Just been chatting to a friend trying to work out the whole masters issue with Prince.

I was under the impression that they reverted back to Prince 25 years from their release date, in which case he got back Parade this year. Is that right?

We were trying to work out why he wouldn't just remaster and re-release it as soon as he got them (ignoring potential issues about adult content of various songs) and wondered if he may worry about Warners undercutting him by dropping the price of the albums they still owe, or if he's waiting for Purple Rain to get the 'big bang' (which conflicts if he has Parade back already).

Anyway, I figured some folks on here would be clued up enough to know what was going on.

My understanding is that he's just sitting on them at the moment and given the way he's reworked A Large Room With No Light and Extraloveable (admittedly two unreleased songs) I'm wondering whether he'll be able to stop himself changing them for any remastered versions.

It would be odd to think of Prince releasing a remastered version of Dirty Mind for instance...

Any ideas?

We were also wondering how albums being reissued works if Prince owns the masters, e.g. how are his albums available in the shops - is it old stock he can't recall? Does he give the say so for more reissues etc?

The general consensus (and indeed normal practice) was that ownership of master recordings returned to Prince after 35 years.

Prince however has confirmed/hinted in an interview last year(?) that his actually reverted to him 30 years later. So he already has ownership of For You, Prince, Dirty Mind, and Controversy so far.

None of this has any baring on whether or not he and/or Warner Bros will ever release remastered versions of his "classic" albums.

I think that's right (others will confirm I am sure). Hope that helps.

I just re-read Boris comments on a thread from 2005

I still find it fascinating that Prince actually finished the complete re-recording of his back catalogue in the late 1990s. I would love to hear those versions but as Boris mentioned the moment has passed...

[Edited 11/24/11 8:52am]

They may not. the law that has the 35 year statement has never been tested. It went into effect jan 1 1978, so it could not happen until Jan 1 2013. Some have said that the law is not going to give many people their masrers back. But that is something for the courts to decide.

Yes according to the peach and black guys (i think) prince said he had gotten back the first few albums. But that is not what the law says... but who knows.

I know that if they are remastered I do not want prince to do it...he said he used a computer!

KeithyT said:

I just re-read Boris comments on a thread from 2005

I still find it fascinating that Prince actually finished the complete re-recording of his back catalogue in the late 1990s. I would love to hear those versions but as Boris mentioned the moment has passed...

[Edited 11/24/11 8:52am]

Could you link to the thread please?

I'm pretty sure he didn't re-record much at all. He said himself 'all you have to do is add or change a few things' in other words if he just made them all different enough that by law he could re-release the masters as new masters. Hence 1999: The New Master. I think that idea failed critically and commercially. And I doubt the law was on his side, hence he hasn't re-released any of the 're-recordnings'.

I was in HMV the other day and all they have is Purple Rain, The Very Best and Sign (at £25!!). Assuming that in London they probably have all of them as they did a few years ago, why have they still got the first four albums if they've reverted to Prince? Why the discrepancy between 30 and 35 year rules?

Thread # 34789 (hint: google the org on this subject to read up on it)

The term for a termination of copyright transfer is 35 years under US copyright law.

This term was also confirmed by Prince in an NPGonline interview early 2000's.

The 30 years that was reported by peach&blackpodcast could point to an agreement with WB, but has not been confirmed by Prince himself, so far not at least.

Prince can get (his share of) the copyrights back to the recordings he (co-) produced and performed on 35 years after. That is if his work is not considered to be "for hire" (probably not)

This means that if Prince uses his termination rights, starting in 2013 and then ongoing, he will be entitled to 100% control of the recordings only he was responsible for creating, but not necessarily 100% for those he co-produced and/or co-performed on with others.

Read this

http://www.nytimes.com/20...wanted=all

[Edited 11/24/11 18:15pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Yes according to the peach and black guys (i think) prince said he had gotten back the first few albums. But that is not what the law says... but who knows.

think of the law as the minuim requirement. it doesnt mean prince and the company couldnt have come to some agreement as to him being able to own them before that point.

Thanks for the replies.

So best case scenario could be 30 years if he and WB had an agreement, otherwise it's probably 35 years and even then the law hasn't been tested in court yet?

I wonder - would WB prefer to cut their losses when going to court would cost them money and the best case scenario would be the status quo, which isn't making them much money.

So if/when the masters revert back to Prince, how does that work with regards reissues and so on? Or do you think there is an existing agreement between Prince and WB to reissue old albums as and when needed...?

softandwet said:

Thanks for the replies.

So best case scenario could be 30 years if he and WB had an agreement, otherwise it's probably 35 years and even then the law hasn't been tested in court yet?

Correct. Plus there is the issue of the work of associated artists. And you're welcome.

I wonder - would WB prefer to cut their losses when going to court would cost them money and the best case scenario would be the status quo, which isn't making them much money.

In any scenario they lose, so they should go for the most favorable one possible. But this isn't just about Prince. In the grand scheme of things this is about all their songwriters and recording artists. And while P may be important to them, he is really not THAT important. Moreover, if I were them, I wouldn't mess with his case in court.

So if/when the masters revert back to Prince, how does that work with regards reissues and so on? Or do you think there is an existing agreement between Prince and WB to reissue old albums as and when needed...?

All of us are pretty much in the dark on the exact legal position of Prince and WB. We can only make (un)educated guesses about it, as long as neither one of them really opens up.

[Edited 11/24/11 14:34pm]

KeithyT said:

I just re-read Boris comments on a thread from 2005

I still find it fascinating that Prince actually finished the complete re-recording of his back catalogue in the late 1990s. I would love to hear those versions but as Boris mentioned the moment has passed...

[Edited 11/24/11 8:52am]

Are you sure about that? I knew he was planning on it.

Well Borisfishpaw posted the original info, this is the thread properties when you right click (but I tried this yesterday and it linked to some random thread)

http://prince.org/msg/7/155730

If you org google search for "remastered borisfishpaw" top right it's about the third or fourth thread in the results.

The only album Prince might have problems getting ownership of is "Batman".

I also think a lot of artists are going to negotiate with record labels on this. They would make more money selling the master tapes than they would licensing anything from his back catalog. If Warners told Prince "20 million and they're yours", you can bet he would book a years' worth of shows and mortgage his house to come up with the money, on top of what he has on hand. To me, they've milked that cash cow dry, put out all the greatest hits they possibly could, and might make a half mil a year in licensing, radio play, etc.

Let them keep "Very Best Of".

Master tapes are only worth money in licensing to movies anyway. Reissue projects don't sell all that much.

Warners is run by different people now, and trying to bring it back to how Mo and Lenny ran it. The company cared more about the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises. And that's why he'll prob. work with them, even releasing his post Warners stuff on the label (or through Rhino).

The problem is that while the (untested) law says that ownership reverts back to their creator after 35 years, we have aboslutely no idea what he negotiated for or negotiated away in later contracts with Warner Bros. It's quite possible that once that law went into effect, and he then proceded to become a superstar on their dime with a very lucrative back catalog, they may very well have included clauses in later contracts that extend the ownership of those albums on the first contract (or subsequent ones) for a higher advance or royalty rate up front on his current output at that time.

Especially that ridiculously big contract in 1992. Or the one in 1996 that got him away from the label.

Pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

errant said:

The problem is that while the (untested) law says that ownership reverts back to their creator after 35 years, we have aboslutely no idea what he negotiated for or negotiated away in later contracts with Warner Bros. It's quite possible that once that law went into effect, and he then proceded to become a superstar on their dime with a very lucrative back catalog, they may very well have included clauses in later contracts that extend the ownership of those albums on the first contract (or subsequent ones) for a higher advance or royalty rate up front on his current output at that time.

Especially that ridiculously big contract in 1992. Or the one in 1996 that got him away from the label.

Pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Maybe, but those clauses wouldn't be valid. The law says the right of the author to terminate a transfer of copyright is "inalienable".

dalsh327 said:

The only album Prince might have problems getting ownership of is "Batman".

How so?

I also think a lot of artists are going to negotiate with record labels on this. They would make more money selling the master tapes than they would licensing anything from his back catalog. If Warners told Prince "20 million and they're yours", you can bet he would book a years' worth of shows and mortgage his house to come up with the money, on top of what he has on hand.

Why would he pay them a dime? It's just a couple of more years and het gets them for nothing. They are the ones who should be offering him pay to retain the rights.

But even if they do/did I don't think Prince wants that. He wants it all back.

To me, they've milked that cash cow dry, put out all the greatest hits they possibly could, and might make a half mil a year in licensing, radio play, etc.

Let them keep "Very Best Of".

Master tapes are only worth money in licensing to movies anyway. Reissue projects don't sell all that much.

Not anymore but it's always better to own the masters than not.

Warners is run by different people now, and trying to bring it back to how Mo and Lenny ran it. The company cared more about the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises. And that's why he'll prob. work with them, even releasing his post Warners stuff on the label (or through Rhino).

I wouldn't if I were him.

Tremolina said:

errant said:

The problem is that while the (untested) law says that ownership reverts back to their creator after 35 years, we have aboslutely no idea what he negotiated for or negotiated away in later contracts with Warner Bros. It's quite possible that once that law went into effect, and he then proceded to become a superstar on their dime with a very lucrative back catalog, they may very well have included clauses in later contracts that extend the ownership of those albums on the first contract (or subsequent ones) for a higher advance or royalty rate up front on his current output at that time.

Especially that ridiculously big contract in 1992. Or the one in 1996 that got him away from the label.

Pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Maybe, but those clauses wouldn't be valid. The law says the right of the author to terminate a transfer of copyright is "inalienable".

How can that be true? The artist can license and sell them to whoever they want whenever they want. Otherwise they have no value at all.

errant said:

Tremolina said:

Maybe, but those clauses wouldn't be valid. The law says the right of the author to terminate a transfer of copyright is "inalienable".

How can that be true? The artist can license and sell them to whoever they want whenever they want. Otherwise they have no value at all.

When you don't own the rights, there is nothing to sell or license. You would need to terminate the transfer first to get your rights back and make them of value again. That's why authors have this termination right in the 1st place. Morever, it would be too easy for companies to get away with such clauses, because that would essentially mean that the right to terminate a transfer can be waived for eternity. Therefore it's an inalienable right.

The most saddening thing in all this is that as the years tick by his legacy is eroding to the point where the majority of young people haven't even heard of him. They sure as hell know who madonna and MJ are. His back catalogue is in a complete mess, spread across different labels and versions, random songs and albums lost in cyberspace, so many songs in the last years just thrown out to radio and websites. And whilst at 53 he can still go out there now and re-introduce himself and still be 'Prince', he ain't gonna have the fountain of youth forever. I want him to get all his music back out there all in one place, online or in stores or both, and give people a reason to discover it again or for the first time.

We'll just have to wait and see then - what's a couple more years anyway? I could certainly believe Prince signed away extra rights to bail out Paisley Park in the early 90s, then realised he'd shot himself in the foot. Would explain the huge amount of animosity!

Thanks for all the responses.

I stopped waiting for Prince remasters.That ship is already sailing away.It's obvious that he doesn't really care about stuff like this.I'll just spend my money on remasters,box sets and reissues from my other favorite artists and bands.Prince plays too many games

JordanRose said:

The most saddening thing in all this is that as the years tick by his legacy is eroding to the point where the majority of young people haven't even heard of him. They sure as hell know who madonna and MJ are. His back catalogue is in a complete mess, spread across different labels and versions, random songs and albums lost in cyberspace, so many songs in the last years just thrown out to radio and websites. And whilst at 53 he can still go out there now and re-introduce himself and still be 'Prince', he ain't gonna have the fountain of youth forever. I want him to get all his music back out there all in one place, online or in stores or both, and give people a reason to discover it again or for the first time.

Prince doesn't allow his fans to "celebrate" his career and his legacy.He doesn't realize how much this stuff means to the diehard fan.Like you said,his back catalog is a complete mess.Some of his albums are out of print.Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a new fan to track all this stuff down?

Another thing: those of us who are longtime fans (since the 80s)....we're not getting any younger Pretty soon,we won't be able to fully enjoy remastered Prince CDs.I'd like to have this stuff in my possession while I'm still able to get up and dance to it....LOL