Author | Message |
If this is true, Prince died without his masters.
7: ?: when are you gonna release you're re-recorded catalog of past albums?
~
(which is another way of saying I have at least some insight)
On 31 August 1992, Prince® signed a new recording contract with Warner Bros. Records worth apotential $100 million. Which was more than several pop mega-deals struck earlier: Madonna's contract with Warners and Michael Jackson's pact with Sony Music, both estimated at $60 million each. The deal was made public on 4 September 1992. The specificsAdvances for future releasesPrince's new contract was an extension of his previous contract. The reconfiguration amounted to a$10 million advance per record — twice that of Jackson's and Madonna's $5 million per album — plus a royalty rate of approximately 20 percent (some sources claim 25 percent) — three times his previous percentage. However, Prince would only get this $10 million advance if the previous album has sold at least 5 million copies, i.e. it is an advance on sales, basically an interest-free loan, which would have to be paid back to the record label if sales were low — actually, deducted from royalties on older albums. An important clause, because while Prince's 13 albums had sold nearly 53 million, an average of 4.1 million each, a large chunk of that is due to 1984's Purple Rain, his bestseller at 14.7 million. As a matter of fact, only three of his albums had sold more than 5 million copies, though one of those was his latest album, Diamonds & Pearls. This large advance was regarded as an attempt by Warner Bros. to motivate Prince to invest the same effort into future releases as he'd done for Diamonds & Pearls: releasing albums less frequently and promoting them heavily via singles, videos and extensive touring. Prince's sales had been inconsistent, especially in the United States; whereas Madonna had never sold fewer than 5 million copies of any recording, Prince's Lovesexy in 1988 sold less than 1.7 million. Paisley Park RecordsA further $20 million was used to make Paisley Park Records a joint venture with Warner Bros., which would force Prince to become more involved in the running of the label. Whereas previously Paisley Park Records would simply supply the master recordings to Warners who would then manufacture, distribute and promote the releases, now the label would decide on what to invest in videos and promotional efforts. Warners and Prince would share investments and profits. Some reports also mention an additional joint venture record label, possibly for singles (tentative name: Love). PublishingThe final $20 million involved another advance, this time by Warner/Chappel music publishers. Part of which was a new three-year agreement between Prince's music publishing company,Controversy Music, and Warner/Chappel Music for the handling of his copyrights worldwide. Another agreement would involve Prince and Warners actively looking for new talent. This was cited as the reason why Warner Bros. Records named him a vice president of artists and repertoire and gave him an office in its L.A. headquarters. However, it is assumed that Prince only wanted this position in order to acquire Time Warner stock options. No signing feeNoteworthy is that Prince did not receive a signing fee, unlike Michael Jackson and Madonna. The reportingPrince's own entourage seemed pleased with the deal:
However, the size of the deal was almost immediately disputed:
Prince's lawyers were confident:
Fred Goodman claims that Prince's lawyers received a phone call from Warner Bros.:
Prince's lawyer points out a difference between Prince and other artists:
Jon Bream managed to get an on the record response from a Warner Bros. VP:
Bream also compares sales figures:
in short: "Prince"® OWNS nothing. Money on Loan. Term to be extended until recoupment.
..if 's answer to the anonymous question at the start of this post (written in 98-99 from the looks of it) is correct...our hero may have passed at 57 without FULLY reclaiming what he fought most of his life for.
Truth is, none of us can ever know because we'll never be permitted to read the contracts between PRINCE ROGERS NELSON and WarnerBros Records®.
[Edited 8/4/16 21:12pm] Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AndrePatrone said: Hey.
7: ?: when are you gonna release you're re-recorded catalog of past albums?
~
(which is another way of saying I have at least some insight) On 31 August 1992, Prince signed a new recording contract with Warner Bros. Records worth apotential $100 million. Which was more than several pop mega-deals struck earlier: Madonna's contract with Warners and Michael Jackson's pact with Sony Music, both estimated at $60 million each. The deal was made public on 4 September 1992. The specificsAdvances for future releasesPrince's new contract was an extension of his previous contract. The reconfiguration amounted to a$10 million advance per record — twice that of Jackson's and Madonna's $5 million per album — plus a royalty rate of approximately 20 percent (some sources claim 25 percent) — three times his previous percentage. However, Prince would only get this $10 million advance if the previous album has sold at least 5 million copies, i.e. it is an advance on sales, basically an interest-free loan, which would have to be paid back to the record label if sales were low — actually, deducted from royalties on older albums. An important clause, because while Prince's 13 albums had sold nearly 53 million, an average of 4.1 million each, a large chunk of that is due to 1984's Purple Rain, his bestseller at 14.7 million. As a matter of fact, only three of his albums had sold more than 5 million copies, though one of those was his latest album, Diamonds & Pearls. This large advance was regarded as an attempt by Warner Bros. to motivate Prince to invest the same effort into future releases as he'd done for Diamonds & Pearls: releasing albums less frequently and promoting them heavily via singles, videos and extensive touring. Prince's sales had been inconsistent, especially in the United States; whereas Madonna had never sold fewer than 5 million copies of any recording, Prince's Lovesexy in 1988 sold less than 1.7 million. Paisley Park RecordsA further $20 million was used to make Paisley Park Records a joint venture with Warner Bros., which would force Prince to become more involved in the running of the label. Whereas previously Paisley Park Records would simply supply the master recordings to Warners who would then manufacture, distribute and promote the releases, now the label would decide on what to invest in videos and promotional efforts. Warners and Prince would share investments and profits. Some reports also mention an additional joint venture record label, possibly for singles (tentative name: Love). PublishingThe final $20 million involved another advance, this time by Warner/Chappel music publishers. Part of which was a new three-year agreement between Prince's music publishing company,Controversy Music, and Warner/Chappel Music for the handling of his copyrights worldwide. Another agreement would involve Prince and Warners actively looking for new talent. This was cited as the reason why Warner Bros. Records named him a vice president of artists and repertoire and gave him an office in its L.A. headquarters. However, it is assumed that Prince only wanted this position in order to acquire Time Warner stock options. No signing feeNoteworthy is that Prince did not receive a signing fee, unlike Michael Jackson and Madonna. The reportingPrince's own entourage seemed pleased with the deal:
However, the size of the deal was almost immediately disputed:
Prince's lawyers were confident:
Fred Goodman claims that Prince's lawyers received a phone call from Warner Bros.:
Prince's lawyer points out a difference between Prince and other artists:
Jon Bream managed to get an on the record response from a Warner Bros. VP:
Bream also compares sales figures:
[Edited 8/4/16 19:54pm] // What does this have to do with Prince getting his masters back in 2014. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. [Edited 8/4/16 20:42pm] Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I accidently posted too early. it's been awhile Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Maybe THIS is a good time to remind people that they only need to quote the specific part they are answering and not the entire post? Welcome to "the org", laytonian… come bathe with me. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Love that pic w/ 3rd eye girl. Never seen that before. Beautiful, Loved and Blessed
Thank You Prince | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
First, that's way too long to read, so I skipped it. Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
how do you know i need to read more if my post was too long for you to read? was there something you (didnt) read up there that convinced you i dont read enough? #thanksforreading Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
also, seeing as neither of us have any information beyond articles and quotes from the man himself, I'm not so sure I trust your word that his legally binding contract was without condition. Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. In fact, there is ZERO evidence of this happening. Please point to all those artists who "got their masters back" due to this law: it didn't happen. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laytonian said: Maybe THIS is a good time to remind people that they only need to quote the specific part they are answering and not the entire post? -// Are you stalking me? 😱 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rights reversion isn't automatic, it has to go thru a judge at the artist's request. P didn't get anything back before 2014 AFAIK. A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...scography/ | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Deep, and the Reversion Act states that works have to mature 35 years for the request to be made, but negotiations may start up to 5 years before the 35 year mark. P's family will have to negotiate for each and every project created after 1979 until all have matured. And that's IF there was a provision for the estate's executor to have that power. Wow, that's too much. [Edited 8/5/16 8:05am] Welcome home class. We've come a long way. - RIP Prince | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'll be damned if this isn't one of the best is THE best post, if ever read here on the org! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The third paragraph in that Sam Cooke article is about the effect his death will have on his record company. I mean, I can see including it in the article, but the third paragraph? And I see all of your creations as one perfect complex
No one less beautiful Or more special than the next | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
https://youtu.be/GS_S88t8ZEE?t=54m30s Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Prince didn't agree to remasters just to get his masters back. That's ridiculous. In the early aughts, Prince talked to a reporter, and wondered why his catalog hadn't been remastered yet. He didn't own his shit at that point anyway. Tidal didn't remaster his catalog. Prince's catalog has been on multiple outlets over the years. People can stream shit all day, but true fans want to own the vinyl or CD. He didn't take a reduced fee for anything. He did battle over what WB wanted to pay in the licensing fee vs what he thought was fair. That's why the initial news of the 2014 deal stalled for two years. An amount was being fleshed out. Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thanks. These days I only log in if I think it's worth discussion (and I know only Prince fans will care ) Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yeah thats about as trustworthy as the article my mother saved from when her older brother died in a "freak negro car accident" on christmas in alabama. [Edited 8/5/16 18:12pm] Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^^^^
Great clip. But again I have to ask (as you rightly did of me) how does he know for certain?
When PRN passed the first thing I posted on twitter was "He died owning his masters! He Won!"
[Edited 8/5/16 18:01pm] Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've never seen this jacket. I'm glad you have. Can you scan and post? Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Also, clearance to remaster a master recording is not the same as owning the master recording wholesale. Can you provide some evidence that all original masters from 1979 - 1996 are now the property of PRN as licensed to Warners?
This would be a great relief if you can.. again I'd rather believe what you believe. Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hey all...I came across this a while ago. Does this help? If not, I'm sorry in advance... https://www.linkedin.com/...eader-card Prince Ahead of His Time On Many Things Including His Business Dealings and Copyright TerminationsJust a few years ago the headlines in the music business trades were touting the story that Prince had returned to Warner Brothers Records after 18 years with a revolutionary new deal that would see him regain ownership of his back catalog of recordings. As with all things Prince, it was cutting edge. This Prince/Warner Brothers deal marked a new era as the ability to terminate master recording copyright after 35 years was granted in the Copyright Revision Act of 1976 and became effective in 1978, the year that Prince's debut album came out. It seems that just as the record business has been staggering back to its feet after the digital assault started by Napster over a decade ago, another hard blow to the record industry business model is starting to have ripple effects. Recording artists and songwriters from 1978 and after are now entitled to start terminating their contractual transfers and demanding back their copyrights. The 1976 Copyright Act, in a provision that has generally been overlooked until now, provides for the termination of copyright transfers. Even if an artist or songwriter signed a contract with a record company or music publisher that purports to transfer all rights in a work in perpetuity, the Copyright Act provides that the author can terminate that grant and demand that the rights revert to the author in a shorter period of time. This is a great opportunity for artists and songwriters to get a second bite at the apple, so to speak, and get a better share of the income earned from their creative works. Prince was on top of his game. Generally speaking, for copyright grants made on or after January 1, 1978 (the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act) the termination period is 35 years under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. For pre-1978 works the termination period is 56 years after copyright was originally secured under Section 304. For grants on or after 1978, termination may be exercised anytime during a 5 year period beginning at the end of 35 years from the execution of the grant or, if the grant concerns the right of publication of the work, then the period begins on the sooner of 35 years after publication or 40 years after execution of the grant. Although there are certain formalities which must be complied with to effectuate transfer, this essentially means that recording artists and songwriters can start exercising their right of termination as soon as 2013 – which may effectively decimate many record company and music publishing catalogs. Back when the 1976 Copyright Act was drafted few could envision a world where the artists might not need the record companies to finance, manufacture, promote, store and distribute their records. Back then the expectation was that, although any particular artist could exercise the termination right, what would effectively happen is that the label and artist would simply be forced to renegotiate a deal to continue working together. Now in the digital age, however, this is no longer true. Any artist can demand back their masters and then simply offer them on their own website or license the rights to an online aggregator with little or no expense. This is particularly true in the case of catalog recordings since the artist would not even need the record company to finance the recording costs. The more digital the music business becomes the more obsolete the large record labels become for established artists. High profile artists with already established fan bases and large catalogs such as Prince, Blondie, the Cars, Bruce Springsteen and others probably have no need for much in the way of advertising and marketing of their recordings, and certainly no need for manufacturing, distributing or warehousing of the product. Simple ownership and possession of the digitized masters would be sufficient. There is one scenario that does bode well for record companies in that it may steer even established artists to follow the renegotiation route as Prince has done. Those familiar with record contracts know that, unlike song publishing contracts which generally provide for the assignment and transfer of a song copyright to the publisher, most record contracts provide that the sound recording is created as a “work for hire” for the record label. Under the 1976 Copyright Act the termination provision is not applicable to a genuine work for hire grant. However, this does not preclude recording artists from exercising their right of termination. Just a few years ago I litigated a case where the Court held that a sound recording does not qualify as a work for hire. Without getting into all the applicable legal employer/employee issues involved, there is a great deal of case law which addresses the subject of “work for hire” and holds that whether a work created by an employee is a work for hire or not depends on various factors other than just the language of the contract. This area of law is ripe for litigation by recording artists who want to exercise their termination rights where the facts suggest that no genuine work for hire relationship ever existed. Although the landmark case has yet to be fought, from what I have seen it appears that in most cases the artist would prevail over the record company on this point. However, artist like Prince as well as label executives have also realized that the wiser course may be to negotiate the reversions and retain control of issuing artists' catalog eligible for copyright terminations. The termination rights of an artist or songwriter are generally subject to a 5 year window. Termination must be made effective within the termination window or the right to terminate the grant is forfeited. To be effective, the artist or songwriter must serve a written notice of termination on the original record company or publisher (or its successor) no more than 10 and no less than 2 years prior to the effective date stated in the notice. The notice of termination must state the effective date of termination. Perfection of the termination requires that a copy of the written notice also be filed with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination Although the termination rights of an artist under the 1976 Copyright Act would only be effective for the U.S. territory, the size of the U.S. consumer market for recorded music still makes this a valuable right to reclaim. However, what is good for the artist might further erode the influence of the major record labels and prove detrimental to the industry in the future, so labels would be well advised to start planning for the onslaught and try to forge deals like Prince has done with Warner Brothers. Wallace Collins is a New York lawyer specializing in entertainment, copyright, trademark and internet law. He was a recording artist for Epic Records before attending Fordham LawSchool. T:(212) 661-3656 / www.wallacecollins.com Welcome home class. We've come a long way. - RIP Prince | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. Says you. Zero evidence of this. Know what that credit tells me: Prince gained control over his masters in exchange for WBR getting exclusive access to them for X amount of years, with likely a bunch of other contractual obligations in place. So Prince won zilch, because he still couldn't do shit with his masters. .
. Nope, he didn't have them. That's just you lot making shit up. .
. So? © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. Oh please, Anil Dash is a fanboi and has often posted outright bullshit. Dude is king of the happy happy crowd. Always has excuses for whatever shite Prince was pulling. His "Prince was a geek" propaganda is just ridiculous and can easily be disputed by pointing to the ENDLESS LIST OF LAWSUITS Prince started against websites for such nonsense as photos of people showing their tattoos. © Bart Van Hemelen
This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. It is not authorized by Prince or the NPG Music Club. You assume all risk for your use. All rights reserved. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |