there's an interesting one here http://www.faqs.org/copyr.../#id124251


if you go down to "Love Symbol, no. 2" there's a transfer of copyright from (?) one Elisabeth Schoening in 1991, with a "date of recordation" of 1997.



did he buy the symbol? around the time he started suing people for using it?




speculation with half-assed information is fun, right?

there's an interesting one here http://www.faqs.org/copyr.../#id124251

if you go down to "Love Symbol, no. 2" there's a transfer of copyright from (?) one Elisabeth Schoening in 1991, with a "date of recordation" of 1997.



did he buy the symbol? around the time he started suing people for using it?



speculation with half-assed information is fun, right?

Paragraph 13 reads, in part, "The Artist is a world-renowned musical performer and songwriter, formerly known as Prince, but whose business persona is now associated with the copyrighted symbol." The paragraph goes on to say that Prince owns all the rights to the unpronounceable symbol which he uses as his name, and has filed copyright and trademark registrations for that symbol. According to the copyright registration form included as an exhibit to the lawsuit, the symbol is entitled "Love Symbol #2," the author of the symbol is Elizabeth Schoening, her contribution to the work was not as a "work made for hire," it was anonymous, and the copyright claimant, Prince, obtained ownership of the copyright "by written assignment." The lawsuit also states that "The Artist has used the Symbol as his name continuously for about the past five years."

Interesting: This is from the statement of facts in Pickett v. Prince, 52 F.Supp.2d 893 -- check out fn 4!!! -- then for a laugh, check out FN 5 where the court makes fun of prince's duality

The facts relevant to this motion are largely undisputed. Defendant is a well-known recording artist, performer, and songwriter of popular music.Around 1990, Defendant created and began using a symbol (the "First Symbol") based solely on the male and female signs. [FN5] The First Symbol appeared on the cover of the "Graffiti Bridge" album, which was released on August 21, 1990. (Def.Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. A to Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment Submitted Pursuant to the Court's March 15, 1999 Request (hereinafter "Def. Motion").) Shortly thereafter, Defendant hired Elisabeth Schoening, a freelance artist, to embellish the symbol (the "Embellished Symbol" or "Symbol") for the release of a single entitled "7" by combining the First Symbol with a drawing of the number "7" (reproduced at the end of this opinion as Figure 1). (Id. ¶ 4; Schoening Aff. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. C to Def. Motion.) The Symbol was included on Defendant's "Androgynous" album, which was released on October 13, 1992. (Def.Aff.¶ 5.) In December 1992, Defendant adopted the Symbol as his name.

Didn't anyone pay attention during the Uptown lawsuit? This is all old information.

Quit posting just to bump your thread

and apparently he mortgaged "Adore & 511 other titles; musical compositions." at some point in 1995....


isn't that when that article popped up about him not paying his bills?

errant said:

I am not sure that's the exact year he did that, but he did sort of mortgage his publishing rights.

and here's a list from ASCAP. has a few on it that I don't recognize.

http://www.ascap.com/ace/...20&start=1

errant said:

Didn't anyone pay attention during the Uptown lawsuit? This is all old information.

http://web.archive.org/we...elaw.shtml



Also: http://prince.org/msg/7/153489

errant said:

Some of those titles are other artist's songs that only use Prince samples.

squirrelgrease said:

some of them aren't though and only list Prince and no performer, since they are not released. there are only a few of them. since there's no year on them, it's hard to tell, but i wonder if they're new? or some kind of incidental music used in films or tv performances or vhs/dvd releases.

errant said:

I saw that too. If you'll notice Welcome 2 The Rat Race is on there. It was covered by a band who obviously used the incorrect bootlegers title for In A Large Room With No Light.

squirrelgrease said:

I've heard about this cover. Prince probably never knew about this or he'd have sued their ass for that: i know anyone has the right to cover a song but i guess it's totally illegal to cover an unreleased song (or is it?)

databank said:

I somehow doubt that it's illegal to cover an unreleased song as long as the proper royalties are paid. The Black Album was covered in it's entirety and that had no official release at the time. Prince's publishing administrators probably have to hunt these bands down to shake the money out of their pockets, but I'm going to assume these songs are fair game.

Maybe Tremolina could shed some light on the topic.

(1) When phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work have been distributed to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner, any other person, including those who make phonorecords or digital phonorecord deliveries, may, by complying with the provisions of this section, obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of the work.

...

(2) A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#115

databank said:

I somehow doubt that it's illegal to cover an unreleased song as long as the proper royalties are paid. The Black Album was covered in it's entirety and that had no official release at the time. Prince's publishing administrators probably have to hunt these bands down to shake the money out of their pockets, but I'm going to assume these songs are fair game.

Maybe Tremolina could shed some light on the topic.

The Black Album was covered in it's entirety and that had no official release at the time.

squirrelgrease said:

I think there is no proper law but a judge might force the covering band to cancel the relaese and get back every copy: think about it: what would happen if, say, Justin Timberlake released "Your Love Is So Hard" without Prince's consent: there's no way Prince wouldn't sue him for unauthorized use of a "private" composition, would there?

Actually, yes I can.

The short answer is, no it is not lawful to cover an unreleased song, just as long as the proper royalties are paid.

When we are talking about the US, we are dealing with section 115 of the US Copyright Act here.

This section states:




In other words, you cannot obtain a compulsory, a.k.a. "mechanical license" to make and distribute a cover of a song that has never been authorised for release by the owner of copyright. This means that when you ask the Harry Fox agency, that issues most mechanical licenses in the US, for example for a license to cover ´Wonderful Ass´, they will tell you that you need explicit permission from the songwriter(s) or their publishers and that only paying a mechanical license fee will not be enough.

Note also, that by the letter of the law, you already need a mechanical license when you are merely recording covers in your home studio and not distributing them in anyway. And when you do obtain a mechanical license, this license does not clear permission for sheet music or reprinting the lyrics. You are only allowed to make and distribute copies of your cover against payment of royalties.

Note further (2), that you may not (substantially) alter the song´s composition and lyrics. Rearranging is allowed, but your arrangement may not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work and your arrangement will not be subject to protection as a derivative work under the Copyright Act, except with the express consent of the copyright owner. These latter conditions still offer the songwriter or owner of copyright some bargaining position when you want to profit from your arrangement and some protection against unvoluntary compulsory licenses, mutilations or distortions of their work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.

-
[Edited 4/17/10 4:07am]

squirrelgrease said:

Well actually it WAS ´officially´ released for a few hours or days wasn´t it, untill Prince pulled it back? Some copies were officially sold in stores, so that appears to be a gray issue. It WAS officially released but then it wasn´t. Tricky.

However, since that band could have never gotten clearance through Harry Fox, because they didn´t have the Black album in their catalogue for mechanical licenses, they would have had to go through Prince. And I don´t think he would have approved, do you?

...
[Edited 4/17/10 4:06am]

Tremolina said:

The Black Albums were destroyed BEFORE they hit record stores. If they had, there'd be MANY more 1987 copies circulating

Tremolina said:

Thanks for clearing this

It's funny because i wonder how this applies to sampling: though this probably fall under a different law (i.e. using parts of a recording and not using a composition), the original songs are definitely mutilated and, when it comes to some sexist/violent gangsta rap, prejudicial to the honor and reputation of the sampled song's songwriters.

Does this also mean that Radiohead might have sued Prince for altering "Creep"'s lyrics (since it's been told that he has, i haven't checked), or the Commodores for transforming "Myghty mighty" into "Mighty Mayte"?
[Edited 4/17/10 5:15am]