Record industry seems pretty messy, what a hassle just to make some music. Sounds like Judith was already in a mess prior to this. Seems to make more sense to me that Prince was asking about how to release it or get it out to people, guess he could have been referring to her contracts without actually verbalizing it.?

.

Not sure why people here are so upset with Prince about this... It's his recording studio & Judith is a grown woman to make her own decisions, besides, she's released it for free as well through her souncloud page, so obviously she wants the music released as well.

.

Shirley Manson with Garbage had to deal with a similar contract with one of the first record companies she signed a contract with... Gotta lawyer up & fight the fight unfortunately.

Based on what I've read, seems that Judith is going to go with some sort of claim that the contract was terminated based on either SONY pulling out and assigning its interest to Cherry or Cherry's "erratic behavior."

The first argument could hold water, since generally personal services contracts are not assignable unless the contract explicitly allowed for the assignment. (If it did then, it will be a tough call). The argument will go somthing like Hill relied on SONY's participation and without SONY involved, the whole premise of the contract is gone and thus it terminated when SONY and Cherry split ways.

The second claim seems fishy. Unless Cherry breached (which I dont see how) then Judith is under contract.

Usually these contract say that the artist cannot record with anyone else (thats what "exclusive' means) untill the contract expires which I understand was somehting like 4 years. (thats quite long and suprised that Judith gave this up to being with. Does she not have advisors?).

It will be interesting to know what Hill was paid for this. I assume she got some sort of advance. Did she return it?

Morale of the story here kids. DONT SIGN CONTRACTS UNLESS REVIEWED BY A LAWYER YOU TRUST.

And Yes, if Prince knew there was a contract (which it seems he did), could be liable for tortious interference with a contract. This is a a very established point of law. Its meant to prevent people from enticeing others to break their word.

I predict, Prince will end up shelling out quite a bit of money to Cherry or at least to his lawyers as they try to get out of the contract.

[Edited 3/30/15 6:57am]

nosajd said:

BobGeorge909 said:

nosajd said:

Dude, this comment is just as rude as Pentacle's! WTF?

I agree. I reported it and nothing happened. My name calling, doo-doo stained lips response got snipped, but him saying i have evil ways can stay. Bullspit. I have just as many evil ways as any other group of people...cuz...guess what....I'm a person. So I presume its ok to say a group of people has evil ways. I will start employ this in my communications more often here on the org. [Edited 3/30/15 7:34am]

It's obvious that there is a particular bias as to how this site is run... trying figure it out is pointless.

guess that's for the 'justice system' to decide

emesem said:

And Yes, if Prince knew there was a contract (which it seems he did), could be liable for tortious interference with a contract. This is a a very established point of law. Its meant to prevent people from enticeing others to break their word.

They would have the prove that he in fact enticed someone to breach a contract that he again would have had to know the details of. And they would have to prove that any such enticement or coersion was intentional. One would have the know the full picture here which we don't have, but this is not in practice something that's easily proved. The main issue will be the status of any contract with Judith primarily. I don't know how it would have been drawn up given that she supposedly signed with Cherry's division of Sony, which was dropped after a year.

Hilarious, obviously Prince new, otherwise this would not have been released for free. With nothing being put up for sale, and no money being received, not sure how any lawsuit could stand up in court.

If Prince caused a "free" release of an album using songs written by persons other than Judith or Prince, he should be sued for damages. Those songwriters are entitled to roylaties for having those songs downloaded and damages for downloads without their permission. How would Prince like it if Jill Jones or Margie Cox released their albums as free downloads? He's a jerk that does not understand how the law applies to him or others. Speaking of which, have a happy easter at

http://neosoul.com/music/1984/singles.html and search for some eggs.

BartVanHemelen said:

jwar said:

You can't keep true musicians and artists unproductive for over a year. As someone else on the forum said, "Artists gotta eat too."

.

Prince did so with Margie Cox. Locked her in a contract. Oh,a nd this was happening at the same time Prince was whining about WBR holding him to the contract he signed.

.

.

Only an idiot wouldn't know about that.

.

Don't let Judith's talent rot in a cell somewhere.

.

What talent? She's a bland background singer.

leadline said:

Hilarious, obviously Prince new, otherwise this would not have been released for free. With nothing being put up for sale, and no money being received, not sure how any lawsuit could stand up in court.

I think emesem's point was that that wouldnt necessarily exonerate him of any damages or loss of revenue from investments made by Cherry. Because of the type of case they're presenting they'll have to prove this loss or damage, which I think would also be very difficult to prove in court as they'd firstly have to demonstrate that there has in fact been a loss. And not a loss of invested money in production and song writing, but in the expected recouperation of those costs through loss of record sales. They would likely try to do it on the basis of transaction pricing per download, BUT any good lawyer would be able to prove that the conditions of this particular case are outside the scope of any guarantee of purchase. The problem with expectation damages in this field is that there's zero way to establish "reasonable certainty" of revenue. It'd be interesting to hear what type of presentation of a case they could come up with, but the reality is that this would be very difficult to establish. Secondly their contract would have had to have been written such that they were the legal owners of the contract and not Sony, which they are no longer affiliated with. I dont deal with entertainment industry contracts but in my field there are ways you can call into question the validity of multiparty contracts (with they were in partnership at the time with Sony) in the case the signatory parties dissolve union, unless there were specific clauses in contact to outline what happens in the case of dissolution of partnership.

lezama said:

leadline said:

Hilarious, obviously Prince new, otherwise this would not have been released for free. With nothing being put up for sale, and no money being received, not sure how any lawsuit could stand up in court.

I think emesem's point was that that wouldnt necessarily exonerate him of any damages or loss of revenue from investments made by Cherry. Because of the type of case they're presenting they'll have to prove this loss or damage, which I think would also be very difficult to prove in court as they'd firstly have to demonstrate that there has in fact been a loss. And not a loss of invested money in production and song writing, but in the expected recouperation of those costs through loss of record sales. They would likely try to do it on the basis of transaction pricing per download, BUT any good lawyer would be able to prove that the conditions of this particular case are outside the scope of any guarantee of purchase. The problem with expectation damages in this field is that there's zero way to establish "reasonable certainty" of revenue. It'd be interesting to hear what type of presentation of a case they could come up with, but the reality is that this would be very difficult to establish. Secondly their contract would have had to have been written such that they were the legal owners of the contract and not Sony, which they are no longer affiliated with. I dont deal with entertainment industry contracts but in my field there are ways you can call into question the validity of multiparty contracts (with they were in partnership at the time with Sony) in the case the signatory parties dissolve union, unless there were specific clauses in contact to outline what happens in the case of dissolution of partnership.

I just got my hand on the complaint, so I'll revise my last statement once I see the details.

I think we would all need to know a lot more about Judith's deal and what happened after she signed it, to make any judgment about anything.

What I am getting from all the he said/ she said commentary makes it sound to me like: she did sign the restrictive contract, but even that contract had some obligations on the part of the label, and the label did not meet them.

So is she justified in severing the contract and relationship with Jolene Cherry? Well... she certainly seems to think so. Jolene Cherry thinks otherwise. We'd need to see the deal to know for sure.

Furthermore, if she was in record label hell and Prince felt sympathetic and decided this would help her, and went ahead & released music, for free, is he in trouble? It depends on whether that first question is answered true or false. If the label has no standing to enforce the contract, she can work with anybody. If it is a valid contract, and Prince was warned to step off and didn't, then he could be guilty of "tortuous infringement."

During the 80s/ 90s you would sometimes hear about bands that were signed and then "shelved", kept under contract for years with no releases, no money, no nothing. The people who were able to get out of that seemed to be the ones that could prove the label fell short of its own obligations, thus breaching the contract.

We'll see how it plays out.

lezama said:

lezama said:

I think emesem's point was that that wouldnt necessarily exonerate him of any damages or loss of revenue from investments made by Cherry. Because of the type of case they're presenting they'll have to prove this loss or damage, which I think would also be very difficult to prove in court as they'd firstly have to demonstrate that there has in fact been a loss. And not a loss of invested money in production and song writing, but in the expected recouperation of those costs through loss of record sales. They would likely try to do it on the basis of transaction pricing per download, BUT any good lawyer would be able to prove that the conditions of this particular case are outside the scope of any guarantee of purchase. The problem with expectation damages in this field is that there's zero way to establish "reasonable certainty" of revenue. It'd be interesting to hear what type of presentation of a case they could come up with, but the reality is that this would be very difficult to establish. Secondly their contract would have had to have been written such that they were the legal owners of the contract and not Sony, which they are no longer affiliated with. I dont deal with entertainment industry contracts but in my field there are ways you can call into question the validity of multiparty contracts (with they were in partnership at the time with Sony) in the case the signatory parties dissolve union, unless there were specific clauses in contact to outline what happens in the case of dissolution of partnership.

I just got my hand on the complaint, so I'll revise my last statement once I see the details.

So Cherry does seem to have inherited the rights to the contract with Hill from Sony after the dissolution of the partnership. I don't think they have much of a case on expectation damages, but they've also asked for "exeplary and punitive damages" (which is basically a way of asking the court to make an example of someone) based on Prince's wonton disrespect for contract law.. There are pieces missing though that won't be seen until there's a formal response.

[Edited 3/30/15 17:35pm]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Eye love how is stirring up controvery in the muziq industry again! Like he did with his GROUNDBREAKING emancipation from WbR! Then his including his platinum cd "Musicology" with ticket sells. Also with the "Planet Earth" MEGA newspaper giveaway. LOVE IT! He is brilliant.

You mean Emancipation? Don't forget the capital E. Also, it is "sales" and not "sells". Oh and let's not forget "Controversy" and not "controvery". But I bet you will probably go back and correct it. I feel sorry for people who can't put a correct sentence together. I pray for them 2 B delivered from their evil ways.

This is TMZ trying to be the National Enquirer of the 21st Century

BTW... never work with Prince or use Prince related material when making an Artistical movement of your own... His input kills careers... look what happened to Sinead O'Connor... Chaka got mad!

Kobe said:

BartVanHemelen said:

jwar said:

You can't keep true musicians and artists unproductive for over a year. As someone else on the forum said, "Artists gotta eat too."

.

Prince did so with Margie Cox. Locked her in a contract. Oh,a nd this was happening at the same time Prince was whining about WBR holding him to the contract he signed.

.

.

Only an idiot wouldn't know about that.

.

Don't let Judith's talent rot in a cell somewhere.

.

What talent? She's a bland background singer.

I did not get that from a recent interview that I read from Ms. Cox...

WB was the "parent company" of that label..So, it the boss of the label is having problem with the parent-company.... Folks careers may be stalled..

Non-disclosure clauses don't pay the bills.. So, I doubt that he could waste time and $ suing Cox, Rosie and all of these others.. Is he "The Godfather"?

Linn4days said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

What talent? She's a bland background singer.

I did not get that from a recent interview that I read from Ms. Cox...

.

Source:

.

In the early '90s, she recorded more than 25 songs with Prince for a band to be called M.C. Flash. An album never was released, but one Margie Cox track, "Standing at the Altar," was featured on a Paisley Park compilation CD, "1-800-NEW-FUNK" in '94.
[....]
Starting in 1990, she worked with Prince for a couple of years but remained under contract until '96 -- and didn't see much in the way of royalties.
[...]
As for her Prince experience, she said, "it's a sob story again, but at the same time I feel strong. It didn't get me down; it didn't make me quit."
On the liner notes to "Margie's Little Demo," she says "thanks but no thanks to Jesse and Prince." The CD's graphic designer encouraged her to keep that left-handed compliment.

.

Source:

.

I was always under contract to Prince (during the time she recorded with him). My lawyer said let's just try to get to out of this and move on. Prince didn't want to let me go.

.

WRT:

.

WB was the "parent company" of that label..So, it the boss of the label is having problem with the parent-company.... Folks careers may be stalled..

.

PPR was dissolved in early 1994, from then on in was just prince and NPG Records.

.

But I get it, you don't want to admit Prince did EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT. Poor little Princey is innocent, it's the bad men that tell dirty stories about him.

SoulAlive said:

Kobe said:

BTW... never work with Prince or use Prince related material when making an Artistical movement of your own... His input kills careers... look what happened to Sinead O'Connor... Chaka got mad!

If Judith Hill wants to have a lengthy career

.

Girl wants to be famous. That's why she went on The Voice.

No..

I read another interview here, in which she did not say much about it, and said that she made some mistakes in her career...

Maybe, its both..

Either way, if Mr. Nelson did some shady stuff to me, I'm remaining consistently upset publicly as possible. If we go to court..Let's go.. If its not worth the trouble to continue to explain, maybe she feels its not.

Rosie: She returned for the 1999 Remixes, and TV show back then. Again, mostly Jill Jones is consistent...Wendy & Lisa returned for The Brit Awards..

Parent Company: Warner Brothers could've signed her away from Prince---much like Sony kept Bow Wow, Jagged Edge, and a few other of his groups. He mentioned what was going to happen around 2002 in a music article, but did not mention the parent company to So So Def Records at the time. He only left Sony/Columbia with Da Brat, but not there other more sucessful acts back then.. He had all of them signed to Sony/Columbia through him and So So Def...

Even so, he gave her a platform to shine. Pro teams release ball players...Fast Food Restaurants fire people... Everybody's parents began buying import goods and cars in the 80s, and it cost this country grately.. It cost jobs. Nobody is screaming online about these losses..

BartVanHemelen said:

Linn4days said:

.

WRT:

.

WB was the "parent company" of that label..So, it the boss of the label is having problem with the parent-company.... Folks careers may be stalled..

.

PPR was dissolved in early 1994, from then on in was just prince and NPG Records.

.

But I get it, you don't want to admit Prince did EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT. Poor little Princey is innocent, it's the bad men that tell dirty stories about him.

This is just another "experiment" by Prince.

He knew what he was getting himself into when she walked through the studio door.

[img:$uid]http://i59.tinypic.com/ngy4p0.jpg[/img:$uid]

Linn4days said:

Parent Company: Warner Brothers could've signed her away from Prince

.

Why are you MAKING UP STUFF?

antonb said: