FUNKYNESS said:

Warners has no right to the Vault. Prince delivered everything he "owed" them.

I would not shout that too loud over the rooftops. You might be mistaken.

There are companies which, if you are employed by them, automatically gain legal ownership of the inventions you do (e.g. when you work in a Research and Development department), regardless if the invention is used or not.

That also might be the case with P and his Warner contract.
P has/had intellectual ownership of all music created, released or not, during the duration of his contract with Warner, but Warner might have legal ownership of all his work.

TweetyV6 said:

FUNKYNESS said:

Warners has no right to the Vault. Prince delivered everything he "owed" them.

I would not shout that too loud over the rooftops. You might be mistaken.

There are companies which, if you are employed by them, automatically gain legal ownership of the inventions you do (e.g. when you work in a Research and Development department), regardless if the invention is used or not.

That also might be the case with P and his Warner contract.
P has/had intellectual ownership of all music created, released or not, during the duration of his contract with Warner, but Warner might have legal ownership of all his work.

What a nightmare.

nelcp777 said:

FUNKNROLL said:

nelcp777 said:

What a nightmare.

This is a common challenge of working as a creative. It's usually called a "work for hire" agreement. Emphasis, agreement. Nobody forces you to agree to those terms. But if you do...

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand. Like others, I am curious to the language of the contracts. I guess in theory it is possbile that WB released IP rights to Prince (highly unlikely).

This may explain why Vault releases never materialized. WHo knows. Time will tell.

In regards to the Vault and material, this may be the calm before the storm.

I would like to think with Prince's stance on ownership, IP rights may have been a key language in negotiations.

Am I being to niave?

why does she have so much to say about Prince?

Sinead O'Connor says that the discourse surrounding late singer Prince's musical archive is inappropriate so soon after his sudden death.

"All this public and private discussion of when his unreleased material will come out is sickening. The man is barely even 10 days mourned," O'Connor tells EW and PEOPLE in an email. "It is most uncouth."

O'Connor said that all artists have unreleased material, and that it is a personal choice to keep it from the airwaves. "If we don't release it that's because we didn't like it! We don't want it released," she writes. "The man was generous enough to give away for free any material he was happy to release."

She concludes, "His musical wishes, in my opinion, ought be respected and the material cremated in respect for him."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/sinead-oconnor-calls-speculation-over-princes-unreleased-material-uncouth-after-making-accusations-against-arsenio-hall/ar-BBsBL9I?ocid=spartanntp

OldFriends4Sale said:

why does she have so much to say about Prince?

Sinead O'Connor says that the discourse surrounding late singer Prince's musical archive is inappropriate so soon after his sudden death.

"All this public and private discussion of when his unreleased material will come out is sickening. The man is barely even 10 days mourned," O'Connor tells EW and PEOPLE in an email. "It is most uncouth."

O'Connor said that all artists have unreleased material, and that it is a personal choice to keep it from the airwaves. "If we don't release it that's because we didn't like it! We don't want it released," she writes. "The man was generous enough to give away for free any material he was happy to release."

She concludes, "His musical wishes, in my opinion, ought be respected and the material cremated in respect for him."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/sinead-oconnor-calls-speculation-over-princes-unreleased-material-uncouth-after-making-accusations-against-arsenio-hall/ar-BBsBL9I?ocid=spartanntp

O.k., here's some basic reasoning for Sinead (and others here as well):
I can fully understand that all artists have unreleased material BUT:
If you don't like it, you'll destroy it.
If you don't like it yet, but still have the idea of releasing it in some kind of (re-arranged/alternated) form, you'll keep it somewhere safe.

So I dare to make that statement that material in the Vault was intended for release at some point in time.
Keeping the vault locked for all time would be rediculous.

How did this go three pages?

emesem said:

The Judge just cant decide to give stuff away. However the family may be forced to sell a share of it to someone (most likely a music company who'd insist on control) to get enough cash to pay for their tax bills.

I wonder if Mark Cuban or Elon Musk are fans?

Mark Cuban could be a fan because his tweet was shown by CNN on the day P died.