rialb said:

databank said:

Strangely, it seems no one ever used that law to his/her benefit, unless i missed something? Has any artist ever used their right to get their masters from a major in order to rerelease them on another label after 35 years?

I would be very interested to know this also. It seems a lot of people are assuming that in 2013 Prince will start getting the rights to his albums but are there any examples of other artists using the same law to do so?

No....because its not 2013 yet! The law came in to effect in 1978 - it can't be tested until 2013.

rastoma said:

StonedImmaculate said:

Once ownership starts reverting back, regardless if its Prince, The Time, The Family, Sheila E....wouldnt ownership revert to whoever is listed as the WRITER of the song? Whoever's publishing company...Girlsongs, Controversy Music, whatever?

I cant believe there's even a question there.

Ownership will revert back to the individual songs. The copyrights don't apply to albums but to individual songs.

Then separate contracts will have to exist with each person who co-wrote or played music on the song. The contract will either show co-ownership or giving up ownership.

I doubt very seriously that any people who played instruments for Prince will have any ownership at all. Surely they all signed on as 'hired workers', which means they got paychecks while employed but won't get royalties later.

Evidence I've seen suggests (particularly with the Revolution members) that performers on the track were given a fair share of royalties, which will continue to this day. "Work for hire"s do not normally get royalty rights on the works they perform on.

Its also the performing rights and "mechanical" rights splits that were agreed when the recording was made that will be most important in determining who owns what.

Mindflux said:

rialb said:

I would be very interested to know this also. It seems a lot of people are assuming that in 2013 Prince will start getting the rights to his albums but are there any examples of other artists using the same law to do so?

No....because its not 2013 yet! The law came in to effect in 1978 - it can't be tested until 2013.

Um...yeah...I guess you raise a very valid point and...I think I better go lie down and...stuff.

rialb said:

Mindflux said:

No....because its not 2013 yet! The law came in to effect in 1978 - it can't be tested until 2013.

Um...yeah...I guess you raise a very valid point and...I think I better go lie down and...stuff.

No worries.

May I add, and in particular for Databank, that it is not unheard of (despite being rare) for an artist to get his masters back. Frank Zappa managed to regain all of his masters back in the 80s after a dispute with.....guess who........Warner Bros!! Of course, he didn't use the law we are talking about here, but he still managed to get them back without it.

rastoma said:

StonedImmaculate said:

Once ownership starts reverting back, regardless if its Prince, The Time, The Family, Sheila E....wouldnt ownership revert to whoever is listed as the WRITER of the song? Whoever's publishing company...Girlsongs, Controversy Music, whatever?

I cant believe there's even a question there.

Ownership will revert back to the individual songs. The copyrights don't apply to albums but to individual songs.

Then separate contracts will have to exist with each person who co-wrote or played music on the song. The contract will either show co-ownership or giving up ownership.

I doubt very seriously that any people who played instruments for Prince will have any ownership at all. Surely they all signed on as 'hired workers', which means they got paychecks while employed but won't get royalties later.

Of course! I shoulda figured this out by myself

Thanks for clearing my mind. That solves most of the question i guess.

Mindflux said:

rialb said:

Um...yeah...I guess you raise a very valid point and...I think I better go lie down and...stuff.

No worries.

May I add, and in particular for Databank, that it is not unheard of (despite being rare) for an artist to get his masters back. Frank Zappa managed to regain all of his masters back in the 80s after a dispute with.....guess who........Warner Bros!! Of course, he didn't use the law we are talking about here, but he still managed to get them back without it.

I wonder what Zappa did to get 'em back that Prince cannot do

databank said:

Mindflux said:

No worries.

May I add, and in particular for Databank, that it is not unheard of (despite being rare) for an artist to get his masters back. Frank Zappa managed to regain all of his masters back in the 80s after a dispute with.....guess who........Warner Bros!! Of course, he didn't use the law we are talking about here, but he still managed to get them back without it.

I wonder what Zappa did to get 'em back that Prince cannot do

Well, I don't know the actual answer to that question. However, one might speculate that Prince was way more commercially successful than Frank Zappa and, therefore, would be more of a prize asset for Warners - they'd earn substantial money keeping his masters for as long as possible. Zappa was one of those who were never really appreciated in their time and he actually sold better after he died. Certainly when he had his spat with Warners in the early 80s, they probably figured it would be easier to acquiesce to his demands and let him go, as he was never a chart smash. I might have a dig about and find out the details though.

Mindflux said:

databank said:

I wonder what Zappa did to get 'em back that Prince cannot do

Well, I don't know the actual answer to that question. However, one might speculate that Prince was way more commercially successful than Frank Zappa and, therefore, would be more of a prize asset for Warners - they'd earn substantial money keeping his masters for as long as possible. Zappa was one of those who were never really appreciated in their time and he actually sold better after he died. Certainly when he had his spat with Warners in the early 80s, they probably figured it would be easier to acquiesce to his demands and let him go, as he was never a chart smash. I might have a dig about and find out the details though.

Yup, I think you pretty much nailed the difference. I do think that it is funny that Motley Crue (not necessarily a bunch of lads you associate with keen business acumen) were able to get their masters back. While they were not as commercially successful as Prince I have to assume that their catalog, particularly circa 1981-1989, is worth a fair bit. I'm not 100% certain but I think they may have signed a lucrative deal with Elektra in the early '90s (just as they were in decline) and perhaps as a way to get out of the contract the label gave up the masters in return for getting the band off the label. It may well have been cheaper than shelling out millions of dollars to the band in return for new albums that were not likely to sell very well.

databank said:

A question i've always been wondered about, and with Prince renewing copyrights for the names "Mazarati" and "Good Question" recently, i was wondering... US law says an artist can get his music's right after 35 years, but who is that "artist" exactly: the singer, the composer, the producer? Who will get the rights to the masters for The Time, Vanity 6, The Family, Jill Jones, Mavis Staples, etc.? It's a complex issue: 4 exemple, "Pandemonium" was half a Prince record, half a genuine Time album: even if Prince owns the name of the band, can he get the masters for the Day/Jonhson/Jam/Lewis songs? Same question with the songs he wasn't involved with on Mavis Staples' albums... Madhouse never really was a band, but The Time or The Family or Vanity 6 & Apollonia 6 were officially some real people even though they hardly played on their own records... & what about Jill Jones for exemple: he couldn't copyright the name "Jill Jones" because Jill Jones is a person. Now "Jill Jones" is more a Prince album than anything else, but does he or does she claim the rights to this record after 35 years? & what about Eric Leeds' "Times Squared": Leeds reworked Prince material but the 1st song is 100% his, and he co-wrote most of the material, let alone rearranging & officially producing it. & what about "Carmen Electra", even though she obviously didn't write a word, she got royalties for writing credits and she's a real person, not a fictious band. Same with Sheila E., who officially is behing all of "Romance 1600" even though it was a Prince record as well, except for "Merci Fot The Speed Of A Mad Clown In Summer" which was 100% Sheila. The matter is even more complex with her third album: 50% Prince/50% Sheila... If you go farther, what about songs he recorded and wrote and gave to others: who gets the rights to (for exemple) "Sticky Wicked" or "The Sex Of It": Prince or Chaka and August Darnell? Who gets Mazarati : Prince officially was responsible for one song only (though he ghostwrote the lyrics for 2 others), so Brownmark should be able to claim this record, not Prince, or of course the bandmembers could as well claim the rights since it was their album after all even though it was Mark's pet project. Anyone who knows about the exact meaning of this law, please explain? It would be interesting if we knew who owns the masters for post-WB "Come 2 My House" & "GCS2000": the booklets say "NPG Records" (therefore Prince) owns these, not Chaka nor Larry, even though Prince was only arranging, playing and producing "GCS2000". I can hardly imagine Bria owning the masters to "Elixer" as well... This is about Prince's legacy, so this is quite important. Thanks. Thanks. [Edited 5/30/10 3:40am]

I din't knew all of this, thank you for the info.