As long as there are no albums remastered in the current way of mastering for many popular artists. Keep it OUT OF THE RED!!! NO REDLINE!!! If the old cds aren't loud enough, turn up the stereo. Just please, do a good job. Red=Bad.

That always makes me wonder.....If he didn't like Ginuwine covering it, why did he let him? How does he stop some folks, but others get through?

squirrelgrease said:

This could also be the reason we haven't seen many earlier tracks released on a Crystal Ball-type collection. If WB paid for the studio time - which is all accounted for - then anything coming from that could also belong to them, depending on the agreement. I'm talking pre-Paisley Park here.

As Langebleu pointed out, Prince almost certainly has his master tapes in his "physical" possession but can't do anything with them yet. The same way I drive my car every day and live in my house, but the bank OWNS them.

Another example of publishing vs. master tapes: MJ approved the use of Beatles songs in a whole slew of commercials, most notably the use of "Revolution" in a Nike ad. Paul McCartney was interviewed at having been livid about this, saying that the song was too important to be used to sell shoes. I don't know that whole agreement, but it sounded like he had no choice in the matter.

Se7en said:

From what I've read here in the past - true or not - It sounds like WB only has rights to albums/songs compiled and offered to them for public release. Even then, it's the original stereo mixes that are already in our hands. So Prince can of course, remix and re-use parts of the multi-tracks at his whim.

Does he own his unreleased back-catalog recorded while WB paid for studio time? I think he does, since WB received no product to distribute from these "orphan" projects.

I remember that Chaos And Disorder's liner notes said something to the effect that those songs were intended for "private use". This tells me that there are Prince's songs, and there are WBs songs.

I know that even the 1994 release of The Black Album was released under Prince's protest, but WB had some leverage due to it being originally intended for release in 1987. My guess is that it was a case of WB having rights to the Masters. I understand that The Black Album was part of Prince's efforts to get out his contract, even though it didn't count toward fulfillment of his album obligations.

squirrelgrease said:

I agree that there are Prince songs and WB songs, especially since post-Paisley Park allowed him to record whenever he wanted on his own dime. My point was that pre-Paisley Park, I'm pretty sure it was all initially on WBs blank check.

It would make sense that they either had the right of first refusal, or at the very least their recording studio costs were fully recouped from the album sales (i.e. the blanket "Purple Rain" sessions) before Prince was paid and then he keeps whatever isn't on the album. I highly doubt they'd foot the bill and hypothetically funded - for free - dozens of songs that he could still release and profit from some day.

WB either owns them now, or got reimbursed then.

Prince does own the rights 2 his unreleased recording, from the time he was signed with Warner Bros. to present. He wouldn't have been able 2 release the Crystal Ball album or released unreleased recordings online. Part of his issue has been if he released unreleased recordings that included someone like (like Miles Davis 4 example), who would profit from it. He risk issues with estates and things like that. People wanting 2 claim their piece. They wasn't in the studio but, they want some part of the profits. He mentioned this back in 1999 with his interview with Kurt Loder on MTV. He has physical possession and rights 2 his mastertapes of his unreleased recordings.

prime said:

Cover songs are different from samples when it comes to permission.

I don't think the Bow Wow track is offically released and plus he sampled the Tevin Campbell version, not Prince's version. So he may not need his permission, we'll have 2 wait and c.

ElCapitan said:

Then why did he block the one group (foo fighters I think) from doing Darling Nikki?

prime said:

The Foo Fighters story is weird because, as I've heard it, they didn't originally intend to release it as a single when the recorded it.

"Dave loved 'Darling Nikki' because it was really funky. And so we just recorded our version in my garage, and somehow it ended up getting played on radio — which was weird, because we just did it as a sort of joke."

Things can get sticky if you don't take care of licensing issues up front. Basically if you arrange to pay rights holder first, then permission's not much of an issue (assuming the melody/lyrics haven't been changed much). If you release first and then try to arrange to pay the rights holder, call your lawyer.

So without knowing the full story it's hard to say if this was a case where they didn't take care of the licensing first or if they just asked permission out of professional courtesy (like Weird Al does for his parody songs). Darling Nikki has been covered at least 7 or 8 times without artists getting sued, so it can be done.

this is a very interesting thread-nice question.

In the music industry, "publishing" is used as a catch-all shorthand for the administration of matters relating to the songwriter's and composer's share of income from a musical composition or recorded work.
(Wikipedia)

Because Prince owns the copyright to every song he's ever written, he has always held the publishing rights to those works too...

Only in the past these rights were administered by small companies under the wings of WB, such as Controversy Music was.

When Prince left Warner,these companies were liquidated and Prince transferred the rights to Universal who are now handling it temporarily for him.

This is an interesting thread, business wise...

I have to ask..does anyone have a link or info to the SOURCE of the deal in which Prince's album masters reverts back to him within the 35 years of its release?...


Thanks....
[Edited 8/6/09 13:11pm]

ElCapitan said:

That doesn't make sense..... So anyone can "cover" Purple Rain and he can't do anything about it? But if someone wants to sample it or use jsut a peice of it in the back ground of a song he stop that?

prime said:

I think he can stop someone from releasing a cover of his songs bcuz he owns the publishing 2 them and he was the original performer/artist that did whatever the song is.

You know what. I'm not crazy about this thread topic. But it's the only one on this page that wasn't started by TheKing662 so I'm going to support it. Not cause I dislike the guy mind you (I don't), but because this forum needs some variety.

funkyhead said:

We all have different opinions. I personally think its quite patronising of you to call someone's question daft.

Thank god he never bought the Beatles catalog, bless Michael(I'm a fan of both) This is an interesting discussion this thread.

prime said:

because it was too good? lol - no sorry just joking