only magazine doing so, he sued them for using a trademarked symbol... That case was settled outside of court.

With the Internet and today's media, it pains me to realize that practically all of my heroes are not-so-nice people. It was better to live in ignorance on that point and just listen to the music and for minute believe that the lyrics about tolerance and love were for real.

You bet.

Go to the uspto.gov website an make a search, i'm sure there will be quite a number of TM's for the term "Prince".And of course generic words can be trademarked, it all depends on the nature of goods and services; see "Apple" for instance; while it indeed might be difficult to get an "Apple" TM for fruit related goods it's no problem to get one for goods and services unrelated to the generic nature of the term like computers.For instance there is a TM for the "Prince" cigarette brand, no problem at all.But you bet that Prince has all TM's that are related to the music category and even more, he probably would not even have to register his TM for full protection as for brands that are famous and wildly known they are protected even without registration.

Now in this case it's crystal clear the product itself, the packaging design, as well as the advertisement is not about a cigarette or fruits, it's about the singer and it clearly states so on the box.Assumed there is no license agreement this is as obvious a TM violation as can be.

One more addition to my "analysis", it just occured to me what's pretty likely to have happened:

Chances are that the Prince camp was very well aware of the cd box but didn't take action because they saw it's just a fan project and to be expected sales would not have been worth the hassle so they kinda unofficially tolerated it..

..UNTIL they were sent the free box set because now they were OFFICIALLY informed and to not take action in this situation would have meant that

1) they OFFICIALLY would have agreed to the project and that
2) they would have risked losing their TM rights (see my previous post).

Which is the irony:

Would they not have been sent the free cd box, chances are they wouldn't have felt the need to take action since they always could have claimed no knowledge about the existence of this project (Norway and all), but now they had no choice but to officially react.

I'm pretty sure it went down along the lines of this scenario.
.
[Edited 7/3/08 9:45am]

GiGi319 said:

I don't know Prince the man personally. I have read in a interview that he doesn't care for other artists to cover him because he thinks that everyone should just create their own music. Which is a contradiction because he has covered some things himself. But it seems to me that threatening to sue these guys would only help them and promote the project, as most people would probably have never heard of the company or the artists if he hadn't. Could be his way of helping. Just a thought.

lastdecember said:

Yes, correct, you, I, or anyone else here can record cover songs and release them, so long as the relevant publishing fees are paid. It's pretty much the same rules all over the world. As stated before, so long as you aren't making significant changes to the melody or lyrics, then you don't need prior permission, so....GET TO WORK


BTW, Robert Plant covered his ass off!



_

PurpleJedi said:

Short answer: No, a band playing a cover in a restaurant/bar doesn't need permission.
Intro to the longer answer: The restaurant/bar has to pay publishing monies to song writer representation organisations. This system is very inaccurate though and unless youre a still relevant big star, you're probably not getting any benefit from bands covering your songs in a restaurant/bar.




_

Meloh9 said:

I think you're getting the 2 relevant (to music) ownerships mixed up.
There's 2 main things to consider here:

Ownership of the RECORDING.
Ownership of the MUSIC/LYRICS.

Warner, the recording label, gets no money from anyone covering Prince songs.
They would get money if someone wanted to use the original RECORDING, which Warner does own, but not the music/lyrics as in a cover version.

When dealing with cover versions of Prince's songs, Universal Publishing, which AFAIK (from reading here) owns much of Prince's MUSIC/LYRICS, could possibly be taking most/all of the publishing money from these cover versions, depending on the deal that Prince originally signed with them in the 1980's.



_

We all know that Prince hates bad/commercial covers songs.

Why do the origanal again if it is good. there is no point at this. only for the money perhaps.

Keep Going Prince.

Prince already as ideas of doing most of his songs again but then different.

So if people start to cover his songs and make it downloadable then there is no use for his creative ideas.

catwoman555 said:

wah?

christerfalck said:

TO Christer Falck,

and Hi,

I think U have done an amazing work here! I´just got my copy and I LOVE the many bands, that, in there own way plays his songs even if it´s punk, funk or bossa or something else. I like to reed why they become fans ect. And i thik the hole packet speaks of honestie and love to P and his music! And it must have been some work with all that many people invovled in the projekt.

RESPECT 2 U from ME And to all the musicians hwo played on the CD´s!

I am happy to have a copy!