I was reading this old thread: http://prince.org/msg/7/371355

And wondering... Are there any news on that issue? There was this idea of an agreement with WB that would make masters go back to P after 30 years (instead of the 35 years prescribed by the law).

This would mean the 30th anniversary of Purple Rain would have a different meaning for him... Does anyone have some info on that? Not that I'm expecting much from him in terms of remasters or even doing anything for that anniversary anyway, but I was wondering if all this fuss about copyright may be related to having Purple Rain back? Yes he did it before but this time it looks more serious.

What do you think?

/end of rant

coffeebreak said:

I was reading this old thread: http://prince.org/msg/7/371355

And wondering... Are there any news on that issue? There was this idea of an agreement with WB that would make masters go back to P after 30 years (instead of the 35 years prescribed by the law).

This would mean the 30th anniversary of Purple Rain would have a different meaning for him... Does anyone have some info on that? Not that I'm expecting much from him in terms of remasters or even doing anything for that anniversary anyway, but I was wondering if all this fuss about copyright may be related to having Purple Rain back? Yes he did it before but this time it looks more serious.

What do you think?

/end of rant

First what fuss about copyright are you referring to?

As far as we know... we don't know anything.

2013 was the year Prince could have claimed rights to For You. Since this would have had to be ruled by a court of law it's unlikely he made his move yet or there would have been some media coverage. It's unlikely WB or any other record companies will give up masters without a fight, at least unless it's acklowledge that they'll lose the legal fight every time.

Chaka Khan also claimed she wanted her WB catalogue back, but as far as I know she hasn't moved yet either, nor has anyone in the music industry who'd be in a position to reclaim their masters from a record company.

As for Prince's claims that his contract allowed him to have the records back after 30 years it's never been proven and the fact that WB kept reissuing his early albums since 2008 seems to indicate that it's bullshit.

I suspect that P wants to wait until a few albums are eligible for copyright reversion before he makes a move: better to have an expensive trial for 5 or 6 albums at once than a new trial every year for each new album. + he obviously wants the masters to Vanity 6, The Time's early albums and other early side projects that he doesn't already own the masters of back as well, which in turn will cerate new problems with the "singers/bandmembers" being able to try and make a claim on these as well (though I doubt anyone from the old side projects will bother fighting him about that).

Now the funny thing will be when George Clinton or his estate will be allowed to claim his own Paisley Park records back from Prince (who currently owns them alongside most of pailsye Park's catalogue)

Jill and Sheila among others are notoriously pissed at Prince, and one could imagine some PP artists such as Ingrid Chavez or Mazarati may be interested in owning their records, but I doubt the money they can make with reissues, considereing the current state of record sales, would make paying lawyers to fight Prince and get the masters back a profitable thing: they'd make more money just getting some royaties from Prince-owned reissues, so the only one whom I can see reclaiming his masters at some point is Clinton and possibly Chaka if P won't give her Come 2 My House (but he was quoted saying that he'd give her tha masters anytime if she'd ask).

it's an interesting point about prince also having artists' master recordings - although the difference is clear, prince was always involved creatively and to all purposes they are his recordings along with the artists involved. I would hope Prince will communicate with all involved and make it clear he wants to re-claim all masters and re-negotiate with the artists involved. like databank said it would be better for the artists to 'hopefully' be a part of any re-masters once prince has control - but as we all know the true course of 'love' never runs smooth.

Dandroppedadime said:

it's an interesting point about prince also having artists' master recordings - although the difference is clear, prince was always involved creatively and to all purposes they are his recordings along with the artists involved. I would hope Prince will communicate with all involved and make it clear he wants to re-claim all masters and re-negotiate with the artists involved. like databank said it would be better for the artists to 'hopefully' be a part of any re-masters once prince has control - but as we all know the true course of 'love' never runs smooth.

No, he owns almost every record released on Paisley Park Records, and while there's no contest about some albums being "his" or at least full collaborations, many others involve tracks he had nothing to do with, and even a few albums in which he had no involvement at all. Regarding the records/tracks he did I think he won't communicate with anyone and claim them his unless challenged, I'm quite sure of that (I'm also quite sure that's the only reason he prevented fDeluxe and the Original 7ven to use their old names, so they couldn't have any claim on their old albums). But all that stuff on Paisley Park he wasn't involved with, I wonder what's he gonna do with it. The thing is I don't see Good Question resurfacing and claiming a share on their album but the fact that Prince copyrighted the names Mazarati or Good Question a few years back seems to indicate that in time he may chose to rerelease everything at his disposal, even the most obscure stuff and the stuff that he wasn't involved in creatively. As for Clinton's stuff, Prince almost wasn't involved at all, it's all Clinton's shit but P owns it.

Another question is how far will P go. After all, what prevents him to claim Sugar Walls or Love... Thy Will Be Done as "his" as well and try to get the masters back from their respective labels? It's quite likely that he quit writing for others in 94 because of that: not owning the masters.

Who is it that the rights to a recording revert to? Credited artist? Producer (actual producer or credited)? Some other entity who may or may not be one of those? Not in Prince's case, specifically (with all the complication of hidden contributions and misattributions), but in general--who gets the rights?

in the case of a song given to another, sugar walls for instance - he would only have composer, musician/producer credits thus have a share of the royalties, not sure about master recording I would think he would let that go and just release his own 'demo' version if needs be (which he obviously owns the master to as he wouldn't of allowed/givern that do mercury or whoever the lable was.

nursev said:

Very interesting topic. So many questions that could be raised. So does anybody know whether he does own masters for For You and Prince yet?

He doesn't.

EddieC said:

Who is it that the rights to a recording revert to? Credited artist? Producer (actual producer or credited)? Some other entity who may or may not be one of those? Not in Prince's case, specifically (with all the complication of hidden contributions and misattributions), but in general--who gets the rights?

This is THE question! The law is totally unclear and it's gonna be a case by case judges decision until proper jurisprudence is established.

Dandroppedadime said:

in the case of a song given to another, sugar walls for instance - he would only have composer, musician/producer credits thus have a share of the royalties, not sure about master recording I would think he would let that go and just release his own 'demo' version if needs be (which he obviously owns the master to as he wouldn't of allowed/givern that do mercury or whoever the lable was.

The thing is considering how blurry the law is and with songs he completely did, he'd have a good point going to a judge and claiming ownership: basically he was more involved than anyone in the creative process of these songs. Technically he can't release his demos, BTW, because the instrumental parts are similar to the master with other artists' vocals over them and the label could argue that though they don't own Prince's vocals Prince doesn't own the instrumental elements, and that no party can release it without the other's agreement.

tab32792 said:

Very interesting topic. As far as the Time, Vanity 6, Sheila E., etc you would think he would give them theirs back but you never know with him. Smh. And I'm also curious to know what he plans to do with his own masters.

NEVER, EVER!

He doesn't even allow the bands to use their old stage names, and he went as far as to have Mia Bocca's video removed from Jill Jones' official Myspace. He clearly considers all this his music and while he'll probably let go of the stuff recorded for artists outside of his juridiction you can be assured that every song that was released by him under the Jamie Starr/Paisley Park unbrellas will be kept for his own use and that he'll fight to death to insure that if needed.

in my understanding to make a 'new master' only 1 element needs to be different - not sure how this would stand up in court with a judge though. so maybe just the vocals would have to change to make it a new recording, adding to that he could release other versions/mixes he has already or could easily change a few things. for instance sex shooter has a few different versions that he could use as the basic tracks then reocrd his own vocal - actually makes more sense coming from a man as the sex shooter (although i doubt he would ever release such a version!)!!!

databank said:

Thank for replying you all. I think I read somewhere that it is possible to find an agreement without going to court, so the 30 years vs 35 sounded like a possible agreement between the parts. Seems that is not the case.

I think that owning the masters would not change much for us fans, but it may mean something for him I guess, since he battled so much for that.

Sorry I didn't answer you! I was just thinking about sueing those bootleggers... He seems very sensitive on this again, so I just wondered if there was some reason other than the upcoming album.

databank said:

First what fuss about copyright are you referring to?

databank said:

coffeebreak said:

Sorry I didn't answer you! I was just thinking about sueing those bootleggers... He seems very sensitive on this again, so I just wondered if there was some reason other than the upcoming album.

databank said:

First what fuss about copyright are you referring to?

I can't have anything to do with WB and masters anyway.

SuperSoulFighter said:

databank said:

NEVER, EVER!

He doesn't even allow the bands to use their old stage names, and he went as far as to have Mia Bocca's video removed from Jill Jones' official Myspace. He clearly considers all this his music and while he'll probably let go of the stuff recorded for artists outside of his juridiction you can be assured that every song that was released by him under the Jamie Starr/Paisley Park unbrellas will be kept for his own use and that he'll fight to death to insure that if needed.

Plus those records were produced, arranged, composed and performed by Prince except for the lead vocals. They belong to him alright.

Oh I totally agree with that.

Dandroppedadime said:

in my understanding to make a 'new master' only 1 element needs to be different - not sure how this would stand up in court with a judge though. so maybe just the vocals would have to change to make it a new recording, adding to that he could release other versions/mixes he has already or could easily change a few things. for instance sex shooter has a few different versions that he could use as the basic tracks then reocrd his own vocal - actually makes more sense coming from a man as the sex shooter (although i doubt he would ever release such a version!)!!!

Not at all. It never happened actually so there's no jurisprudence as to what would constitute a new master and Prince certainly defied WB when he published remixes of WB songs (and even previously released WB tracks) on Crystal Ball and NPGMC but WB didn't move. Nonetheless an element of a song is an element of a song: 3 seconds of a sample are enough to make u have to licence the sample from the record company, give credits and pay royalties, so a full instrumental track... No way u get away with it! Technically my guess is that it would actually be considered a sample because there is no precedent of such a situation.

coffeebreak said:

Thank for replying you all. I think I read somewhere that it is possible to find an agreement without going to court, so the 30 years vs 35 sounded like a possible agreement between the parts. Seems that is not the case.

I think that owning the masters would not change much for us fans, but it may mean something for him I guess, since he battled so much for that.

I think he has plans for the masters and his whole back catalogue, including some of the unreleased vault stuff, but that he won't make a move before he's got at least 5 or 6 WB albums "freed".

^^ This makes sense, especially if a court will be involved... I understand that he doesn't want to bother too many times. I certainly hope that you are right and that he actually has plans (and that he won't forget them along the way, or change his mind, or come out with something creepy I cannot even imagine at the moment).