New topic
PrintableTremolina said: langebleu said: Prince has even stated in public (I heard him say it at Paisley Park) that the rights to the masters begin to revert to him (in accordance with the 35 year rule).
He said that, but that doesn't mean that will automatically happen with all recordings. I am pretty sure WB intends to come out with all they got to prevent that. Work for hire being one of them, but not the only one. Don't forget, that even if Prince did not make works for hire for WB, his band members may not have done that either. If they also manage to retain their rights, they will jointly own the recordings they played on with Prince. Or, in the other case, that their contributions are works for hire, but Prince's are not, there will be the problem of Prince still not owning any and all rights of the recordings he collaborated on with others, but together with WB. Now Prince recorded, played and sang everything on For you and Prince himself so that should not be a problem. With later albums however there are bound to be issues. That is unless they can all agree with eachother and work something out that everybody, including the fans benefit from. -- [Edited 2/5/09 14:15pm] The master recordings have nothing to do with who plays or performs on a song/album. Those people are hired and paid ONE time. They don't collect royalties for album sales. Therefore, only the artist whose name is on the album is allowed to acquire the master recordings. Besides, Prince WILL regain control of his Warner catalog eventually. This includes material that was never issued. WB can renegotiate with Prince to keep redistributing the albums and catalog, but that may not happen. Most times, artists just go ahead and let the original record company maintain the masters if they don't want to deal with trying to distribute and market their product. Others, don't. The Sam Cooke catalog is a good example. When his estate gained control, they got their own distribution deal and marketed the product for themselves. **--••--**--••**--••--**--••**--••--**--••**--••-
U 'gon make me shake my doo loose! http://www.twitter.com/nivlekbrad | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
LondonStyle said: NEW YORK — Time Warner Inc. reported a fourth-quarter loss, hurt by a $24.2 billion writedown for its cable, publishing and AOL assets.
TIME warner by the way is much bigger than just warner brother records. It was Time warner that made a whopping loss, most of it because of its AOL cable division. Not that music sales are going swell or anything but the thread title is misleading that way. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
daPrettyman said: Tremolina said: He said that, but that doesn't mean that will automatically happen with all recordings. I am pretty sure WB intends to come out with all they got to prevent that. Work for hire being one of them, but not the only one. Don't forget, that even if Prince did not make works for hire for WB, his band members may not have done that either. If they also manage to retain their rights, they will jointly own the recordings they played on with Prince. Or, in the other case, that their contributions are works for hire, but Prince's are not, there will be the problem of Prince still not owning any and all rights of the recordings he collaborated on with others, but together with WB. Now Prince recorded, played and sang everything on For you and Prince himself so that should not be a problem. With later albums however there are bound to be issues. That is unless they can all agree with eachother and work something out that everybody, including the fans benefit from. -- [Edited 2/5/09 14:15pm] The master recordings have nothing to do with who plays or performs on a song/album. Those people are hired and paid ONE time. They don't collect royalties for album sales. Therefore, only the artist whose name is on the album is allowed to acquire the master recordings. Total nonsense. According to the law every PERFORMER initially has a copyright stake in a recording IF his contribution is not a work made for hire. In the case it is a work for hire usually the record company owns the rights. Now read my post again, calmly. IF it is considered that his band members made works for hire, then they did that for WARNER BROTHERS since they also were working under a WB contract. In that case WB still owns the rights to their contributions. In the case that they did NOT make works for hire, they will own the rights together with Prince, if they also retain them after 35 years. http://www.copyright.gov/...circ9.html http://www.copyright.gov/...circ09.pdf -- Besides, Prince WILL regain control of his Warner catalog eventually. This includes material that was never issued. WB can renegotiate with Prince to keep redistributing the albums and catalog, but that may not happen. Most times, artists just go ahead and let the original record company maintain the masters if they don't want to deal with trying to distribute and market their product. Others, don't.
The Sam Cooke catalog is a good example. When his estate gained control, they got their own distribution deal and marketed the product for themselves. The 35 year rule we are talking about was introduced with the 1976 US copyright act. Prince will be one of the first artists to invoke it. -- [Edited 2/5/09 15:20pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Tremolina said: I am pretty sure WB intends to come out with all they got to prevent that. Work for hire being one of them, but not the only one.
Don't forget, that even if Prince did not make works for hire for WB, his band members may not have done that either. If they also manage to retain their rights, they will jointly own the recordings they played on with Prince. Or, in the other case, that their contributions are works for hire, but Prince's are not, there will be the problem of Prince still not owning any and all rights of the recordings he collaborated on with others, but together with WB. I'm sure that WB, along with all other recording companies, will be considering a challenge on these fronts, and we will hear the first murmerings in two years or so, . ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator
daPrettyman said: squirrelgrease said: We could get remasters in Prince's lifetime - minus the 35 year rule, if he would somehow mend fences with Warner Bros.
SOTT remastered 
PR remastered
Parade remastered
Lovesexy remastered
1999 remastered
Dirty Mind remastered
Controversy remastered
Black Album remastered
ATWIAD remastered Do you actually think P would reissue remasters after he regains the rights to them? Not as long as he maintains his current ideological stance.  If prince.org were to be made idiot proof, someone would just invent a better idiot. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I am supportive of Prince getting his masters back. WB have done all they can with them IMHO, time to return the rights and step aside. 
By the way, I said the same thing a decade ago, and since then WB records have given us: -a rubbish compilation album assembled by someone with no imagination at all (the very best of Prince) -a better compilation made by a fan/collector which barely anybody bought [ultimate prince] -some really awful 12" reissues that were were of such bad quality many people assumed they were bootlegs. -an un-remastered reissue of Purple rain. Can anyone seriously suggest that Prince would do worse? [Edited 2/5/09 17:55pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
andrewm7 said: I am supportive of Prince getting his masters back. WB have done all they can with them IMHO, time to return the rights and step aside.
By the way, I said the same thing a decade ago, and since then WB records have given us: -a rubbish compilation album assembled by someone with no imagination at all (the very best of Prince) -a better compilation made by a fan/collector which barely anybody bought [ultimate prince] -some really awful 12" reissues that were were of such bad quality many people assumed they were bootlegs. -an un-remastered reissue of Purple rain. Can anyone seriously suggest that Prince would do worse? [Edited 2/5/09 17:55pm] Don't open up that can of worms LOL |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |