This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.
New topic 
Printable Sue his pants off Prince! | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are
protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations. At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys. 1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate. 2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used. 3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds. 4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity. 5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free. 6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits. 7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music. 8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of “performances,” including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more. 9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work. 10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that [Edited 8/14/08 18:17pm] nice post. Where is this published by the way? US document? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
prince is still  after all these years---------------------------------
 Funny and charming as usual | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
robinesque said: metallicjigolo said: Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are
protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations. At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys. 1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate. 2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used. 3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds. 4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity. 5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free. 6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits. 7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music. 8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of “performances,” including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more. 9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work. 10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that [Edited 8/14/08 18:17pm] nice post. Where is this published by the way? US document? you can find some interesting info on the music business on this site. for the composers bill of rights here. http://www.ascap.com/pres...ights.aspx ..is protected by the U.S. constitution, [Edited 8/14/08 22:48pm] Prince did an interview with a woman at Record World. They talked about whatever, then he asked her: "Does your pubic hair go up to your navel?" At that moment, we thought maybe we shouldn't encourage him to do interviews. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paisleypark4 said: Prince dont owe him shit.
Prince didnt ask that man to quit his job. Prince didnt say cover my song to help u get rich. Lasty though Prince is a human, and he can do whatever he wants with his creativity. and plus, prince don't wanna hear no jacked-up cover on his song. ...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paisleypark4 said: jonylawson said: yeah and while were at it-FUCK DENTISTRY "HOW MUCH FOR A FILLING?????" dude probably earns more than prince anyway just doing a root canal Hell they making BANK u got that right. If I had a choice between getting a good GOOD check every 2 weeks or strugging to be a singer..... Last time I checked, you have that choice. If you wish you made a different one... that's on you. "dude probably earns more... just doing a root canal"; My root canals are done with the same expertise as Prince's guitar playing and worth every penny, mofo. You have no idea the training, auxillary costs, and dedication it takes to provide exceptional care. We all get to choose our profession. Some have higher barriers (like 8 years of school), but all have pluses and minuses. It's what you put into your profession that counts. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Godzilla said: paisleypark4 said: Hell they making BANK u got that right. If I had a choice between getting a good GOOD check every 2 weeks or strugging to be a singer..... Last time I checked, you have that choice. If you wish you made a different one... that's on you. "dude probably earns more... just doing a root canal"; My root canals are done with the same expertise as Prince's guitar playing and worth every penny, mofo. You have no idea the training, auxillary costs, and dedication it takes to provide exceptional care. We all get to choose our profession. Some have higher barriers (like 8 years of school), but all have pluses and minuses. It's what you put into your profession that counts. And the promotion you get from your record company  . Without promotion u almost got nothin'.Straight Jacket Funk Affair
Album plays and love for vinyl records. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dseann said: kbarso said: I thought Warner Bros. own the right to this song. How can Prince have any say in the matter. Prince if you want to keep your current fan and gain more, cut us some slack. Your name is Prine but with this attitude you are not a Prince.
Prince owns the rights to the song and all songs from the album 'Purple Rain" as of 2004. Warner Bros. held exclusive rights to his material for 20 years after they were published. Blocking an "artist" from covering his songs is nothing new or surprising from Prince, Weird Al Yancovich or whoever it's spelled has been battling Prince to cover his songs with his random ridiculousness for years and keeps getting turned down(thankfully). Prince chooses who he wants to cover his songs, I find nothing wrong with that. Genuine completely ruined "When Doves Cry" and some bald-headed nut ruined "Adore" so I can see why he would be skeptical about letting some new comer cover one of his most popular tunes.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If you ever talk to him you should be considerate of his feelings about not letting other artists use his material. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
metallicjigolo said: Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are
protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations. At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys. 1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate. 2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used. 3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds. 4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity. 5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free. 6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits. 7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music. 8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of “performances,” including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more. 9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work. 10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that [Edited 8/14/08 18:17pm] The above highlighted parts are not about cover tunes. YOU DO NOT NEED AN ARTIST'S PERMISSION TO COVER THEIR MUSIC IF IT IS "CONSISTENT" WITH THE ORIGINAL RECORDING. Check this out. How Does a Compulsory Cover License Differ from a Traditional Music License? Unlike a traditional music copyright license, the terms for a compulsory cover license are established by the U.S. Copyright office rather than the artist or record label. This includes set royalty percentages and payment schedules. Also, a compulsory cover license does not require negotiations with the original musical composition copyright holder. In other words, you can obtain the right to sell a cover version of a song without ever having to gain the consent of the original artist. What is the Process for Establishing a Compulsory Cover License? Getting a compulsory cover license is four step process that includes the following: Identify the holder of the musical composition copyright of the song to be recorded: This can be done by personally searching the records of the U.S. Copyright Office. The Copyright Office can also conduct the search for a nominal fee. Send a “Notice of Intent to Obtain a Compulsory License” form to the copyright owner 30 days before sale of the cover song: This notice tells the copyright holder that you will be selling a cover version of their work, formally establishing a compulsory cover license. Note that a separate letter must be used for each song, even if it’s the same artist. Make royalty payments, with accompanying account statements, on or before the 20th of each month File an annual statement of total sales of the recording, certified by a public accountant It is important to emphasize that a compulsory cover license does not require any action on the part of the copyright owner. Once a person satisfies the four steps above, they are legally entitled to sell their cover version of the song. Does the Copyright Owner Have any Recourse Against a Compulsory Cover License? Yes, if the cover alters the original song in any significant way. The compulsory cover license only applies to covers that are consistent with the original rendition of the song. Therefore, remixed or off-the-wall covers of songs may not be applicable under a compulsory cover license. Prince could sue and try to use money to prohibit and hold-up someone from covering his works, but the person is within his legal rights to do the cover without Prince's permission, as long as he pays. _____ [Edited 8/15/08 10:35am] [Edited 8/15/08 10:35am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Time to start making parodies, y'all. See how he like that!
From publaw.com: It has been a long-standing practice to poke fun at our cultural icons, symbols, public figures and celebrities. A parody exists when one imitates a serious piece of work, such as literature, music or artwork, for a humorous or satirical effect. Parody, as a method of criticism, has been a very popular means for authors, entertainers and advertisers to communicate a particular message or point of view to the public. A parody, because it is a method of criticism, must inevitably make use of another creative work. This inherently creates a conflict between the creator of the work that is being parodied (as no one likes to be criticized, made fun of or ridiculed) and the creator of the parody. It is also highly unlikely that a copyright owner will grant permission or a license to a parodist to use their copyright protected work in creating a parody. Since copyright law prohibits the substantial use of a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner, and because such permission is highly unlikely when the use is to create a parody, it may be necessary for the parodist to rely on the fair-use defense to forestall any liability for copyright infringement. However, the fair-use defense if successful will only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be parody is a valid parody. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's all good and well that we have rights as artists, but let's talk about artists responsibilities:
Artists have the right to not take themselves so seriously that they forget how to take a compliment or have a sense of humor. Artists have the right to lighten up and not think that everyone is after a piece of the pie they themselves have created from other baker's inspirations. Artists have the right to be flattered when people seek to imitate them. Artists have the right to lower their guard and be secure that everything in life happens for their highest and best good. Shall I go on... metallicjigolo said: Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are
protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations. At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys. 1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate. 2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used. 3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds. 4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity. 5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free. 6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits. 7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music. 8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of “performances,” including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more. 9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work. 10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that [Edited 8/14/08 18:17pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dseann said: Prince owns the rights to the song and all songs from the album 'Purple Rain" as of 2004. Warner Bros. held exclusive rights to his material for 20 years after they were published.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ifsixwuz9 said: That may be true but he did those covers in a concert setting not slap them on an album full of covers not consistent with the genre the songs were originally created in.
Was Prince's cover of "Everyday Is A Winding Road"? How 'bout when Prince covers songs from a band and CHANGES THEIR LYRICS on a huge tv event -- and yet this is the same band that Prince refused permission to release a cover of his songs? © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: dseann said: Prince owns the rights to the song and all songs from the album 'Purple Rain" as of 2004. Warner Bros. held exclusive rights to his material for 20 years after they were published.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. I read in an interview with him that after 20 years he got the rights to his masters back from Warner Bros. Before 2004, he said for him to make all the money off Purple Rain he would have to re-enter the studio then re-record it. I just posting what came out of the horses mouth. If Prince was mistaken, then I stand corrected. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dseann said: BartVanHemelen said: If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. I read in an interview with him that after 20 years he got the rights to his masters back from Warner Bros. Before 2004, he said for him to make all the money off Purple Rain he would have to re-enter the studio then re-record it. I just posting what came out of the horses mouth. If Prince was mistaken, then I stand corrected. That's the way I understood it. He was trying to get his masters from Warners but he does own the publishing rights to his music. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
1p1p1i3 said: I say well done Prince, the last thing we need is more crap like this.
 
Now if Prince had only blocked Tom Jones version of Kiss..   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
steelyd said: dseann said: I read in an interview with him that after 20 years he got the rights to his masters back from Warner Bros. Before 2004, he said for him to make all the money off Purple Rain he would have to re-enter the studio then re-record it. I just posting what came out of the horses mouth. If Prince was mistaken, then I stand corrected. That's the way I understood it. He was trying to get his masters from Warners but he does own the publishing rights to his music. OK | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: Ifsixwuz9 said: That may be true but he did those covers in a concert setting not slap them on an album full of covers not consistent with the genre the songs were originally created in.
Was Prince's cover of "Everyday Is A Winding Road"? How 'bout when Prince covers songs from a band and CHANGES THEIR LYRICS on a huge tv event -- and yet this is the same band that Prince refused permission to release a cover of his songs? 1. While a crap assed cover, "Everyday is a Winding Road" did not veer so much in the opposite direction in musical genres as a pseudo operatic cover of "Purple Rain". Like I said, based on this dentist dudes cover of Aerosmith and David Bowie songs I don't blame Prince for blocking the cover. The dentists' choice of covers for the genre of music he's doing stink. 2. And Prince changing the words to covers is not what is being discussed here so why bring it up? Not to mention I have no idea what specificially you are talking about, care to elaborate on that? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Purple Rain sung by someone else ??? NO WAY! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
After reading the bit about him getting the publishing rights back after 2004, I'm having to reconsider my whole view of that time period. Yes, I will always appreciate the continuing of the perpetual mystique, and yes, I will always find many songs from this period great. However, if I'm being fair and looking at both sides, I think certain facts/bits of info on Prince's side were left out (conveniently), to garner more sympathy for his cause. Plus I have to say that this is just another example of a growing problem that I find with Prince - has he lost the ability to be a good sport altogether, or is he just overly sensitive? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just to clarify, Prince got his publishing rights back once his publishing contract with Warner-Chappell ran out. I believe that's when he started using the name Prince again. Let's not confuse this with his record contract with Warner Bros. Record Company.
. [Edited 8/16/08 14:16pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I wish cover versions never had existed. ieve Freedom and it should not be denied by Others. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dseann said: BartVanHemelen said: If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. I read in an interview with him that after 20 years he got the rights to his masters back from Warner Bros. Before 2004, he said for him to make all the money off Purple Rain he would have to re-enter the studio then re-record it. I just posting what came out of the horses mouth. If Prince was mistaken, then I stand corrected. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. And certainly don't believe anything Prince says on this subject. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ifsixwuz9 said: BartVanHemelen said: Was Prince's cover of "Everyday Is A Winding Road"? How 'bout when Prince covers songs from a band and CHANGES THEIR LYRICS on a huge tv event -- and yet this is the same band that Prince refused permission to release a cover of his songs? 1. While a crap assed cover, "Everyday is a Winding Road" did not veer so much in the opposite direction in musical genres as a pseudo operatic cover of "Purple Rain". Disco-funk is a lot different than country pop-rock. Ifsixwuz9 said: Like I said, based on this dentist dudes cover of Aerosmith and David Bowie songs I don't blame Prince for blocking the cover. The dentists' choice of covers for the genre of music he's doing stink.
That's a matter of taste. (And no, I don't like that pretend-operatic crap.) Ifsixwuz9 said: 2. And Prince changing the words to covers is not what is being discussed here so why bring it up? Not to mention I have no idea what specificially you are talking about, care to elaborate on that?
Prince refused the Foo Fighters to release a cover they mad eof one of his songs. Then he went on the Superbowl and played one of their songs, and changed the words. Methinks changing words is worse than changing the musical genre. And it's really hypocritical when it's a song from a band that Prince refused to allow to release a cover version. Prince has done a lot of covers, not just in concert but also on TV. If he's so against covers, then he shouldn't do them all the time. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
pro said: I wish cover versions never had existed.
You do know that Prince started out in a band that performed covers at weddings etc? © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Why do people always think prince is against covers when hes clearly NOT, if he was why would he let Chaka Khan release Sign of the times on her new album i think he only lets those he respects as artists do his songs for example those who do the songs justice.
on the subject of the dentist wanting to do Purple Rain Nooooo way, purple rain is his baby and people spouting this is about money think again cause if it was we would be hearing cover of his songs all the time. On a side note this control thing has stemmed from his time at warners and now he has control over his career he does not want to let that control go or else the whole slave thing would of been for nothing | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
personally, I think that Prince has the right, beyond the law, to have a large chunk of the decision with regards to who covers his music.
as a musician myself, i know that many up and coming artists consider using the lyrics/music of another musician to enter the "industry." not that there is anything wrong with this, but Prince chose not to let the dude do it. besides, in the future, many more people will ask him to cover Purple Rain, and chances are that many of them will get turned down, while a few might get accepted. Snare drum pound on the 2 & 4 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [Edited 8/18/08 8:28am] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
BartVanHemelen said: Disco-funk is a lot different than country pop-rock. That's a matter of taste. (And no, I don't like that pretend-operatic crap.) Prince refused the Foo Fighters to release a cover they mad eof one of his songs. Then he went on the Superbowl and played one of their songs, and changed the words. Methinks changing words is worse than changing the musical genre. And it's really hypocritical when it's a song from a band that Prince refused to allow to release a cover version. Prince has done a lot of covers, not just in concert but also on TV. If he's so against covers, then he shouldn't do them all the time. Prince's cover of "Everday is A Winding Road" was more funk/pop, which is at least in the same stratosphere as far as musical genres (the POP being the connector here) as the original version. But whatever. And you conceded my point that pseudo operatic covers of pop/rock songs are generally a disaster (i.e, Aerosmith and David Bowie covers on this dentist dudes album). Prince changing the words to covers is not relevant to this particular disussion. Therefore, in this instance, I don't care if Prince (or anyone else) changed words to cover songs because... to reiterate, it's not relevant to this discussion. As for the Foo Fighters, they did cover "Darling Nikki" and used it as a B-side to another song which was then released as a single. They originally wanted to release "Darling Nikki" as a single. Prince objected. As far as I know, Prince's cover of "The Best of You" wasn't ever intended to be released as a single or recorded for an album. It was just a cover he did live at the Superbowl. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
New topic Printable This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.