independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > If this is true, Prince died without his masters.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/04/16 7:46pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

If this is true, Prince died without his masters.




Hey.

First time posting here since he passed. Talking about him is still difficult. Anyway, not too long ago there was a site called princeonlinemuseum.com. It's closed now, but for a breif time you could explore all of Prince's websites from the first to the last.

I was exploring one of the earlier beta versions of NPGMC..I think (..I wasn't a fan yet then.), and as I scrolled through a section called "Ask prince" something moved me to screen capture the seventh question (probably the sense that the site wouldn't be around long)...


7: ?: when are you gonna release you're re-recorded catalog of past albums?

prince:
There is a major issue of concern 4 ALL artists with this so-called "work4hire" situation. Starting in 2013, eye will start getting THE PRINCE MASTERS back one by one, every year, under current copyright law. Some people who wish 2 rob artists of this right, r seeking 2 disrupt this. If u would like 2 know more and b a part of the movement 2 stop this act...watch r site: www.NPGOnlineLTD.com cuz it's ON!

~

A few things before I go on:

  1. Prince is the reason I became a musician.
  2. I never paid attention to intellectual property rights until I began listening to Prince.
  3. I'm no lawyer but I have studied Music Business

(which is another way of saying I have at least some insight)

Lets go back to the 90s real quick though (older orgers help. I was 7 when all this was starting up)..

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 specifics

Advances for future releases

Prince'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 Records

A 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).

Publishing

The 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 fee

Noteworthy is that Prince did not receive a signing fee, unlike Michael Jackson and Madonna.

The reporting

Prince's own entourage seemed pleased with the deal:

"We are extremely satisfied with the deal," said Gilbert Davison, president of Prince's Paisley Park Enterprises. "Prince has been with Warners since 1978. It's nice to know that they still see him as such a valuable asset."

Davison negotiated the pact with Paisley Park Vice President Jill Wills and Los Angeles entertainment attorney Gary Stiffelman. Representatives for Prince and Warner declined to discuss details of the contract, which has been in the works for more than a year.

However, the size of the deal was almost immediately disputed:

Not only were key officers at Warner Bros. surprised when Prince's publicists issued a press release Thursday announcing the pact, but they were "dismayed" — in the words of one Warner official — by the claim that it was the biggest deal in record industry history.

Without denying the Prince deal is one of the "four or five biggest" in the record industry, insiders claim the total figure is based largely on projected revenue — not guaranteed income.

Prince's lawyers were confident:

Gary Stiffelman, an entertainment attorney at the Los Angeles firm Ziffren, Brittenham and Branca, declined to discuss details of the contract, but dismissed allegations of self-promotion. Stiffelman negotiated the contract for Prince along with Gilbert Davison, president of Paisley Park Enterprises, Prince's Minneapolis record company.

Fred Goodman claims that Prince's lawyers received a phone call from Warner Bros.:

A source involved in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says that even Warners executives telephoned Prince's lawyers after the agreement was announced to ask how the contract could be worth so much. One published report put the actual value of the deal closer to $30 million, while others have speculated that the most he can earn is $10 million per album.

Prince's lawyer points out a difference between Prince and other artists:

Mr. Stiffleman also views Prince as unusually prolific. In the time between Michael Jackson's 1987 release of Bad and last year's Dangerous, for example, Prince released four albums. "Together, they sold as well as Bad, and I'd wager they were more profitable," says Mr. Stiffleman.

Jon Bream managed to get an on the record response from a Warner Bros. VP:

"It looks like we're giving him the farm. It's a generous deal, but it's a realistic deal as well," saidBob Merlis, Warner Bros. vice president of publicity. "If his sales continue the way they have forDiamonds and Pearls (his current album, which has sold 5.8 million copies), we're all going to make money from the deal. If they go up appreciably, obviously he'll make a lot more money." Merlis would not confirm the amount of the contract, but Prince's managers released some details in a news release Thursday.

Bream also compares sales figures:

Since 1983, Madonna has made eight albums with combined worldwide sales of 76 million, or an average of 9.5 million each. Her bestseller is 1986's True Blue, with 17 million. Since 1979, the prolific Prince has released an album a year for Warner Bros. These 13 albums have sold nearly 53 million, or an average of 4.1 million each; his bestseller is 1984's Purple Rain, 14.7 million. Two of Jackson's four solo albums, Thriller and Bad, have combined sales of 73 million.

in short: "Prince"® OWNS nothing. Money on Loan. Term to be extended until recoupment.



FastForward. PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 35)wises up and becomes prince



FastFoward. WB releases prince (age 38) from contract, but retains ownership of "Prince"® Masters.



FastForward. prince changes his name back to PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 42) (
perhaps, because he can't reinherit copyrighted property as anyone other than the man who signed the 1979 contract ie: Prince).



FastForward. PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 55) re-signs with the ONLY boss he's worked for since 1979...WARNERBROS RECORDS in 2013(2014?)

..if prince '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. sad

copyright law is kinda set in stone. at best he owned "For You" and "Prince". One would hope he was able to negociate a full inhertance, but I'm afraid he odds are against this when you consider the history of the record industry.

According to the buzz 2 years ago "Prince"® was pleased with the new deal he was able to negociate, but so was Prince in 1992 and 1979.. it's how PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 20) got in this mess.



chances are even his new contract came with several stipulations given the long-standing nature of the business.. something "Prince"® may have sought to fulfill with a series of albums delievered in PHASES..


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®.

and how many black musicians can you name who died owning their intellectual property?..

..don't get me started on Sam



~

FINAL NOTE: It breaks my heart to consider the gravity of this enough to even type about it, but if I were going to share this with anyone, it'd be the same site I found when I first starting asking myself "..who is this Prince guy?..what's his story?..". I know it's alot. Thanks for reading. And thanks for existing prince.org

rose

[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
Reply #1 posted 08/04/16 8:09pm

laurarichardso
n

AndrePatrone said:

Hey.

First time posting here since he passed. Talking about him is still difficult. Anyway, not too long ago there was a site called princeonlinemuseum.com. It's closed now, but for a breif time you could explore all of Prince's websites from the first to the last.

I was exploring one of the earlier beta versions of NPGMC..I think (..I wasn't a fan yet then.), and as I scrolled through a section called "Ask prince" something moved me to screen capture the seventh question (probably the sense that the site wouldn't be around long)...





7: ?: when are you gonna release you're re-recorded catalog of past albums?

prince:
There is a major issue of concern 4 ALL artists with this so-called "work4hire" situation. Starting in 2013, eye will start getting THE PRINCE MASTERS back one by one, every year, under current copyright law. Some people who wish 2 rob artists of this right, r seeking 2 disrupt this. If u would like 2 know more and b a part of the movement 2 stop this act...watch r site: www.NPGOnlineLTD.com cuz it's ON!



~

A few things before I go on:


  1. Prince is the reason I became a musician.

  2. I never paid attention to intellectual property rights until I began listening to Prince.

  3. I'm no lawyer but I have studied Music Business

(which is another way of saying I have at least some insight)

Lets go back to the 90s real quick (older orgers help. I was 7 when all this was starting up)..





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 specifics


Advances for future releases


Prince'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 Records


A 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).


Publishing


The 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 fee


Noteworthy is that Prince did not receive a signing fee, unlike Michael Jackson and Madonna.


The reporting


Prince's own entourage seemed pleased with the deal:



"We are extremely satisfied with the deal," said Gilbert Davison, president of Prince's Paisley Park Enterprises. "Prince has been with Warners since 1978. It's nice to know that they still see him as such a valuable asset."


Davison negotiated the pact with Paisley Park Vice President Jill Wills and Los Angeles entertainment attorney Gary Stiffelman. Representatives for Prince and Warner declined to discuss details of the contract, which has been in the works for more than a year.



However, the size of the deal was almost immediately disputed:



Not only were key officers at Warner Bros. surprised when Prince's publicists issued a press release Thursday announcing the pact, but they were "dismayed" — in the words of one Warner official — by the claim that it was the biggest deal in record industry history.


Without denying the Prince deal is one of the "four or five biggest" in the record industry, insiders claim the total figure is based largely on projected revenue — not guaranteed income.



Prince's lawyers were confident:



Gary Stiffelman, an entertainment attorney at the Los Angeles firm Ziffren, Brittenham and Branca, declined to discuss details of the contract, but dismissed allegations of self-promotion. Stiffelman negotiated the contract for Prince along with Gilbert Davison, president of Paisley Park Enterprises, Prince's Minneapolis record company.



Fred Goodman claims that Prince's lawyers received a phone call from Warner Bros.:



A source involved in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says that even Warners executives telephoned Prince's lawyers after the agreement was announced to ask how the contract could be worth so much. One published report put the actual value of the deal closer to $30 million, while others have speculated that the most he can earn is $10 million per album.



Prince's lawyer points out a difference between Prince and other artists:



Mr. Stiffleman also views Prince as unusually prolific. In the time between Michael Jackson's 1987 release of Bad and last year's Dangerous, for example, Prince released four albums. "Together, they sold as well as Bad, and I'd wager they were more profitable," says Mr. Stiffleman.



Jon Bream managed to get an on the record response from a Warner Bros. VP:



"It looks like we're giving him the farm. It's a generous deal, but it's a realistic deal as well," saidBob Merlis, Warner Bros. vice president of publicity. "If his sales continue the way they have forDiamonds and Pearls (his current album, which has sold 5.8 million copies), we're all going to make money from the deal. If they go up appreciably, obviously he'll make a lot more money." Merlis would not confirm the amount of the contract, but Prince's managers released some details in a news release Thursday.



Bream also compares sales figures:



Since 1983, Madonna has made eight albums with combined worldwide sales of 76 million, or an average of 9.5 million each. Her bestseller is 1986's True Blue, with 17 million. Since 1979, the prolific Prince has released an album a year for Warner Bros. These 13 albums have sold nearly 53 million, or an average of 4.1 million each; his bestseller is 1984's Purple Rain, 14.7 million. Two of Jackson's four solo albums, Thriller and Bad, have combined sales of 73 million.




[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
Reply #2 posted 08/04/16 8:34pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

.

[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
Reply #3 posted 08/04/16 8:42pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

laurarichardson said:

AndrePatrone said:

// What does this have to do with Prince getting his masters back in 2014.

I accidently posted too early. it's been awhile boxed

Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/04/16 8:44pm

laytonian

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
Reply #5 posted 08/04/16 8:50pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

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?

lol

Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/04/16 9:26pm

tish9311

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
Reply #7 posted 08/04/16 10:05pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

First, that's way too long to read, so I skipped it.

Second, Prince got his masters back from WB in 2014. In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that. You really need to read more, and not read into anything. The truth is here on the Org, so you need to start digging.

Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/04/16 10:51pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

First, that's way too long to read, so I skipped it.

Second, Prince got his masters back from WB in 2014. In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that. You really need to read more, and not read into anything. The truth is here on the Org, so you need to start digging.

how do you know i need to read more if my post was too long for you to read? confuse 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
Reply #9 posted 08/04/16 10:54pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

First, that's way too long to read, so I skipped it.

Second, Prince got his masters back from WB in 2014. In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that. You really need to read more, and not read into anything. The truth is here on the Org, so you need to start digging.

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.

I'm not saying I know. The post title begins with If

Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/04/16 11:08pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

AndrePatrone said:


I'm not saying I know. The post title begins with If


It's not true. wave

Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 08/05/16 1:44am

BartVanHemelen

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that.

.

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
Reply #12 posted 08/05/16 2:26am

laurarichardso
n

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
Reply #13 posted 08/05/16 4:33am

databank

avatar

BartVanHemelen said:

TrivialPursuit said:

In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that.

.

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.

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
Reply #14 posted 08/05/16 8:01am

roxy831

avatar

databank said:

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.

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
Reply #15 posted 08/05/16 8:31am

Noodled24

AndrePatrone said:


FastForward. prince changes his name back to PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 42) (
perhaps, because he can't reinherit copyrighted property as anyone other than the man who signed the 1979 contract ie: Prince).


I doubt it. He never actually changed his name to prince

I can't say for sure because obviously I haven't seen any of the contracts but I wouldn't be surprised if Prince was able to get his masters back by agreeing to "remasters"

I also wouldn't be surprised if Prince was attempting to fuck WB over one last time by only delivering new albums while subversively allowing Tidal to remaster his catalog and stream it before WB had the opportunity to release them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he took a reduced advance or fee from WB and instead asked for his masters back. I don't think his albums were pulling in millions of dollars, so handing them back early doesn't seem unfeasible.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 08/05/16 8:31am

TrivialPursuit

avatar

BartVanHemelen said:

TrivialPursuit said:

In fact, he started getting them back, because of copyright laws, before that.

.

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.


Oh Bart, but it did!

Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 08/05/16 9:49am

jazzvirtuoso

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
Reply #18 posted 08/05/16 10:10am

Arbwyth

avatar

eek 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? hmm

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
Reply #19 posted 08/05/16 1:53pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

databank said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

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.

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.

https://youtu.be/GS_S88t8ZEE?t=54m30s

Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 08/05/16 2:02pm

TrivialPursuit

avatar

Noodled24 said:

AndrePatrone said:


FastForward. prince changes his name back to PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 42) (
perhaps, because he can't reinherit copyrighted property as anyone other than the man who signed the 1979 contract ie: Prince).


I doubt it. He never actually changed his name to prince

I can't say for sure because obviously I haven't seen any of the contracts but I wouldn't be surprised if Prince was able to get his masters back by agreeing to "remasters"

I also wouldn't be surprised if Prince was attempting to fuck WB over one last time by only delivering new albums while subversively allowing Tidal to remaster his catalog and stream it before WB had the opportunity to release them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he took a reduced advance or fee from WB and instead asked for his masters back. I don't think his albums were pulling in millions of dollars, so handing them back early doesn't seem unfeasible.

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.

In fact, if you'd read not only the Org on this topic, but the inside of a record jacket, you'd see that it's "©2016 NPG Records, under exclusive license to Warner Bros Records". See, that's the switch.

Prince won.

Prince not only got his masters back but now Warner is paying him a license fee to handle the distribution. He could have said "no" to WB, held onto his masters, and put them elsewhere, or just not done diddly with them. Instead, because he's had a working relationship with WB, it was a deal that put Prince in control of the ownership, and still allowed a major record label to act as the distributor for those records. Yet even before that, Dirty Mind, Controversy, 1999, and Purple Rain were remastered by Bernie Grundman himself for release through a deal with Rhino. (We know the Bernie story because an Orger noted that they called Grundman mastering, talked to Bernie himself, and Bernie stated he remastered those particular albums from the master tapes.)

The facts are out there. So instead of coming up with conspiracy theories, or just odd notions, find the truth. It's there, and it's not hard to find. And isn't the truth always more interesting than fiction anyway?

Sorry, it's the Hodgkin's talking.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 08/05/16 5:37pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

Noodled24 said:

AndrePatrone said:


FastForward. prince changes his name back to PRINCE ROGERS NELSON (age 42) (
perhaps, because he can't reinherit copyrighted property as anyone other than the man who signed the 1979 contract ie: Prince).


I doubt it. He never actually changed his name to prince

I can't say for sure because obviously I haven't seen any of the contracts but I wouldn't be surprised if Prince was able to get his masters back by agreeing to "remasters"

I also wouldn't be surprised if Prince was attempting to fuck WB over one last time by only delivering new albums while subversively allowing Tidal to remaster his catalog and stream it before WB had the opportunity to release them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he took a reduced advance or fee from WB and instead asked for his masters back. I don't think his albums were pulling in millions of dollars, so handing them back early doesn't seem unfeasible.

So

1.) I can believe the name change wasn't literal, for one - PRN would cease to recieve royalties if he truly no longer existed as a copyright holder. I can't imagine our guy being too keen on that.

2.) I'm curious - why do you believe agreeing to remaster would be in the interest of Warners during negociatations? Re-releasing remastered versions of albums is indeed lucrative but only in the sense that publishing royalities can be accrued to the original copyright holders. If PRN originally signed away the bulk of his publishing (again, standard in recording contracts..even for an artist of his stature) remasters would only amount to a few pennies more. I can't imagine our guy settling for that. Especially after alienating much of his core-audience and being virtually blacklisted for seeking FULL ownership.

3.) I definitely think part of PRN's interest in Tidal was a FU to Warners, BUT at this present time streaming services account for a bulk of the listening public's consumption of music (see: master recordings). A good peice of evidence for how streaming royalties are negociated is the recent deal between SONY and Spodify.. without typing another book, most of the monies made from streaming is from generated ad revenue attached to the host site. Artists make less from streams then they did from record SALES and even then they only got pennies on a dollar. Streams amount to 0.0000654 cents when you get down to it (obviously not an exact figure - see this link for in depth details), so streaming would only "hurt" Warners if they didn't still own the masters and couldn't cut a deal with TIDAL (or elsewhere) to make up for projected loss. We're talking about a record company with several decades of experience, and one of the last living showmen. His WB albums are arguably worth more now (even before his death) than they ever were considering how hard to find they were. The ad revenue generated from PRN's core would (will sad ) be ..well alot.

and 4.) reduced fee in exchagne for certain lee-ways ..i'll accept that. but again, this industry is generations deep in screwing creatives out of their intellectual property. As a businessman, I ask myself (in WarnerBros place): why wouldn't I cover my ass on all sides

**NOTE 2 ALL FANS READING - I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY WARNERS WON. PRINCE IS MY HERO IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. I'M SAYING I'M AFRAID THEY MAY HAVE, EVEN THOUGH IT'D BE VERY SAD WERE IT TRUE.***

Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 08/05/16 5:38pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

jazzvirtuoso said:

I'll be damned if this isn't one of the best is THE best post, if ever read here on the org!

Thanks. These days I only log in if I think it's worth discussion (and I know only Prince fans will care lol)

Fret not that you frighten or offend. Invite the world to dance and marvel at who joins.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 08/05/16 5:40pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

Arbwyth said:

eek 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? hmm

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.

later in the article they talk about a pit where several negro boys were found frozen to death, having apparently "stumbled/fallen in the pit..and died" confused

[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
Reply #24 posted 08/05/16 5:54pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

databank said:

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.

https://youtu.be/GS_S88t8ZEE?t=54m30s

^^^^

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!"

..but later I had to ask myself why I believed that.

  • Did i hear PRINCE announce it?
  • Did i read it on the internet?
  • Did i actually read the contract?


How do I even know this was any more literal as a HEADLINE as was: "Prince signs $100million deal!"

Mark Twain said: "If you dont read the news you're uninformed, if you do read the news you're MISinformed"

Malcolm X said: "Be careful how you read the newspaper, it will have you celebrating the oppressor and judging the oppressed"

..the only thing that led me to consider the possiblity that (as much as I hate the idea) MY HERO may have not won after all..was a post HE HIMSELF wrote on HIS website at least a decade or two ago.

I promise I'm not trying to kill your faith in the man, but having read several of his bios (which are all hearsay, but give at least some insight), poured through countless interviews, and having also grown passionate about publishing rights and intellectual ownership..I can't pretend as if I'm not concerned.

The words of Anil Dash are nice...but I dont know him any better than I do Per Neilson, Mo Ostin, or Prince Rogers Nelson

What I DO know, however, is not one artist I can think of has died owning his work. Especially in the recording industry and especially black ROCK artists.

Hell, the only reason MJ was so paid was because he had the foresight to purchase and lease out the beatles catalog among others.

We're talking about the life-blood of a dying industry here. If you were in the position to put your children through college on one man's oversight as a youth - why would you just let it slip through your fingers?

**AGAIN: NOTE 2 ALL FANS READING - I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY WARNERS "WON". PRINCE IS MY HERO IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. I'M SAYING I'M AFRAID THEY MAY HAVE, EVEN THOUGH IT'D BE VERY SAD WERE IT TRUE.***

[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
Reply #25 posted 08/05/16 6:05pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

Noodled24 said:


I doubt it. He never actually changed his name to prince

I can't say for sure because obviously I haven't seen any of the contracts but I wouldn't be surprised if Prince was able to get his masters back by agreeing to "remasters"

I also wouldn't be surprised if Prince was attempting to fuck WB over one last time by only delivering new albums while subversively allowing Tidal to remaster his catalog and stream it before WB had the opportunity to release them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he took a reduced advance or fee from WB and instead asked for his masters back. I don't think his albums were pulling in millions of dollars, so handing them back early doesn't seem unfeasible.

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.

In fact, if you'd read not only the Org on this topic, but the inside of a record jacket, you'd see that it's "©2016 NPG Records, under exclusive license to Warner Bros Records". See, that's the switch.

Prince won.

Prince not only got his masters back but now Warner is paying him a license fee to handle the distribution. He could have said "no" to WB, held onto his masters, and put them elsewhere, or just not done diddly with them. Instead, because he's had a working relationship with WB, it was a deal that put Prince in control of the ownership, and still allowed a major record label to act as the distributor for those records. Yet even before that, Dirty Mind, Controversy, 1999, and Purple Rain were remastered by Bernie Grundman himself for release through a deal with Rhino. (We know the Bernie story because an Orger noted that they called Grundman mastering, talked to Bernie himself, and Bernie stated he remastered those particular albums from the master tapes.)

The facts are out there. So instead of coming up with conspiracy theories, or just odd notions, find the truth. It's there, and it's not hard to find. And isn't the truth always more interesting than fiction anyway?

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
Reply #26 posted 08/05/16 6:11pm

AndrePatrone

avatar

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
Reply #27 posted 08/05/16 7:00pm

roxy831

avatar

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 Terminations

Wallace E.J. Collins III

Just 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
Reply #28 posted 08/07/16 5:19am

BartVanHemelen

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

In fact, if you'd read not only the Org on this topic, but the inside of a record jacket, you'd see that it's "©2016 NPG Records, under exclusive license to Warner Bros Records". See, that's the switch.

Prince won.

Prince not only got his masters back but now Warner is paying him a license fee to handle the distribution.

.

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.

.

He could have said "no" to WB, held onto his masters, and put them elsewhere

.

Nope, he didn't have them. That's just you lot making shit up.

.

Yet even before that, Dirty Mind, Controversy, 1999, and Purple Rain were remastered by Bernie Grundman himself for release through a deal with Rhino. (We know the Bernie story because an Orger noted that they called Grundman mastering, talked to Bernie himself, and Bernie stated he remastered those particular albums from the master tapes.)

.

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
Reply #29 posted 08/07/16 5:22am

BartVanHemelen

avatar

TrivialPursuit said:

databank said:

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.

https://youtu.be/GS_S88t8ZEE?t=54m30s

.

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 prince 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
Page 1 of 3 123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > If this is true, Prince died without his masters.