There are a lot of knowledgeable people here, who followed the story of Prince trying to get his masters from Warner Bros. Could anyone tell me under what provision Warner Bros. has denied Prince his master recordings? Could you direct me to some articles related to this custody battle? Did Warner Bros determine that Prince's work was "work for hire"?

I was recently doing some research on this and came across a LONG HUGE list of artists that some music producers have stated are, essentially, works for hire. I find that, somehow, so wrong. I know I'm late to the game, as Prince no longer walks around with "sLaVe" on his face, and he seemed more into this fight back in the '90s, but I was not following him at that time and would love the back story on this.

[Edited 1/15/13 18:51pm]

try typing masters into the google custom search box at the top right of this page. You'll probably find what you're looking for, it's been discussed often.

You are mistaken: there was no battle at all and WB didn't even have to deny anything. They had a contract with Prince, the contract said they owned the masters, Prince never even tried to get 'em back from WB, he just complained about the situation.

NOW there is that infamous law that says that after 35 years artists can get their masters back and we'll see what happens with this quite soon I guess.

databank said:

You are mistaken: there was no battle at all and WB didn't even have to deny anything. They had a contract with Prince, the contract said they owned the masters, Prince never even tried to get 'em back from WB, he just complained about the situation.

A contrat he signed when he was 34 and 14 years in the music bizz. He got his ego rubbed with a $100 Million contract that never really happened.

NOW there is that infamous law that says that after 35 years artists can get their masters back and we'll see what happens with this quite soon I guess.

Yeah, this will be fun to watch. I wonder who will be the first? Aprin 7th was For You

[Edited 1/15/13 17:43pm]

Thank you for the suggestion on where to look.

[Edited 1/15/13 18:50pm]

Sorry if this has been answered before, but I've been wondering: Why doesn't WB just issue the remasters? Seems like they'd make money from them.

dustoff said:

Sorry if this has been answered before, but I've been wondering: Why doesn't WB just issue the remasters? Seems like they'd make money from them.

The contract between Prince and WB will determine the rights and obligations of both parties. This therefore suggests that WB do not have the unilateral right under the contract to issue remasters.

prittypriss said:

There are a lot of knowledgeable people here, who followed the story of Prince trying to get his masters from Warner Bros. Could anyone tell me under what provision Warner Bros. has denied Prince his master recordings? Could you direct me to some articles related to this custody battle? Did Warner Bros determine that Prince's work was "work for hire"?

I was recently doing some research on this and came across a LONG HUGE list of artists that some music producers have stated are, essentially, works for hire. I find that, somehow, so wrong. I know I'm late to the game, as Prince no longer walks around with "sLaVe" on his face, and he seemed more into this fight back in the '90s, but I was not following him at that time and would love the back story on this.

[Edited 1/15/13 18:51pm]

"Work for hire" clauses are standard in (US) recording contracts, hence the long, huge list of artists that have such a provision in their contracts. Legally, however, most recording artists' work has not been made for hire, because most are not "employed" by their record company.

Most recording contracts nevertheless still entail that the record company owns the copyright to the master recording(s), based on a transfer of copyright, also a standard clause. It's that transfer of copyright that can be reversed 35 years later, under US law.

This is due to the 1976 US copyright law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1978. Which means that this year and the next are going to be very tensed and exciting for the US music industry, since the first copyrights (not just with regards to recordings, also with regard to songs), will return to their original owners.

Heck, "the 35-year rule," will cause a lot of excitement in all US media industries.

Prince, by the way, wrote "slave" on his face mainly to release himself from the exclusive recording contract he was working under at the time. It's not known whether he had a work for hire clause too, but it's likely and he hinted once or twice at such.

Similarily, it's not known whether WB ever invoked such a provision against him, but it's also likely. It will be very interesting to see this year whether WB is going to hand over the copyrights to the recording of 'For You' to him.

Or not...

[Edited 1/16/13 0:51am]

By the way, since a year or 2, some also suggest that Prince owns For You, Prince, Dirty Mind and Controversy already, 30 years after the fact. Or that some kind of deal is in place. However that has not been officially confirmed and does not seem very likely.

Since practically nothing on this issue gets officially confirmed, we are pretty much in the dark here, making guesses.

langebleu said:

dustoff said:

Sorry if this has been answered before, but I've been wondering: Why doesn't WB just issue the remasters? Seems like they'd make money from them.

The contract between Prince and WB will determine the rights and obligations of both parties. This therefore suggests that WB do not have the unilateral right under the contract to issue remasters.

Yes, makes sense. Thanks.

Tremolina said:

By the way, since a year or 2, some also suggest that Prince owns For You, Prince, Dirty Mind and Controversy already, 30 years after the fact. Or that some kind of deal is in place. However that has not been officially confirmed and does not seem very likely.

Since practically nothing on this issue gets officially confirmed, we are pretty much in the dark here, making guesses.

According to copyright.gov, which you can search for artists and their work, WB is still listed as the copyright holder of For You.

The rest look as though Prince does hold the copyrights for them under Ecnirp, but did WB own that and the material produced under that? It's all so confusing to me.

[Edited 1/16/13 8:56am]

prittypriss said:

Tremolina said:

By the way, since a year or 2, some also suggest that Prince owns For You, Prince, Dirty Mind and Controversy already, 30 years after the fact. Or that some kind of deal is in place. However that has not been officially confirmed and does not seem very likely.

Since practically nothing on this issue gets officially confirmed, we are pretty much in the dark here, making guesses.

According to copyright.gov, which you can search for artists and their work, WB is still listed as the copyright holder of For You.

The rest look as though Prince does hold the copyrights for them under Ecnirp, but did WB own that and the material produced under that? It's all so confusing to me.

Understood.

The type of (copyrighted) "work" you see registered under Ecnirp, is the "music", i.e. the copyrights to the composition and lyrics of his songs. Also known as "publishing rights".

We're talking about the copyrights to the "sound recordings" here, or the "masters" (master recordings) in popular speak, not the underlying "music" or "publishing rights".

When we search the records for "sound recording", they still say this:

For you / arr., composed, and performed by Prince.

Prince / produced, arr., composed, and performed by Prince.

Dirty mind / produced, arr., composed, and performed by Prince.

[Edited 1/16/13 10:22am]

Note that the copyright and also the "author" claimant on all these records is WB, as "employer for hire"

This means that the company registered the recordings as a "work for hire", as if the company (legally) is the "author"/"creator" of the recordings and not Prince.

Note however also, that the copyright register does not ultimately determine the legal status of a work.

It's a big hint of whatever is in their contract tho'...

.

.

.

[Edited 1/16/13 10:35am]

Tremolina said:

Note that the copyright claimant on all these records is WB, as "employer for hire"

This means that the company registered the recordings as a "work for hire", as if the company is the "author"/"creator" of the recordings and not Prince.

Note however also, that the copyright register does not ultimately determine the legal status of a work.

It's a big hint of whatever is in their contract tho'...

.

.

.

.

[Edited 1/16/13 10:27am]

Thank you Tremolina, you've been a HUGE help!

Essentially, then, since WB has these listed as "Works for hire" it means that Prince cannot get the rights to these masters, if everything I am reading is correct. I guess that explains his comment to Dr. Funkenberry, when he said "Prince said "they might as well say never"". *Sigh* It just seems so wrong.

prittypriss said:

Tremolina said:

Note that the copyright claimant on all these records is WB, as "employer for hire"

This means that the company registered the recordings as a "work for hire", as if the company is the "author"/"creator" of the recordings and not Prince.

Note however also, that the copyright register does not ultimately determine the legal status of a work.

It's a big hint of whatever is in their contract tho'...

.

.

.

.

[Edited 1/16/13 10:27am]

Thank you Tremolina, you've been a HUGE help!

Essentially, then, since WB has these listed as "Works for hire" it means that Prince cannot get the rights to these masters, if everything I am reading is correct. I guess that explains his comment to Dr. Funkenberry, when he said "Prince said "they might as well say never"". *Sigh* It just seems so wrong.

You're welcome prittypriss

And it is wrong. The company after all never truly created those records. Prince did that, plus plenty of times many of his associated artists with him.

WB made sure the records got produced and released in the first place tho', including finances and promotion. And, for a part, they still do.

But, under US copyright law, it's not the case that WB can own and profit from those records forever. At least, that's what either the US courts or Prince and WB are going to have to determine, sooner or later.

The heart of the legal matter is that it's not likely that the recordings Prince made while under contract with WB, were ever truly a "work for hire". It's possible that they were, but it's more probable that they were not.

So, assuming at least the sound recordings were not "made for hire", the only true rights WB records owns and has ever owned, are based on the "transfer of copyright" provision.

That provision is standard too, in fact Prince and WB, for sure have that one in place, BUT that provision can also be reversed after 35 years, under US law at least...

Which we may assume, definitly is what Prince has made sure to happen and therefore is what's likely to go to go down SOON with regards to the copyrights to the "For You" recording.

And - as a sidenote, but not any less interesting - in the case of Prince/WB, their "transfer of copyright" clause(s) apparantly does not cover the unilateral right for WB to produce and release "re-masters" of his original master recordings. (Since we never got any so far...)

Plus another sidenote: if Prince can reverse a copyright transfer after 35 years, can Wendy and Lisa too? Or any other associated artist that helped him make so many of his records (plus several songs as well)? Or was Prince their "employer"?

Oh what the heck, yet another one, just to test your brain: what about other laws in other countries? The 35 year rule applies there as well, or not? If not, what would that mean?

.

..

.

[Edited 1/16/13 11:28am]

Tremolina said:

prittypriss said:

Thank you Tremolina, you've been a HUGE help!

Essentially, then, since WB has these listed as "Works for hire" it means that Prince cannot get the rights to these masters, if everything I am reading is correct. I guess that explains his comment to Dr. Funkenberry, when he said "Prince said "they might as well say never"". *Sigh* It just seems so wrong.

You're welcome prittypriss

And it is wrong. The company after all never truly created those records. Prince did that, plus plenty of times many of his associated artists with him.

WB made sure the records got produced and released in the first place tho', including finances and promotion. And, for a part, they still do.

But, under US copyright law, it's not the case that WB can own and profit from those records forever. At least, that's what either the US courts or Prince and WB are going to have to determine, sooner or later.

The heart of the legal matter is that it's not likely that the recordings Prince made while under contract with WB, were ever truly a "work for hire". It's possible that they were, but it's more probable that they were not.

So, assuming at least the sound recordings were not "made for hire", the only true rights WB records owns and has ever owned, are based on the "transfer of copyright" provision.

That provision is standard too, in fact Prince and WB, for sure have that one in place, BUT that provision can also be reversed after 35 years, under US law at least...

Which we may assume, definitly is what Prince has made sure to happen and therefore is what's likely to go to go down SOON with regards to the copyrights to the "For You" recording.

And - as a sidenote, but not any less interesting - in the case of Prince/WB, their "transfer of copyright" clause(s) apparantly does not cover the unilateral right for WB to produce and release "re-masters" of his original master recordings. (Since we never got any so far...)

Plus another sidenote: if Prince can reverse a copyright transfer after 35 years, can Wendy and Lisa too? Or any other associated artist that helped him make so many of his records (plus several songs as well)? Or was Prince their "employer"?

Oh what the heck, yet another one, just to test your brain: what about other laws in other countries? The 35 year rule applies there as well, or not? If not, what would that mean?

.

..

.

[Edited 1/16/13 11:28am]

In the research I've been doing, under copyright law, in order for a work to be determined to be "work for hire" there are certain criteria that has to be met (ie, what the criteria is to consider the artist an employee).

1. Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work.

2. Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee's assistants.

3. Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee's payment.

Looking at the criteria, I don't see how WB can claim work for hire, because we all know they were not in control of Prince's schedule (what hours he worked), or how he created his work, and I'm sure they didn't buy his guitars or other instruments. I doubt the took out taxes or supplied any health benefits or such that is typical with employer/employee relationships.

I guess we'll see how it all unfolds. Regarding your other questions, in my research, some of that has come up and I'll respond again in a little while. Must take daughter to doctor.

prittypriss said:

You're welcome.

databank said:

prittypriss said:

You're welcome.

Oops! Sorry, databank. I appreciate your information, too. I got so excited to discover the search engine worked, that I overlooked your post. The last time I tried to search something on p.org, the search engine wasn't working at that time. That's been a long time ago.

Tremolina, regarding other countries, it depends, I think, upon where the original was copyrighted and whether the other country has an agreement with the U.S. If the country has an agreement with the U.S., they will abide by that country's particular copyright laws. However, if there is no agreement, the copyright reverts to the other country's copyright laws. Here is a copyright.gov circular about international relations with the U.S. copyright laws:

http://www.copyright.gov/...irc38a.pdf

prittypriss said:

databank said:

You're welcome.

Oops! Sorry, databank. I appreciate your information, too. I got so excited to discover the search engine worked, that I overlooked your post. The last time I tried to search something on p.org, the search engine wasn't working at that time. That's been a long time ago.

Only teasing, glad u fell for it

Love

databank said:

prittypriss said:

Oops! Sorry, databank. I appreciate your information, too. I got so excited to discover the search engine worked, that I overlooked your post. The last time I tried to search something on p.org, the search engine wasn't working at that time. That's been a long time ago.

Only teasing, glad u fell for it

Love

[Edited 1/16/13 17:55pm]

I'm actually finding all of this fascinating and quite sad. As much of a musical icon Prince is, and the fact that all of that music is so closely associated with Prince and not WB, they should give it back to him. That music IS Prince and, regardless, of what WB thinks or how they try to term it as a work for hire, it BELONGS to Prince.

prittypriss said:

1. Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work.

2. Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee's assistants.

3. Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee's payment.

Looking at the criteria, I don't see how WB can claim work for hire, because we all know they were not in control of Prince's schedule (what hours he worked), or how he created his work, and I'm sure they didn't buy his guitars or other instruments. I doubt the took out taxes or supplied any health benefits or such that is typical with employer/employee relationships.

True. On the other hand, WB records is in the business to produce sound records and they did arrange plus pay for the recording studio. They also arranged and paid for the production, promotion, sale and distribution of the records, not to mention the (high) advances for Prince.

Maybe not all instruments were provided, but some were and they also hired his band members/associated artists. Plus it is known that WB had the right to refuse recordings, while they (still) control the payments of royalties and such.

Since they do not fit all the criteria of a true "employer" however, the chances in court are not in their favour.

This would probably be judged differently if Prince were a session musician, who does work under employer control. But he was not.

Were the band members who co-created a significant amount of his recordings tho' and - if they were not - what would that mean for the copyright? Should it belong - in part - to them as well?

On the flipside of that; if band members were employed, by whom were they employed, Prince or WB? If they were employed by WB what would that mean for the copyright? Even if Prince has his transfer of copyright reversed, WB would then still co-own the copyright.

[Edited 1/17/13 5:21am]

prittypriss said:

Tremolina, regarding other countries, it depends, I think, upon where the original was copyrighted and whether the other country has an agreement with the U.S. If the country has an agreement with the U.S., they will abide by that country's particular copyright laws. However, if there is no agreement, the copyright reverts to the other country's copyright laws. Here is a copyright.gov circular about international relations with the U.S. copyright laws:

http://www.copyright.gov/...irc38a.pdf

This is not correct. Pretty much every country in the world has its own national copyright statute. The treaties mentioned in that circular are mainly aimed at "harmonising" those laws, so that copyright protection for authors is - more or less - the same all over the world.

The issue here with the 35 year rule is that this is only a provision in the US copyright statute. Other countries do not share it with the US. In other words: this rule is not "harmonised" and you can't reverse a copyright transfer for example in France, just because US law says you can in the US.

The prblem with that is that Prince and WB, in their recording contracts - most likely - always arranged for a worldwide transfer of copryight, meaning that Prince would hand over to WB all his copyrights, all over the world.

The question then arises whether the transfers of copyright to WB records that Prince wants to reverse now should only go as far as that solely the copyright in the US returns to him and not in the rest of the world too. Meaning Prince should and will only own the US copyright after 35 years and nothing else.

Or should the copyrights that exist all over the world in all counties with copyright laws return to him, fully and unconditionally?

[Edited 1/17/13 5:18am]

Examples of works made for hire created in an employment

relationship include:

[...]

• A musical arrangement written for

a music company by a

salaried arranger on the company’s staff

• A sound recording created by salaried staff engineers of

a

record company

The closer an employment relationship comes to regular,

salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created

within the scope of that employment will be a work made for

hire. But because no precise standard exists for determining

whether a work is made for hire under part 1 of the definition

in section 101 of the copyright law, consultation with a

lawyer may be advisable.

If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person

for whom the work was prepared is the author and should

be named as the author on the application for copyright registration.

Respond “yes” to the question on the application

about whether the work is made for hire.

http://www.copyright.gov/...circ09.pdf

[Edited 1/17/13 11:22am]

Tremolina said:

prittypriss said:

1. Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer's location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work.

2. Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee's schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee's assistants.

3. Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee's payment.

Looking at the criteria, I don't see how WB can claim work for hire, because we all know they were not in control of Prince's schedule (what hours he worked), or how he created his work, and I'm sure they didn't buy his guitars or other instruments. I doubt the took out taxes or supplied any health benefits or such that is typical with employer/employee relationships.

True. On the other hand, WB records is in the business to produce sound records and they did arrange plus pay for the recording studio. They also arranged and paid for the production, promotion, sale and distribution of the records, not to mention the (high) advances for Prince.

Maybe not all instruments were provided, but some were and they also hired his band members/associated artists. Plus it is known that WB had the right to refuse recordings, while they (still) control the payments of royalties and such.

Since they do not fit all the criteria of a true "employer" however, the chances in court are not in their favour.

This would probably be judged differently if Prince were a session musician, who does work under employer control. But he was not.

Were the band members who co-created a significant amount of his recordings tho' and - if they were not - what would that mean for the copyright? Should it belong - in part - to them as well?

On the flipside of that; if band members were employed, by whom were they employed, Prince or WB? If they were employed by WB what would that mean for the copyright? Even if Prince has his transfer of copyright reversed, WB would then still co-own the copyright.

[Edited 1/17/13 5:21am]

If you look at the notes on Prince's first album, "For You", it specifically states that he produced, arranged, composed, and performed by Prince. While Warner Bros may have paid for the studio time and advances to Prince, there is always that little clause in recording contracts which discusses recoupment of expenses in the event the album does not sell well. So even the advances weren't always 100% guaranteed and were dependent upon the sales. Prince was paid a Per Diem while on the road, if I recall correctly, from a story told by Big Chick about the Per Diem game the band members and crew would play, however, if I recall correctly, he wasn't given a per diem originally, only learning about it from watching the crew play the Per Diem game.

With as controlling as Prince was about his recordings, I doubt that he let WB do too much, especially in the studio. I'm sure he used them for production, promotion, and distribution of his music, but, as they said, they gave him much more control over the music, release, etc., than any previous artist.

Tremolina said:

prittypriss said:

Tremolina, regarding other countries, it depends, I think, upon where the original was copyrighted and whether the other country has an agreement with the U.S. If the country has an agreement with the U.S., they will abide by that country's particular copyright laws. However, if there is no agreement, the copyright reverts to the other country's copyright laws. Here is a copyright.gov circular about international relations with the U.S. copyright laws:

http://www.copyright.gov/...irc38a.pdf

This is not correct. Pretty much every country in the world has its own national copyright statute. The treaties mentioned in that circular are mainly aimed at "harmonising" those laws, so that copyright protection for authors is - more or less - the same all over the world.

The issue here with the 35 year rule is that this is only a provision in the US copyright statute. Other countries do not share it with the US. In other words: this rule is not "harmonised" and you can't reverse a copyright transfer for example in France, just because US law says you can in the US.

The prblem with that is that Prince and WB, in their recording contracts - most likely - always arranged for a worldwide transfer of copryight, meaning that Prince would hand over to WB all his copyrights, all over the world.

The question then arises whether the transfers of copyright to WB records that Prince wants to reverse now should only go as far as that solely the copyright in the US returns to him and not in the rest of the world too. Meaning Prince should and will only own the US copyright after 35 years and nothing else.

Or should the copyrights that exist all over the world in all counties with copyright laws return to him, fully and unconditionally?

[Edited 1/17/13 5:18am]

Here is what I am looking at:

Through various international treaties, most nations have established reciprocity with regard to copyright protection. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country basically depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions.”

I read this to state that under certain conditions, if they have a treaty with the US, they will protect those works and honor the copyright.

For instance, the Berne Convention:

Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, Article 7(8) states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work",^[5] i.e., an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule.

And the following:

If the country in which protection is sought is a party to one of the international copyright conventions, the work generally can be protected by complying with the conditions of the convention. Even if the work cannot be brought under an international convention, protection under the specific provisions of the country’s national laws may still be possible.

And under the Phonograms Treaty it states:

Contracting Parties shall apply the provisions of Article 18 of the Berne Convention, mutatis mutandis, to the rights of performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Treaty.

Article 18:

Article 18
Works Existing on Convention's Entry Into Force:
1. Protectable where protection not yet expired in country of origin;
2. Non-protectable where protection already expired in country where it is claimed;
3. Application of these principles; 4. Special cases

(1) This Convention shall apply to all works which, at the moment of its coming into force, have not yet fallen into the public domain in the country of origin through the expiry of the term of protection.

(2) If, however, through the expiry of the term of protection which was previously granted, a work has fallen into the public domain of the country where protection is claimed, that work shall not be protected anew.

(3) The application of this principle shall be subject to any provisions contained in special conventions to that effect existing or to be concluded between countries of the Union. In the absence of such provisions, the respective countries shall determine, each in so far as it is concerned, the conditions of application of this principle.

(4) The preceding provisions shall also apply in the case of new accessions to the Union and to cases in which protection is extended by the application of Article 7 or by the abandonment of reservations.

[Edited 1/18/13 17:18pm]

Question:

Is 35 years after the releasing of the album or 35 years after the signing of the contract for the albums?

There would be a big difference here if prince signed a contract to record 3 albums and we talk about 35 years from then on. So he'd recover the remasters for the 3 albums altogether, right?

tritoncin said:

Question:

Is 35 years after the releasing of the album or 35 years after the signing of the contract for the albums?

There would be a big difference here if prince signed a contract to record 3 albums and we talk about 35 years from then on. So he'd recover the remasters for the 3 albums altogether, right?

The 35 year rule pertains to when the work was recorded. For You was recorded in 1978 and would be eligible this year to be reverted back to Prince, unless WB continues to assert that For You was a work for hire. In that case, Prince won't get it back. "In the United States a "work for hire" (published after 1978) receives copyright protection until 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first." IOW, WB would own the For You master for 95 years (since it was created in 1978 and published in 1978 - and the length of time with each subsequent album would be dependent upon when it was created vs. when it was published, whichever is the shortest amount of time). But if Prince fights against the work for hire aspect, he could begin getting his masters back this year, starting with For You.

prittypriss said:

The 35 year rule pertains to when the work was recorded. For You was recorded in 1978 and would be eligible this year to be reverted back to Prince, unless WB continues to assert that For You was a work for hire. In that case, Prince won't get it back. "In the United States a "work for hire" (published after 1978) receives copyright protection until 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first." IOW, WB would own the For You master for 95 years (since it was created in 1978 and published in 1978 - and the length of time with each subsequent album would be dependent upon when it was created vs. when it was published, whichever is the shortest amount of time). But if Prince fights against the work for hire aspect, he could begin getting his masters back this year, starting with For You.

I think it is 35 after being released or 45 after being recorded if not released. And i do not think WB can win a work for hire claim. Prince's pay was andvances on and based on a % of sales

EDIT

it may be 40 years if not published and a grant was issued:

(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.

I think that means that the Black Album for example: would revert in 2022 (1987 +35) as opposed to 2029 (1994+35).

also according to some the law doesn't allow a sound recording to be a work for hire in terms of authorship--even if the contact uses the term. But it doesn't define what an author is. It may be the producer and writers.

And I do not think he can ever get Batman back. Or any songs recorded for a motion picture. AND it seems the reversion may only effect the US. So even if Prince does get them back he may only be able to release them in the US.

[Edited 1/19/13 14:40pm]