Boogiebear said:

You realize that "earnie" isn't even a word, right?

ernestsewell said:

People always get things back when they 'shit' on people.
And you should know that. Prince is an ass hole thats not your concern.
Talking to bandmembers etc. I wouldn't let them used me like that. They should get on the site themselves .

Boogiebear said:

I have no idea what you're saying. Enough of you. Back to the topic.....

ernestsewell said:

Thats the topic. Right ernest!!

ernestsewell said:

how about Levi and Tony?

I think he does want his old recordings (or rather the rights) back.
Here's why: http://prince.org/msg/7/331993.
His current quality control is lacking.

lotusflw3r said:

No he can't.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

And to prove that he could have: Metallica and REM made deals with WEA-companies in the early/mid-1990s that involved ownership of masters. And Prince was advised AGAINST signing the contract by most people around him.

errant said:

Some may feel ripped off and some were, but that is not the same as Prince owing them money. They were paid for their time as more of a work for hire model.

But some of them do get paid their cuts, but that is not something Prince has any control over.

citrus said:

You are talking ethics here. Ethically, I agree that the business should and could be done otherwise. Economically too, because it is one of the worst business models a company can have. It relies completely on the hope that one of their artists will sell large numbers of records, to make up for all the losses on those who don't sell enough, to break even. Especially in this internet day and age, this business model is a sure fire way to tank.

However, while I agree that the music business should be done otherwise, I do remain of the opinion that as long as most artists sell their souls and rights in a heartbeat, for an empty prmise of money and fame, nothing will change. I believe that THEY are the first responsible to guard good ethics, because it is THEIR WORK after all. Why would a record company when it, like you said, is only seeking as many ways possible to earn its investment back and make a profit? Good or bad, can you really blame them for that? They are a business and most artists are more than willing to bend over. What would you do if you would own a record company?

That said, the 1978 US Copyright Act, adresses exactly your objections against the transfer of copyright ownership, that is your issue here. Under this act authors, who transferred their rights to another party, can get these back 35 years after that date of transfer. Note that in other countries this is not possible. Once you transferred your copyrights there, they are absolutely and completely sold. So it's actually not so bad at all in the US.

Whether Prince can get his copyrights to his WB recordings back after 35 years remains to be seen. There is a certain procedure necessary to get them back in which procedure WB can object and refuse, which they will likely do. Probably by referring to their contracts with Prince, that Prince's WB albums are considered works made for hire and that in those cases the 35 year rule does not apply.

Legally, however, it is very questionable that Prince's WB albums are works made for hire. I would consider them to be not, yet the mere possibility for WB to claim this, could lead to another long and bitter legal battle between Prince and WB.

theRight1 said:

I think you do not understand what I said. My point is that artists have a choice whether to transfer ownership of the copyrights to their work, or not. The real problem is that most artists sell their copyrights with no problem whatsoever. As long as that is the case, the music business won't change.

Genesia said:

No it's not dead on. It's actuallty just besides the point. The difference between a painter and a recording artist, a novelist or a film producer, is that the first usually depends completely on the sale of the original painting and not on the sale of copies of and/or the copyrights to that painting. Most painters usually don't selll their copyrights, only the original physical copy. Most recording artists do. Many a novelist as well.

BartVanHemelen said:

(Whether or not sound recordings actually qualify as "works made for hire" under the Copyright Act is a separate question best left to a future column).

I'll give an answer to that question here, because it is relevant to this discussion.

Many sound recordings do not fit the definition of works made for hire well. They usually cannot (fully) be considered works made for hire, as in made by an employee for its employer, and they are not on the list of standard works for hire either.

The answer to the question whether a recording artist can be considered an employee depends on several factors such as a contract saying that, but also on things like the pay of a salary, standard working hours and an employer having authority over the artist and how the artist creates the work, what the artist creates, how much, whether he creates using the property of the employer etc.

The relationship between many record companies and recording artists is not like that, or not completely like that. Therefore most sound recordings are hard to consider true works made for hire.

This is also the case with Prince. He may have had work made for hire clauses in his contracts, but he always worked very independently from WB and they did not have a decisive say on what he created or how, when, where etc. They could turn down what he offered them for release, but were also obligated to release at least one album a year. Plus his major advances and royalty payments cannot be considered salaries. Therefore their relationship was more like one between two companies than like one between an employer and its employee. This especially became the case once Prince got his own record label Paisley Park.

That said, Prince probably has, and has had, his own band members on a work for hire contract too. For some this may also legally be the case, but for others such as Wendy and Lisa for example, it could be harder to determine and perhabs also disputed whether they were true employees of Prince or whether they were more or less equal business partners in music. Prince of course was "the boss", but for the rest it didn't look much like a normal employer/employee relationship.

--
[Edited 3/10/10 14:39pm]

It's very important by the way whether Prince and his band members (always) worked for hire or not, for WB or for Prince. If and when they are able to dispute that, not only Prince, but also (some of) his band members could claim their part of the copyrights to (some of) the sound recordings they worked on with Prince back. That would create a very interesting situation.


--
[Edited 3/10/10 14:32pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am not trying to black ball Prince here but there are many stories on how didn't pay his band members and other artists he worked with, such as visual artists, what he owed them. So many, that it's hard to imagine nothing of it is true.

Also, Tony Mosley and Levi Seacer Jr. may have usually created works for hire, but they are also (co-)authors of some songs and raps.

citrus said:

One more thing: in Europe for example, the law grants (so-called neighbouring) rights to the recording artists AND the record company. This because lawmakers, (along the line of thought used to grant copyright to film producers) recognise the need of the record company to gain back the investments the company has to make to produce, distribute, sell and promote the recording, as well as the right of the recording artists to share in the profits of their work and prohibit unauthorised duplication and publication of their work. In practice however, you see that recording artists still chose to transfer their rights, their part of the pie, their say, to the record company.

--
[Edited 3/10/10 15:11pm]

Tremolina said:

Looking at it from their point of view and a lawyer's point of view, I do understand. You're right about artists selling their copyrights. Most of them are young, new artists happy to finally be signing a record deal. They don't fully understand copyrights, publishing, and the business side of things. A lot have managers and lawyers who only want to make money. The Music business is changing, and with the internet being what it is, Prince may have a plan set in motion that will make him think about those master recordings and laugh his ass off. Fools think Prince can't get paid in this day and age. He's Prince. He can make other babies, and I don't mean songs or impregnating me either. Although I wouldn't mind.

Tremolina said:

absolutely, because the only ethical right they have is to make their money back via sales, nothing else.

the money they sink in to videos, airplay, etc all falls under the promotion it takes to SELL RECORDS.

sales sales sales. it's all they are logically and ethically entitled to.

they are in the business to make money from music when it sells.

stupidly, they assumed somewhere along the line that they are also entitled to rip the asses out of artists copyright to help them make their money back.

whether an artist sees this coming or not, it doesnt change the unethical business practice of any and all recording companies who have done this to people

and when i say 'done this to people' as though the artist is a victim, i say it that way because a recording company lurches on to the scene like a savior, a big man god man from the sky with lots of money to spend on getting your music heard and sold

and artists perceive this 'savior' as the only route they can take (thankfully these days there are many other ways an artist can get their music heard and sold)

but back in the day, the deal was like this:

"you want your pretty little music to get heard and sold well honey we'll get it on the radio and put it in shops and before you know it you and i will be making lots of money isnt that fabulous HOWEVER (and here's where the EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL comes in) we'll only 'help' you if you agree to sign over your rights"

more often than not the artist bent over and signed away, what else were they going to do? argue for a better contract when they weren't in any position to do so?

like i say it's just as well there are many other ways for artists to get their music heard and sold these days, and isnt it 'ironic' that all these big recording giants are whining and complaining about internet music and oh so reluctant to do 'lease deals' with artists.

the old system clings to it's little bully world, entirely without ethics, based solely on greed, copyright goes to the highest bidder, and apparently everyone's happy? apparently not.

in my opinion, any UNETHICAL system fades into extinction eventually, and rightly so.

Tremolina said:

wipe-out every artist on the planet and recording companies have nothing

they make no money and music-law makers have nothing left to do with all their imagined authority

but take away every recording company, and artists still have their music, they can still play it, AND they can still make money from it

the position of TRUE POWER AND AUTHORITY lies with the ARTIST

not suits or whatever little unethical laws get magically made by WHO?

ernestsewell said:[quote]

theRight1 said:

ernestsewell said:

come on guys ... thts enough....let it rest..

citrus said:

You keep saying this as if this is true. IT ISN'T.

Oh, and PRINCE DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING to artists on "his" label(s). Go ask Margie Cox, who was stuck to a contract with Prince for YEARS and all that time couldn't release one note of music. That was back in the days when Princey was whining about WB being so evil.

citrus said:

Nonsense. Ridiculous tripe. Just like 99% of your post.

piccolo7 said:

It was 2 days ago piccolo. I think they've put it to rest. BTW, I put Ephesians 6:9 only for a reason.

citrus said:

Then tell them to use it.

Tremolina said:

so he can put them under his bike and roll over them?

Tremolina said:

a lot already have which is fantastic. the rest are still unfortunately caught in the old system of false values ie: the desire for fame and money being greater than their dedication to art.

we're pretty much on the same page and i've enjoyed our chat so thanks.

BartVanHemelen said:

the bullied often becomes the bully you know that

the OP's original question was "does Prince still want his masters?"

point is, they should have been his from the outset

citrus said:

sure. think Prince feels the same about the stuff he recorded with Margie? that it should belong to her...? has he handed it over? how about the leftovers from Corporate World? think Morris owns those or is ever likely to?

how about Tamar's album? think she own the masters to that? does Bria own her album?

errant said:

citrus said:

ah, you see... so it's not that cut and dried, is it? Tamar and Bria's name is on it. so it must be theirs. so it should belong to them, right? I mean if you're going to talk about the artists' rights....

how about Chaka and Larry's albums? who owns those, do you think?