OnlyNDaUsa said:

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.

No, it may be ALSO the producer of the recording.

The point is that since the definition of author is not exactly clear, it is not exactly clear either which (co) creator of a recording can reclaim (co)ownership after 35 years and which cannot.

This also refers to the question I already posed: if Prince can reverse a copyright transfer, so can Wendy & Lisa for example?

And I do not think he can ever get Batman back. Or any songs recorded for a motion picture.

So not for Purple Rain either. Why not?

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.

Why?

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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.

No, it may be ALSO the producer of the recording.

The point is that since the definition of author is not exactly clear, it is not exactly clear either which (co) creator of a recording can reclaim (co)ownership after 35 years and which cannot.

This also refers to the question I already posed:

Luck for Prince for the most part i was all or mostly him...

if Prince can reverse a copyright transfer, so can Wendy & Lisa for example?

Yeah that will could the issue more complex

So not for Purple Rain either. Why not?

Not sure about PR. The reason Batman may be is that was always treated differently.

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.

Why?

becasue US law has not authority outside the US.

very interesting thanks and good explanation on the youtube clip regarding the 35 year law

So how would the global rights be distinguished, on a country by country basis?

.

.

[Edited 1/21/13 17:16pm]

Hopefully we'll get some updates on whether or not anything's going on with a reissue/remaster project. Warners changed hands a few times and trying to go back to being more artist friendly and not a bunch of number crunchers looking at bottom lines.

The thing we all want to see is all the different albums he's distributed through different labels all under one roof so people can just have access to the full discography.

Batman being tied into DC Comics and the film department could probably work something out through Tim Burton, who has a pretty solid relationship with the studio for decades. I think Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy overshadowed the Tim Burton movies, which could help Prince as far as anything Batman related goes.

I also think there might be a HD remaster series on Blu Ray in the works. You're not seeing many artists doing it, but Pink Floyd had done it for "Wish You Were Here" and "Dark Side of the Moon".

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

Why?

becasue US law has not authority outside the US.

Agreed it doesn't. But nowhere does the law say that the 35 year rule only applies to transfers of US copryights. It doesn't exclude an international or worldwide transfer. Moreover, the contracts between Prince and WB do are leading too. If those contracts are governed by US law, which they most likely are, and the contractual transfer of copyrights has a worldwide scope, then the reversal after 35 years should apply to the worldwide transfer of copyrights as well, not just to the US copyright.

So not for Purple Rain either. Why not?

Not sure about PR. The reason Batman may be is that was always treated differently.

How so differently? Both albums are sound tracks to a motion picture, why would they have to be treated any differently?

The only possible issue I can see is that Prince uses a lot of movie samples on the Batman recording. It may not be a clear cut case that those samples could be freely used again.

youngyosh said:

very interesting thanks and good explanation on the youtube clip regarding the 35 year law

Yes very good clip. (Only has me to thank for it )

So how would the global rights be distinguished, on a country by country basis?

In principle yes.

Tremolina said:

TweetyV6 said:

Tremolina said:

In principle yes.

Don't think so. I think it the law of the country the work originates from (the US) applies. Otherwise, there would have been contracts between P & WB for every country his songs were available (distributed to, not published!)

I agree with that. Like I said above, if the contracts re governed by US law, US law should also govern the worldwide, contractual copyright transfer.

Not sure wether remasters would be considerred as new work.

If it were up to the record company, it would. It's a question that depends on the criteria of what constitutes a new work. For that, a remaster would at least have to be determined a "derivative work". In the US they are pretty fast to do this.

Tremolina said:

So not for Purple Rain either. Why not?

Not sure about PR. The reason Batman may be is that was always treated differently.

How so differently? Both albums are sound tracks to a motion picture, why would they have to be treated any differently?

The only possible issue I can see is that Prince uses a lot of movie samples on the Batman recording. It may not be a clear cut case that those samples could be freely used again.

There's a lot more red tape (lawyers) with franchises like Batman. There's reasons why "Batdance" never showed up on a greatest hits, even though I can just buy a bunch of MP3s off of Amazon and make my own hits collection.

I disagree that he'll never get it back, but it might be too costly and probably has to work something out with the producers of the film or DC comics. Does he have any interest in it? I think so, because it's his work and he wants the rights to his master tapes and publishing, but he also knows what he signed off on years ago.

He might be able to get someone who works with the studio like Tim Burton to help him out, or if Prince were to sign a new contract with Warners and wanted to try to get the rights to the music.

[Edited 1/22/13 23:24pm]

Regarding Batman, from what I am reading, it would be considered a "work for hire". And Prince signed the publishing rights over to Warners.

Essentially, he was asked to write songs and perform songs specifically for the movie, and was paid to do so. This would make Prince's Batman soundtrack a work for hire.

prittypriss said:

Regarding Batman, from what I am reading, it would be considered a "work for hire". And Prince signed the publishing rights over to Warners.

Essentially, he was asked to write songs and perform songs specifically for the movie, and was paid to do so. This would make Prince's Batman soundtrack a work for hire.

About the movis & work for hire....

My thoughts are as following; if there would have been a request to write the songs for the movie, then it most probably would be work for hire.

If however the music is not an integral part of the movie, but only featured in the background, as in Batman, then I don't think it's WFH. I do remember that there was a Batman Score CD with the music of Danny Elfman from the movie. (http://www.filmtracks.com...atman.html). That's definately WFH.

Regarding Purple Rain, Under the Cherry Moon (Parade) and Grafitti Bridge; again I think there was no request from WB to P to write the music for those movies, although I'm not sure for Graf. Bridge.

What about Girl 6 ? As the music existed before the movie, that should be a clear no WFH.

TweetyV6 said:

prittypriss said:

Regarding Batman, from what I am reading, it would be considered a "work for hire". And Prince signed the publishing rights over to Warners.

Essentially, he was asked to write songs and perform songs specifically for the movie, and was paid to do so. This would make Prince's Batman soundtrack a work for hire.

About the movis & work for hire....

My thoughts are as following; if there would have been a request to write the songs for the movie, then it most probably would be work for hire.

If however the music is not an integral part of the movie, but only featured in the background, as in Batman, then I don't think it's WFH. I do remember that there was a Batman Score CD with the music of Danny Elfman from the movie. (http://www.filmtracks.com...atman.html). That's definately WFH.

Regarding Purple Rain, Under the Cherry Moon (Parade) and Grafitti Bridge; again I think there was no request from WB to P to write the music for those movies, although I'm not sure for Graf. Bridge.

What about Girl 6 ? As the music existed before the movie, that should be a clear no WFH.

I would typically agree with you regarding the Batman soundtrack, however, if the producers of the film chose to not use the music, it wouldn't make it any less of a work for hire. If he was asked to create this music, specifically for the movie, and was paid to do so, then it doesn't matter whether they used it for the movie as a background, or as the main theme, or even not at all. It becomes the property of the movie studio.

Regarding Purple Rain, Under the Cherry Moon, and Grafitti Bridge, these were works produced by Prince. The movies themselves were his creations, his ideas, and these movies were designed to showcase his music. Therefore, the music could be argued to not be a work for hire.

Why would a soundtrack to a movie be a work for hire in the 1st place?

Motion pictures or other audiovisual works are automatically a work for hire in the US when contractually agreed as such (regardles of a true employer-employee relationship).

But soundtracks are not mentioned as such.

So how can one soundtrack be a work for hire and another not?

Just because Prince co-created PR, UTCM and GB, doesn't mean he is the legal "author" of those films, the movie production company is.

But just because he wasn't, doesn't mean either that the soundtracks were therefore works for hire too.

[Edited 1/23/13 8:44am]

The circumstances in which a work is considered a "work made for hire" is determined by the United States Copyright Act of 1976 as either

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. § 101)

And:

On the other hand, if the work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer, the work may be considered a work for hire only if all of the following conditions are met:

• the work must come within one of the nine limited categories of works listed in the definition above, namely (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas;
• the work must be specially ordered or commissioned;
• there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Prince was, essentially, commissioned to contribute music to the movie "Batman". However, if he refused to the written agreement that it is a work for hire, it is possible that it is not. But I think that the movie studio would have required the agreement to have the work for hire clause. I also read something in my research, that has stated the music Prince created for "Batman" was a work for hire. Unfortunately, I have so many links bookmarked right now that it would take me too long to go through them all to find the right link at this time. When I do find the link, I'll post what it says.

[Edited 1/23/13 8:59am]

[Edited 1/23/13 9:09am]

Going by the above, "Purple Rain", "Grafitti Bridge", and "Under the Cherry Moon" would not meet the second criteria of "the work must be specially ordered or commissioned" since the movies were actually created to showcase the music. The music wasn't specially ordered or commissioned for the movies, but rather the movies were created to highlight the music itself. Does that make sense?

Pritty,

• I get what you are saying, but I don't think it makes much sense. It may be that only Batman was "specially ordered or commissioned", but we don't really know whether any of Prince's soundtracks were "specially" commissioned or not.
• I also think you could argue that a soundtrack isn't really "part of a motion picture". It is only the sound recording accompanying the movie, that primarily also exists as a copyright protected work outside the motion picture. A work that in essence was seperately made, protected, sold and distributed from the movie, not as part of it.
• I further think that as soon as soundtracks should be viewed as work for hire, solely on the basis that they were specially ordered or commissioned for a motion picture, then all his soundtracks could be works for hire. INCLUDING the underlying composition and lyrics of the songs and not just the recording! (since they were specially commisioned then as well right?)
• That would then also mean that "normally" songs and sound recordings aren't works for hire, but as soon as they are specially made for a soundtrack, they are. That would not be a very consistent and comprehensible, let alone reasonable, legal outcome imo..

• Lastly, it is for good reason that sound recordings aren't listed as works for hire in the copyright statute. It means the legislator never intended to automatically view them as such. Since sound tracks aren't listed either, why would they be any different? They are sound recordings just the same.

[Edited 1/23/13 10:33am]

prittypriss said:

I also read something in my research, that has stated the music Prince created for "Batman" was a work for hire.

I am curious where you read that.

But I will tell you this already.

If you search the copyright catalog and also check the CD booklet, you will see that the songs (not the recordings of them) on Batman are not registered as work for hire.

BUT you will also see that, unlike most of his other songs, the copyright claimant of the music/songs of Batman are Controversy music, Prince's publishing company, holding his publishing rights AND WB Music corp**.

That indicates that there's some sort of co-ownership of publishing rights in place regarding the Batman soundtrack publishing rights, which could have something to do with all the samples from the movie he used. But NOT that the songs that Prince wrote for Batman are works for hire.

As for the copyrights of the sound recordings the catalog shows nothing "special". Just like all his other WB recordings they are registered by WB as employer for hire.

Like I said before, the catalog only gives an indication and does not determine the legal status of a work, but it is a BIG hint of whatever they have in their contracts.

By the way, if you look for the sound recordings Prince made for NPG records, you will see that those are also registered as works for hire, by NPG records ...

** EXCEPT apparantly, the music to The Arms of Orion, which is registered by Prince and Sheena Easton

[Edited 1/23/13 11:51am]

check this out

http://www.youtube.com/wa...K-LuH-cyZ8