I do not know the legal details of this but...

The Dance Electric for example: the masters of André's cut belong to Sony-BMG, unless André's gotten them back, IDK whether the rereleases were licenced from Sony or if he got 'em back somehow, but...

LTWBD also belongs to Sony-BMG, since Martika was a Sony artist at the time.

All those classic songs such as Sugar Walls, Manic Monday, Telepathy and so on were given to artists that were signed on what is now Sony-BMG or Universal. Many others, such as Sticky Wicked or Shhh were with WB artists, which may make things easier... that is if the estate maintains a relationship with WB, and we don't know that.

So those labels own the masters. The rerecorded songs ain't no issue, but the ones where the artist sang over P's backing tracks... That's more complicated.

The masters of P's versions share the backing tracks. Therefore I doubt the estate can use them freely unless they work with the label in question.

Of course things can be licenced, maybe the way a sample would, maybe it involves more than an automatic sampling licence, but deals can be cut.

But that promises to be complicated.

IDK if there's been any precedent, but I'd love to hear it if anyone know more about the legalities of such things.

One thing is certain: those songs can't be released freely, arrangements of some sort will have to be made.

NorthC said:

NorthC said:

I don't know man... Isn't it about who wrote the songs? Nothing Compares 2 U doesn't belong to Sinead O'Connor, it belongs to Prince and he performed and released it. I don't see why things would be any different with the songs you mention.

The difference being that Sinead's Nothing Compares was a cover with no input by Prince, whereas the other songs mentioned are the actual Prince recordings without his vocals.

Excellent points db, it would be difficult. But, not impossible:

https://www.discogs.com/V...se/2446949

databank said:

airth said:

NorthC said:

I don't know man... Isn't it about who wrote the songs? Nothing Compares 2 U doesn't belong to Sinead O'Connor, it belongs to Prince and he performed and released it. I don't see why things would be any different with the songs you mention.

The difference being that Sinead's Nothing Compares was a cover with no input by Prince, whereas the other songs mentioned are the actual Prince recordings without his vocals.

Indeed. I'm surprised NorthC, who's been here for a long while, doesn't know yet the difference between the ownership of a musical composition and the ownership of a sound recording (the infamous "masters").

djThunderfunk said:

Excellent points db, it would be difficult. But, not impossible:

https://www.discogs.com/V...se/2446949

Licencing tracks for compilations is common practice. Here the issue is a little more complex because it's about licencing parts of a song. The tricky thing is the estate own Prince's vocals while various companies own the backing tracks for the songs. But of course with some good wiçll from both parties there's nothing that can't be solved.

laurarichardson said:

NorthC said:

I don't know man... Isn't it about who wrote the songs? Nothing Compares 2 U doesn't belong to Sinead O'Connor, it belongs to Prince and he performed and released it. I don't see why things would be any different with the songs you mention.

--- Not sure if any of those companies can stop the original tracks with Prince's voice on them from being released because his estate is the copyright holder. I do believe he turned in music to WB that have in their vault and I wonder what is going to become of that material.

Like I said above the estate basically own the vocal tracks while various labels own the intrumental tracks. The estate is free to release Prince's vocals from Love Thy Will Be Done over a different instrumental track, but they need to work with Sony-BMG is they want to use the backing tracks that Martika used.

As an aside I've been playing that long Dance Electric rehearsal that was released online as a kind of promo for the Welcome 2 Australia Tour in 2012 "White Girls! Black Girls! Australians!" and it's pretty great. It's probably the closest to an official release as we'll get for awhile.

oceancrayon said:

problem is none of those people know what to release

oceancrayon said:

Um no, sony only owns the rights to the specific version recording of those artists vocals. Any other versions (i.e. Prince singing) would be considered an alternate recording therefore belonging to NPG regardless if the only difference is a fucking tambourine. Recording companies only "own" very specific versions of songs, not the song's individual parts itself literally.

No way. An alternate recording has to be another recording.

U can't even sample 2 secs of a song and get away with it without a sample licence (unless u don't get caught) and u think u gon' get away with a whole backing track? Good luck with that

NorthC said:

oceancrayon said:

Um no, sony only owns the rights to the specific version recording of those artists vocals. Any other versions (i.e. Prince singing) would be considered an alternate recording therefore belonging to NPG regardless if the only difference is a fucking tambourine. Recording companies only "own" very specific versions of songs, not the song's individual parts itself literally.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. You just said it better. Don't worry, I know the difference between publishing rights and master tapes!

Then ur example (Sinead) was awfully chosen as it didn't illustrate the point at all.

Not trying to bring u down BTW (sayin' this because of the anti-me campaigns I've been facing from some people), u've always been super cool in my book and we've never had an argument as far as I can remember

Our main issue seems to be that we have no real idea on the legalities of Prince's various songs do we? Was just reading this and it makes the point that so much of his catalog is probably covered by many different competing and conflicting copyright laws.

Ultimately we all know good compilations for other artists have overcome these issues in the past so I just hope that any reissues will have a decent team working on them who know what they are doing both in terms of sourcing the songs and also in terms of cutting throught any red tape.

jaawwnn said:

Our main issue seems to be that we have no real idea on the legalities of Prince's various songs do we? Was just reading this and it makes the point that so much of his catalog is probably covered by many different competing and conflicting copyright laws.

Ultimately we all know good compilations for other artists have overcome these issues in the past so I just hope that any reissues will have a decent team working on them who know what they are doing both in terms of sourcing the songs and also in terms of cutting throught any red tape.

Only this article is inaccurate regarding the 2014 WB deal (Prince recovered the entirety of his WB masters, not just the ones older than 35 years). And I'd like to know who are those "many" dead co-writers, too, bacause I can't think of a single one. And Jaimie Starr never "wrote" a song as far as ASCAP was concerned. And obviously this writer doesn't know the difference between ownership of a musical composition and ownership of a master recording because she's treating both as one and the same.

Conclusion: a very uninformative piece of junk written by an amateurish person who wants to look like some specialist when she, in fact, doesn't have a clue about the topic she's addressing.

We have a pretty clear idea of what the ownership of most of the master recordings involving Prince is:

Anything ever released as "Prince", on NPG Records and most of what was released on Paisley Park belongs to NPG Records, with an exclusivity distribution licence with WB for the WB albums for an unspecified duration.

Anything else (songs given to other artists) belongs to the label that released the music in the first place. And it's unlikely the estate will struggle for a share of the masters of those songs when the 35 years limit is reached.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

Our main issue seems to be that we have no real idea on the legalities of Prince's various songs do we? Was just reading this and it makes the point that so much of his catalog is probably covered by many different competing and conflicting copyright laws.

Ultimately we all know good compilations for other artists have overcome these issues in the past so I just hope that any reissues will have a decent team working on them who know what they are doing both in terms of sourcing the songs and also in terms of cutting throught any red tape.

Only this article is inaccurate regarding the 2014 WB deal (Prince recovered the entirety of his WB masters, not just the ones older than 35 years). And I'd like to know who are those "many" dead co-writers, too, bacause I can't think of a single one. And Jaimie Starr never "wrote" a song as far as ASCAP was concerned. And obviously this writer doesn't know the difference between ownership of a musical composition and ownership of a master recording because she's treating both as one and the same.

Conclusion: a very uninformative piece of junk written by an amateurish person who wants to look like some specialist when she, in fact, doesn't have a clue about the topic she's addressing.

Ok.

We have a pretty clear idea of what the ownership of most of the master recordings involving Prince is

Anything ever released as "Prince", on NPG Records and most of what was released on Paisley Park belongs to NPG Records, with an exclusivity distribution licence with WB for the WB albums for an unspecified duration.

Anything else (songs given to other artists) belongs to the label that released the music in the first place. And it's unlikely the estate will struggle for a share of the masters of those songs when the 35 years limit is reached.

Well that last sentence was my only real point and I have to say it'd be a shame if they couldn't be bothered to do that.

[Edited 11/14/16 19:36pm]

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Ok.

We have a pretty clear idea of what the ownership of most of the master recordings involving Prince is

Anything ever released as "Prince", on NPG Records and most of what was released on Paisley Park belongs to NPG Records, with an exclusivity distribution licence with WB for the WB albums for an unspecified duration.

Anything else (songs given to other artists) belongs to the label that released the music in the first place. And it's unlikely the estate will struggle for a share of the masters of those songs when the 35 years limit is reached.

Well that last sentence was my only real point and I have to say it'd be a shame if they couldn't be bothered to do that.

[Edited 11/14/16 19:36pm]

The problem is that they can only get that: a share. The 35 years law is super blurry: who gets a share: the producer, the composer, the performer, the musicians who played on it?

I am convinced that Prince tried to get back the masters from The Time, the 6's and maybe even Sheila from WB in 2014, and failed.

Should the estate claim back the masters from songs by Sheena Easton for example, Sheena herself could also claim the songs are hers. Same with The Time: the bandmembers could say no, it's ours.

Those songs given to others represent little commercial value for the estate to justify long and costly legal battles. Finding an arrangement with labels to use the backing tracks for Prince's own versions is more likely to be easier and less costly.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

The problem is that they can only get that: a share. The 35 years law is super blurry: who gets a share: the producer, the composer, the performer, the musicians who played on it?

I am convinced that Prince tried to get back the masters from The Time, the 6's and maybe even Sheila from WB in 2014, and failed.

Should the estate claim back the masters from songs by Sheena Easton for example, Sheena herself could also claim the songs are hers. Same with The Time: the bandmembers could say no, it's ours.

Those songs given to others represent little commercial value for the estate to justify long and costly legal battles. Finding an arrangement with labels to use the backing tracks for Prince's own versions is more likely to be easier and less costly.

Yeah I hear you re: Prince's own versions being probably an easier path.

Honestly though, the way I read it the copyright law is pretty specific, the money for both the song itself and the sound recording of it revert to the "author" (or their estate). The Time/The 6's/ Sheena Easton/Whoever would have a hard time splitting the right hairs to try and claim to be the author of a song where Prince's name is on the copyright as the composer (not to mention if an earlier version exists with him singing it).

There's only a 5 year window to do this though so this would be rapidly closing for an album like the Time debut. As you said Prince most likely did try and claim ownership of them back in 2014 but was unsuccessful for whatever reason. Being that he got all the Prince albums back right up to 1993 he clearly wasn't using the 35 year rule (i assume that was the threat though - "i'll get my songs back and licence them to someone else").

The main complexity seems to be the lack of precedent to easily rely on in regards how to actually make a claim rather than lack of clarity in the law itself. I see some further info here in regards recent cases. The fighting seems to be over whether the music was "work for hire" rather than about owning the sound recordings vs. the songs themselves. They do come to the same conclusion as you though - it's probably not worth the legal battle.

[Edited 11/15/16 2:04am]

oceancrayon said:

Um no, sony only owns the rights to the specific version recording of those artists vocals. Any other versions (i.e. Prince singing) would be considered an alternate recording therefore belonging to NPG regardless if the only difference is a fucking tambourine. Recording companies only "own" very specific versions of songs, not the song's individual parts itself literally.

.

I very much doubt any record company can release an alternate mix of a Warners owned track. Artists are usually even prohibited for a number of years from releasing re-recorded versions of tracks delivered to a record company after they leave said record company.

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Yeah I hear you re: Prince's own versions being probably an easier path.

Honestly though, the way I read it the copyright law is pretty specific, the money for both the song itself and the sound recording of it revert to the "author" (or their estate). The Time/The 6's/ Sheena Easton/Whoever would have a hard time splitting the right hairs to try and claim to be the author of a song where Prince's name is on the copyright as the composer (not to mention if an earlier version exists with him singing it).

There's only a 5 year window to do this though so this would be rapidly closing for an album like the Time debut. As you said Prince most likely did try and claim ownership of them back in 2014 but was unsuccessful for whatever reason. Being that he got all the Prince albums back right up to 1993 he clearly wasn't using the 35 year rule (i assume that was the threat though - "i'll get my songs back and licence them to someone else").

The main complexity seems to be the lack of precedent to easily rely on in regards how to actually make a claim rather than lack of clarity in the law itself. I see some further info here in regards recent cases. The fighting seems to be over whether the music was "work for hire" rather than about owning the sound recordings vs. the songs themselves. They do come to the same conclusion as you though - it's probably not worth the legal battle.

[Edited 11/15/16 2:04am]

Thing is I'm not sure "author" specifically means "writer/composer" in that case, at least there seemed to be some ambiguity regarding what this meant according to other things I've read, but IDK for sure.

For example it seems to me it would make no sense for Prince (or his estate) to be able to claim the recording of Joe Cocker's Five Women because it was rerecorded. Prince wrote the song for sure, but he had nothing to do with the recording and therefore wasn't the "author" of said recording, even though he was the author of the song.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

Yeah I hear you re: Prince's own versions being probably an easier path.

Honestly though, the way I read it the copyright law is pretty specific, the money for both the song itself and the sound recording of it revert to the "author" (or their estate). The Time/The 6's/ Sheena Easton/Whoever would have a hard time splitting the right hairs to try and claim to be the author of a song where Prince's name is on the copyright as the composer (not to mention if an earlier version exists with him singing it).

There's only a 5 year window to do this though so this would be rapidly closing for an album like the Time debut. As you said Prince most likely did try and claim ownership of them back in 2014 but was unsuccessful for whatever reason. Being that he got all the Prince albums back right up to 1993 he clearly wasn't using the 35 year rule (i assume that was the threat though - "i'll get my songs back and licence them to someone else").

The main complexity seems to be the lack of precedent to easily rely on in regards how to actually make a claim rather than lack of clarity in the law itself. I see some further info here in regards recent cases. The fighting seems to be over whether the music was "work for hire" rather than about owning the sound recordings vs. the songs themselves. They do come to the same conclusion as you though - it's probably not worth the legal battle.

[Edited 11/15/16 2:04am]

Thing is I'm not sure "author" specifically means "writer/composer" in that case, at least there seemed to be some ambiguity regarding what this meant according to other things I've read, but IDK for sure.

For example it seems to me it would make no sense for Prince (or his estate) to be able to claim the recording of Joe Cocker's Five Women because it was rerecorded. Prince wrote the song for sure, but he had nothing to do with the recording and therefore wasn't the "author" of said recording, even though he was the author of the song.

OK yeah that's a good point. I suppose I was thinking more of the songs where Prince did the music as well (the Time/6/etc.)

As I understand it, Prince would already be getting royalties on Joe Cocker's Five Women in terms of mechanical royalties, he would have never been on the sound recording copyright in the first place. So if people were to start a 35 year rule fight about it (which they probably won't), Prince's estate could own the song copyright and Joe Cocker's estate could own the recording copyright. That's how im reading it.

Bearing all that in mind, if there's a separate version of a song with Prince singing it, even if the rest of the song is the same, it'd then seems likely the estate can claim it's a different recording (although yeah, a record company could contest it if they really wanted to). I guess unless Sony or whoever want to fight about the Dance Electric/ Sugar Walls/ Love Thy Will Be Done etc. it should be ok to release Prince's version mainly because I'm not sure any of these are big enough sellers in 2016 to warrent the fight?

A song like Manic Monday might though...

One thing that bugs me is how inconsistent the removal of his stuff from Spotify has been. Any obvious cover songs (including famous ones like I Feel for You, When You Were Mine) have been removed while songs that Prince didn't release first (Sugar Walls/Nothing Compares/ Manic Monday) have not, except where they have (e.g. With This Tear, although a cover of it is on there). Shhh is on there but Round and Round isn't (although a remix is).

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Thing is I'm not sure "author" specifically means "writer/composer" in that case, at least there seemed to be some ambiguity regarding what this meant according to other things I've read, but IDK for sure.

For example it seems to me it would make no sense for Prince (or his estate) to be able to claim the recording of Joe Cocker's Five Women because it was rerecorded. Prince wrote the song for sure, but he had nothing to do with the recording and therefore wasn't the "author" of said recording, even though he was the author of the song.

OK yeah that's a good point. I suppose I was thinking more of the songs where Prince did the music as well (the Time/6/etc.)

As I understand it, Prince would already be getting royalties on Joe Cocker's Five Women in terms of mechanical royalties, he would have never been on the sound recording copyright in the first place. So if people were to start a 35 year rule fight about it (which they probably won't), Prince's estate could own the song copyright and Joe Cocker's estate could own the recording copyright. That's how im reading it.

Bearing all that in mind, if there's a separate version of a song with Prince singing it, even if the rest of the song is the same, it'd then seems likely the estate can claim it's a different recording (although yeah, a record company could contest it if they really wanted to). I guess unless Sony or whoever want to fight about the Dance Electric/ Sugar Walls/ Love Thy Will Be Done etc. it should be ok to release Prince's version mainly because I'm not sure any of these are big enough sellers in 2016 to warrent the fight?

A song like Manic Monday might though...

Everyone is totally confusing royatlies and master recordings ownership.

Once and for all the 35 years law has NOTHING to do with ownership of a musical composition.

It's about the sound recording. Only about it. Nothing else.

jaawwnn said:

One thing that bugs me is how inconsistent the removal of his stuff from Spotify has been. Any obvious cover songs (including famous ones like I Feel for You, When You Were Mine) have been removed while songs that Prince didn't release first (Sugar Walls/Nothing Compares/ Manic Monday) have not, except where they have (e.g. With This Tear, although a cover of it is on there). Shhh is on there but Round and Round isn't (although a remix is).

I think when you give a song to another artist you sign a contract that allows the label to use the sound recording in any manner they wish, including promotional, as long as u get your automatic share of the songwriting royalties. In other words you give-up on your rights or any power of decision whatsoever regarding how the song is used. It seems a reasonable guarantee for the artists and labels who release your song.

Covers, on the other hands, IDK, but given that licencing is theorically automatic I fail to see how one can have their song removed from Spotify if they can't prevent you from releasing it, or radios from playing your covers, in the first place. But the internet and streaming services are a new thing and there may be legal specifics that don't give them the same automatic rights radio, TV, clubs and shops have.

This is absolutely confusing indeed.

databank said:

jaawwnn said:

OK yeah that's a good point. I suppose I was thinking more of the songs where Prince did the music as well (the Time/6/etc.)

As I understand it, Prince would already be getting royalties on Joe Cocker's Five Women in terms of mechanical royalties, he would have never been on the sound recording copyright in the first place. So if people were to start a 35 year rule fight about it (which they probably won't), Prince's estate could own the song copyright and Joe Cocker's estate could own the recording copyright. That's how im reading it.

Bearing all that in mind, if there's a separate version of a song with Prince singing it, even if the rest of the song is the same, it'd then seems likely the estate can claim it's a different recording (although yeah, a record company could contest it if they really wanted to). I guess unless Sony or whoever want to fight about the Dance Electric/ Sugar Walls/ Love Thy Will Be Done etc. it should be ok to release Prince's version mainly because I'm not sure any of these are big enough sellers in 2016 to warrent the fight?

A song like Manic Monday might though...

Everyone is totally confusing royatlies and master recordings ownership.

Once and for all the 35 years law has NOTHING to do with ownership of a musical composition.

It's about the sound recording. Only about it. Nothing else.

No, it's about both as far as I can tell. There's two copyrights involved and both fall under the same rules in regards ownership because the 35 year rule applies to "copyrights", not to "recordings":

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#102

102 (a) - 2 and 7 are separate copyrights for the same song.

I appreciate in Prince's case the issue was mainly to do with his recordings for Warner, but i'm just speculating on the possibilities since this thread is about other recordings, some of which he was involved with and some of which he was not.

jaawwnn said:

databank said:

Everyone is totally confusing royatlies and master recordings ownership.

Once and for all the 35 years law has NOTHING to do with ownership of a musical composition.

It's about the sound recording. Only about it. Nothing else.

No, it's about both as far as I can tell. There's two copyrights involved and both fall under the same rules in regards ownership because the 35 year rule applies to "copyrights", not to "recordings":

http://www.copyright.gov/...1.html#102

102 (a) - 2 and 7 are separate copyrights for the same song.

I appreciate in Prince's case the issue was mainly to do with his recordings for Warner, but i'm just speculating on the possibilities since this thread is about other recordings, some of which he was involved with and some of which he was not.

My bad, I had always assumed that 1976 law was exclusively for sound recordings when, in fact, it applies to any sort of copyright (I've just checked).

I assume 2 applies when an artist gives up on his publishing? I know Oliver Lieber said he had given up half his share of royalties to the label's publisher for his Paula Abdul songs and he'd like to get this back for his old days and children. And Prince is famous for rejecting an attempt to purchase his publishing rights before he signed with WB.

I fail to see how one determines who the author of a collective work such as a recording is. A music recording involves:

- Writers/composers

- Arrangers/producers

- Session musicians

- The "official" performer(s)

- And why not even sound engineers.

.

I am absolutely convinced that the estate wil never bother to struggle for any song given to another: what matters is the "Prince" catalogue and they have this. They'll go for licencing when it comes to using backing tracks, if they must.

.

On the other hand, it is not unthinkeable that one day, the estate of George Clinton, Mavis Staples, Larry Graham or Chaka Khan may try and get back their Paisley Park/NPG albums from Prince's estate. But maybe they won't bother and try and negociate a mere rerelease instead. I know Chaka has been vocal about getting her masters back from WB, but I don't know that she did anything to make it happen. I think George also had some desire to get back the 70's P-Funk classics somehow?