KaresB said:

jaypotton said:

KaresB said:

.
For the 24156156536th time:

– Publishing companies own or handle publishing rights (the right to release sheet music, for example).
– Record companies own or handle the sound recordings (eg. the master tapes) and release records.

In this case Sony owns the recording of the song, so if WB would want to release it, they would have to licence the recording from Sony. Who owns the publishing is irrelevant.

[Edited 3/6/17 9:41am]

At the risk of opening THIS can of worms again... Surely Sony only own the master recording of the Andre Cymone version? Andre recorded overdubs to replace Prince's vocals but does that mean THE master tape is the one with those overdubs? Would Prince have not sent a copy of the recording for Andre to overdub? According to Princevault... http://princevault.com/in...e_Electric So wouldn't that mean the Vault contains the master of the Prince vocal version? In addition there is a live version by Prince & The Revolution from 1986 that appeared in an npgaudio show. So not sure it IS as cut n dried as Sony owns the master recording?

.
Sorry for being long, but might be useful info:

The term "master" is used for a lot of things – in most cases, there are several different tapes of the same recording called "master". For example, the original multitrack recording tape (usually 2", with 24 tracks) is sometimes referred to as the master tape. Mixing these multitracks down to 2-track stereo results in another tape (usually 1/4") that is often called the master tape. When record companies talk about remastering from the original master tape, they most commonly refer to this 2-track mixdown tape. But there can be several other, different purpose master tapes (and copies of those) too, such as the production master for vinyl press or for cassette tape, all requiring different EQ-ing, and sometimes cassette tapes were duplicated from production masters with Dolby NR too.

Anyway, when we talk about "masters" in the context of who has rights to what, it becomes more of a legal term, not technical. So if Sony owns the masters for Andre's version (I don't know if they do but it's fair to assume they do), it means they own that specific sound recording – and every element of that sound recording, including tracks laid down by Prince. Even if a Prince-only version exist, the estate cannot just put that out without licensing the track from Sony, because it contains recordings that are now owned by Sony.

If there is a version by Prince that is not built on the same tracks but entirely different recordings that obviously belongs to the estate. Any live recordings also belong to the estate too, of course.

KaresB said:

jaypotton said:

KaresB said:

jaypotton said:

That is really interesting, thanks. So THIS issue is going to apply to a fair few songs that Prince put together for other artists where he played all the instruments or worked with his band to record the music, possibly singing a guide track but then getting the other artist to overdub the vocal! Could therefore mean that unless the artist Prince wrote the song for re-recorded the entire thing with their own musicians then whichever record company that artist is signed to owns the master recording of the Prince "performance". Never considered that before! [Edited 3/8/17 6:06am]

. What I said is the theory though. How it is applied (if applied at all) is down to the parties in question. I can imagine that Sony would decide not to sue the estate even though they would have a legally valid argument. Think about Martika's Kitchen for example. If I recall correctly, it was played by Prince, Martika just ovedubbed her vocals, and the rights to that recording were transferred to Columbia (now Sony). Later Prince recycled some of the original multitracks and created The Sacrifice of Victor. Theoretically Columbia could've sued him for using recordings that belonged to them. They probably just couldn't be bothered, or he had their prior approval, and of course Martika and her label were happy to get songs from him in the first place. So legal theory aside, I don't think we will see many arguments over who played what on a recording. Of course in cases like this there could be special agreements between the parties involved. It is possible that Andre (and Columbia) agreed that Prince might put out the same tapes with his own lead vocals in the future. [Edited 3/8/17 8:56am]

Thanks for the information and perspective. I really enjoyed your thoughts.

nelcp777 said:

KaresB said:

jaypotton said: . What I said is the theory though. How it is applied (if applied at all) is down to the parties in question. I can imagine that Sony would decide not to sue the estate even though they would have a legally valid argument. Think about Martika's Kitchen for example. If I recall correctly, it was played by Prince, Martika just ovedubbed her vocals, and the rights to that recording were transferred to Columbia (now Sony). Later Prince recycled some of the original multitracks and created The Sacrifice of Victor. Theoretically Columbia could've sued him for using recordings that belonged to them. They probably just couldn't be bothered, or he had their prior approval, and of course Martika and her label were happy to get songs from him in the first place. So legal theory aside, I don't think we will see many arguments over who played what on a recording. Of course in cases like this there could be special agreements between the parties involved. It is possible that Andre (and Columbia) agreed that Prince might put out the same tapes with his own lead vocals in the future. [Edited 3/8/17 8:56am]

Thanks for the information and perspective. I really enjoyed your thoughts.

.
Thanks.
However, I've just revisited Martika's Kitchen to see if I remembered correctly that its rhythm tracks were reused in The Sacrifice of Victor – well, I'm not sure, I could be wrong. I've always thought these songs shared the same basic tracks and they feel very similar indeed. I can't tell, as although the drums and bass sound different on SoV, the difference could easily be due to effects applied to the original tracks to make them sound different. And of course Prince might have just rerecorded them, dunno.

[Edited 3/8/17 9:42am]

what was it? the Max and Rave that used the same guitar? and other elements of songs from the vault have been used here and there as well.

KaresB said:

Think about Martika's Kitchen for example. If I recall correctly, it was played by Prince, Martika just ovedubbed her vocals, and the rights to that recording were transferred to Columbia (now Sony). Later Prince recycled some of the original multitracks and created The Sacrifice of Victor. Theoretically Columbia could've sued him for using recordings that belonged to them. They probably just couldn't be bothered, or he had their prior approval, and of course Martika and her label were happy to get songs from him in the first place. So legal theory aside, I don't think we will see many arguments over who played what on a recording. Of course in cases like this there could be special agreements between the parties involved. It is possible that Andre (and Columbia) agreed that Prince might put out the same tapes with his own lead vocals in the future. [Edited 3/8/17 8:56am]

One Of Us on Emancipation also reused a lot of the musical elements from Love, Thy Will Be Done which is also on Martika's album. So if anyone know's the legal history of that, then that might shed some light on what is allowed on future releases.

embmmusic said:

KaresB said:

Think about Martika's Kitchen for example. If I recall correctly, it was played by Prince, Martika just ovedubbed her vocals, and the rights to that recording were transferred to Columbia (now Sony). Later Prince recycled some of the original multitracks and created The Sacrifice of Victor. Theoretically Columbia could've sued him for using recordings that belonged to them. They probably just couldn't be bothered, or he had their prior approval, and of course Martika and her label were happy to get songs from him in the first place. So legal theory aside, I don't think we will see many arguments over who played what on a recording. Of course in cases like this there could be special agreements between the parties involved. It is possible that Andre (and Columbia) agreed that Prince might put out the same tapes with his own lead vocals in the future. [Edited 3/8/17 8:56am]

One Of Us on Emancipation also reused a lot of the musical elements from Love, Thy Will Be Done which is also on Martika's album. So if anyone know's the legal history of that, then that might shed some light on what is allowed on future releases.

Wasn't the beat used in Love, Thy Will be Done sampled from a Cocteau Twins song?

JorisE73 said:

embmmusic said:

One Of Us on Emancipation also reused a lot of the musical elements from Love, Thy Will Be Done which is also on Martika's album. So if anyone know's the legal history of that, then that might shed some light on what is allowed on future releases.

Wasn't the beat used in Love, Thy Will be Done sampled from a Cocteau Twins song?

the director of "the great gatsby" said in an interview that the song prince gave them
to be on the soundtrack was his version of "love thy will be done" but they could not
get it cleared because of that sample.

so samples can still be a problem i guess, no matter how many times you've used 'm
before?

JorisE73 said:

embmmusic said:

One Of Us on Emancipation also reused a lot of the musical elements from Love, Thy Will Be Done which is also on Martika's album. So if anyone know's the legal history of that, then that might shed some light on what is allowed on future releases.

Wasn't the beat used in Love, Thy Will be Done sampled from a Cocteau Twins song?

.
I've no idea why Prince used that sample. It's not the beat, just a single note, looped. Not exactly something he actually needed, is it. He could've easily found a similar sound on his own synth to replace it with.

[Edited 3/9/17 9:05am]

IstenSzek said:

JorisE73 said:

Wasn't the beat used in Love, Thy Will be Done sampled from a Cocteau Twins song?

the director of "the great gatsby" said in an interview that the song prince gave them
to be on the soundtrack was his version of "love thy will be done" but they could not
get it cleared because of that sample.

so samples can still be a problem i guess, no matter how many times you've used 'm
before?

I don't know anything about those things, but you would think once the sample had been cleared once for a song that was it right?

JorisE73 said:

IstenSzek said:

the director of "the great gatsby" said in an interview that the song prince gave them
to be on the soundtrack was his version of "love thy will be done" but they could not
get it cleared because of that sample.

so samples can still be a problem i guess, no matter how many times you've used 'm
before?

I don't know anything about those things, but you would think once the sample had been cleared once for a song that was it right?

.
It depends on how that sample was licensed. If you pay an artist to create some sounds or short licks, beats etc. for you because you want to sell a sample collection, anyone who buys that sample collection from you is licensed to use those samples royalty-free (paying only for the sample itself).

If you want to copy just a note or any segment from another recording (that is not a "royalty-free" sample collection), you'll have to clear that sample: get authorisation to use it and release it, and in most cases that means paying a fee. Everytime someone wants to use the same sample, they'll have to clear it again for every commercial release.

IstenSzek said:

the director of "the great gatsby" said in an interview that the song prince gave them
to be on the soundtrack was his version of "love thy will be done" but they could not
get it cleared because of that sample.

UGH! That's so crushing.

Prince's version is one of my all time favorites of unoffically-released boot stuff. I would have loved to have finally had this in perfect quality.

That beat is nothing special, and hardly sample-license-problems worthy. Frustrating.

[Edited 3/9/17 10:23am]

ElectricDancer said:

IstenSzek said:

the director of "the great gatsby" said in an interview that the song prince gave them
to be on the soundtrack was his version of "love thy will be done" but they could not
get it cleared because of that sample.

UGH! That's so crushing.

Prince's version is one of my all time favorites of unoffically-released boot stuff. I would have loved to have finally had this in perfect quality.

That beat is nothing special, and hardly sample-license-problems worthy. Frustrating.

[Edited 3/9/17 10:23am]

me too.

To be honest, with the money behind Warners and Universal (whichever one that track would come under), I'm sure any licencing issues could be sorted out if they were determined to release it.

KaresB said:

JorisE73 said:

I don't know anything about those things, but you would think once the sample had been cleared once for a song that was it right?

.
It depends on how that sample was licensed. If you pay an artist to create some sounds or short licks, beats etc. for you because you want to sell a sample collection, anyone who buys that sample collection from you is licensed to use those samples royalty-free (paying only for the sample itself).

If you want to copy just a note or any segment from another recording (that is not a "royalty-free" sample collection), you'll have to clear that sample: get authorisation to use it and release it, and in most cases that means paying a fee. Everytime someone wants to use the same sample, they'll have to clear it again for every commercial release.

Ah ok, so the sample probably has been cleared for Martika's version of the songs and not specifically for Prince's version, so he had to clear it again for his version. Am I getting this right?
And because he probably onbly cleared it for use in One of Us he could only use in in that song?

JorisE73 said:

KaresB said:

.
It depends on how that sample was licensed. If you pay an artist to create some sounds or short licks, beats etc. for you because you want to sell a sample collection, anyone who buys that sample collection from you is licensed to use those samples royalty-free (paying only for the sample itself).

If you want to copy just a note or any segment from another recording (that is not a "royalty-free" sample collection), you'll have to clear that sample: get authorisation to use it and release it, and in most cases that means paying a fee. Everytime someone wants to use the same sample, they'll have to clear it again for every commercial release.

Ah ok, so the sample probably has been cleared for Martika's version of the songs and not specifically for Prince's version, so he had to clear it again for his version. Am I getting this right?
And because he probably onbly cleared it for use in One of Us he could only use in in that song?

.
Yes, unless he has bought the rights to that sample to own it, he would have to clear it and pay for it for every release.

But as I said earlier, I find it ridiculous that he's chosen to use a sample of ONE NOTE instead of using an almost identical sound from his own synth.

And I doubt clearing that sample would be that hard either.

The Cocteau Twins sample was never cleared in the first place, as indicated by the absence of any such mention on Martika's Kitchen's or Emancipation's liner notes. Up until 1992 it was still possible to get away with sampling without clearance (Prince also sampled other acts without clearance on Tick Tick Bang, Release It, Daddy Pop and Gett Off), then artists and record companies began to be super strict about it and Prince himself began licencing samples beginning with

.

As far as I know clearing a sample implicates crediting it in liner notes (just as movies have to write down samples from other films and songs in their ending credits), so it's safe to say that if there's no mention of a sample in a record's liner notes, it means it hasn't been cleared.

.

George Clinton was quite intrumental in this change in the industry, because he realized he was being oversampled by rappers without getting a penny. But note that he had to licence his own sample from Capitol Records when he sampled himself (Atomic Dog) on his Paisley Park album Hey Man... Smell My Finger, as indicated by the album's liner notes. There was also a huge scandal aroung Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet, which was a massive money making success but full of samples from beginning to end. Rick James also fought Hammer to get his share of the Can't Touch This pie (and won), etc.

.

Prince was lucky to get away with it again on Emancipation because by 1996 samples were always credited: One Little Indian even had to withdraw all initial prints of Björk's Post in 1995 just because of one little unlicenced sample (a phone ringing!).

.

One can assume that using the song with an unlicenced sample in a big Hollywood movie was crossing a line that, in our day and age, couldn't have been crossed. I'm entirely speculating here but it's possible that clearing the sample now would have opened the door to 4AD asking both Sony (for Martika's version) and Prince (for One Of Us) to retroactively pay back royalties for previous use of it, and one can imagine the legal nightmare that this would mean for every party involved. That is if the sample was indeed the problem with that movie, from what I remember the director didn't specify what the exact issue was, it could also be that Prince couldn't licence the instrumental basic tracks from Sony, as evoked earlier by Kares who explained the problem with songs given to others, and didn't feel like rerecording the whole song because he wanted those basic tracks specifically. Finally, it could also have something to do with Martika's publishing rights as a co-author (therefore be about the composition itself, not the sound recording): sometimes publishing rights involve intricate matters and, young as she was, you can be sure Martika was ripped of a good share of her publishing by Sony at that time (Oliver Lieber, for one, explains in an interview how, young and naive as he was, he lost 50% of his publishing rights to Paula Abdul's record company, and wishes to fight for those in order for his children to have that money after he's gone).

.

As for Prince sampling elements from WB owned songs after 1996, WB just wasn't going to start yet another public war with him over such things. Prince even rereleased previously released, fully WB owned songs on Crystal Ball (Good Love, Interactive) and NPGMC (Horny Pony, Thieves), and got away with it.

[Edited 3/10/17 22:06pm]

databank said:

As far as I know clearing a sample implicates crediting it in liner notes (just as movies have to write down samples from other films and songs in their ending credits), so it's safe to say that if there's no mention of a sample in a record's liner notes, it means it hasn't been cleared..

.

I think it was just common courtesy to mention samples in the liner notes – these days, with most releases being digital only, you don't even see any liner notes anymore. You have to include the original composers of the sample when you register your song with copyright organisations though.

databank said:

George Clinton was quite intrumental in this change in the industry, because he realized he was being oversampled by rappers without getting a penny. But note that he had to licence his own sample from Capitol Records when he sampled himself (Atomic Dog) on his Paisley Park album Hey Man... Smell My Finger, as indicated by the album's liner notes. There was also a huge scandal aroung Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet, which was a massive money making success but full of samples from beginning to end. Rick James also fought Hammer to get his share of the Can't Touch This pie (and won), etc..

.

I absolutely love what George Clinton has created with his bands and it's true GC himself have been robbed blind in the 70's through shady deals – but let's give credit to all those amazing musicians and composers he has worked with and who, unlike George, still aren't getting paid.
It's worth reading the stories of the late great Bernie Worrell (on his site) to know what kind of man George Clinton is. GC have been robbing Worrell and others for decades, he hasn't helped Worrell with any of his huge hospital bills in his final days, yet had the nerve to appear at a Bernie Worrell benefit performance and act like he's there for a friend. Yeah right.

So yes, GC did play a part in changes regarding how samples are licensed, but I can't feel sorry for that guy at all.

.

KaresB said:

databank said:

As far as I know clearing a sample implicates crediting it in liner notes (just as movies have to write down samples from other films and songs in their ending credits), so it's safe to say that if there's no mention of a sample in a record's liner notes, it means it hasn't been cleared..

.

I think it was just common courtesy to mention samples in the liner notes – these days, with most releases being digital only, you don't even see any liner notes anymore. You have to include the original composers of the sample when you register your song with copyright organisations though.

Come to think of it you must be right: if it's not compulsory by law to credit songwriting or even have a booklet at all, there's no reason it should be for crediting sampling licences as long as you register and pay.

So it could even be possible (though I doubt it) that Prince licenced some of his early samples. However the fact that the Cocteau Twins sample wasn't credited on the Emancipation booklet, while other samples were, seems to indicate that this one wasn't. It doesn't mean it wasn't licenced for Martika's LTWBD though, since it's a different song, but I seriously doubt that it was. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if neither Martika nor Sony were even aware that there was a Cocteau Twins sample in that song at all

databank said:

KaresB said:

.

I think it was just common courtesy to mention samples in the liner notes – these days, with most releases being digital only, you don't even see any liner notes anymore. You have to include the original composers of the sample when you register your song with copyright organisations though.

Come to think of it you must be right: if it's not compulsory by law to credit songwriting or even have a booklet at all, there's no reason it should be for crediting sampling licences as long as you register and pay.

So it could even be possible (though I doubt it) that Prince licenced some of his early samples. However the fact that the Cocteau Twins sample wasn't credited on the Emancipation booklet, while other samples were, seems to indicate that this one wasn't. It doesn't mean it wasn't licenced for Martika's LTWBD though, since it's a different song, but I seriously doubt that it was. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if neither Martika nor Sony were even aware that there was a Cocteau Twins sample in that song at all

.

Still, it's ONE bloody note (looped). He didn't need the Cocteau Twins for that. He could've easily replaced that on the multitrack, even years later, if he wanted to use it again. It's ridiculous that he used it in the first place.

databank said:

The Cocteau Twins sample was never cleared in the first place, as indicated by the absence of any such mention on Martika's Kitchen's or Emancipation's liner notes. Up until 1992 it was still possible to get away with sampling without clearance (Prince also sampled other acts without clearance on Tick Tick Bang, Release It, Daddy Pop and Gett Off), then artists and record companies began to be super strict about it and Prince himself began licencing samples beginning with

.

As far as I know clearing a sample implicates crediting it in liner notes (just as movies have to write down samples from other films and songs in their ending credits), so it's safe to say that if there's no mention of a sample in a record's liner notes, it means it hasn't been cleared.

.

George Clinton was quite intrumental in this change in the industry, because he realized he was being oversampled by rappers without getting a penny. But note that he had to licence his own sample from Capitol Records when he sampled himself (Atomic Dog) on his Paisley Park album Hey Man... Smell My Finger, as indicated by the album's liner notes. There was also a huge scandal aroung Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet, which was a massive money making success but full of samples from beginning to end. Rick James also fought Hammer to get his share of the Can't Touch This pie (and won), etc.

.

Prince was lucky to get away with it again on Emancipation because by 1996 samples were always credited: One Little Indian even had to withdraw all initial prints of Björk's Post in 1995 just because of one little unlicenced sample (a phone ringing!).

.

One can assume that using the song with an unlicenced sample in a big Hollywood movie was crossing a line that, in our day and age, couldn't have been crossed. I'm entirely speculating here but it's possible that clearing the sample now would have opened the door to 4AD asking both Sony (for Martika's version) and Prince (for One Of Us) to retroactively pay back royalties for previous use of it, and one can imagine the legal nightmare that this would mean for every party involved. That is if the sample was indeed the problem with that movie, from what I remember the director didn't specify what the exact issue was, it could also be that Prince couldn't licence the instrumental basic tracks from Sony, as evoked earlier by Kares who explained the problem with songs given to others, and didn't feel like rerecording the whole song because he wanted those basic tracks specifically. Finally, it could also have something to do with Martika's publishing rights as a co-author (therefore be about the composition itself, not the sound recording): sometimes publishing rights involve intricate matters and, young as she was, you can be sure Martika was ripped of a good share of her publishing by Sony at that time (Oliver Lieber, for one, explains in an interview how, young and naive as he was, he lost 50% of his publishing rights to Paula Abdul's record company, and wishes to fight for those in order for his children to have that money after he's gone).

.

As for Prince sampling elements from WB owned songs after 1996, WB just wasn't going to start yet another public war with him over such things. Prince even rereleased previously released, fully WB owned songs on Crystal Ball (Good Love, Interactive) and NPGMC (Horny Pony, Thieves), and got away with it.

[Edited 3/10/17 22:06pm]

KaresB said:

.

I absolutely love what George Clinton has created with his bands and it's true GC himself have been robbed blind in the 70's through shady deals – but let's give credit to all those amazing musicians and composers he has worked with and who, unlike George, still aren't getting paid.
It's worth reading the stories of the late great Bernie Worrell (on his site) to know what kind of man George Clinton is. GC have been robbing Worrell and others for decades, he hasn't helped Worrell with any of his huge hospital bills in his final days, yet had the nerve to appear at a Bernie Worrell benefit performance and act like he's there for a friend. Yeah right.

So yes, GC did play a part in changes regarding how samples are licensed, but I can't feel sorry for that guy at all.

.

Not trying to completely absolve George, but, he got screwed too. I'd recommend his autobiography for a bit of his side of the story.

That said, I can't find Bernie's stories about George on his site. Could you help me out with a link?

djThunderfunk said:

KaresB said:

.

I absolutely love what George Clinton has created with his bands and it's true GC himself have been robbed blind in the 70's through shady deals – but let's give credit to all those amazing musicians and composers he has worked with and who, unlike George, still aren't getting paid.
It's worth reading the stories of the late great Bernie Worrell (on his site) to know what kind of man George Clinton is. GC have been robbing Worrell and others for decades, he hasn't helped Worrell with any of his huge hospital bills in his final days, yet had the nerve to appear at a Bernie Worrell benefit performance and act like he's there for a friend. Yeah right.

So yes, GC did play a part in changes regarding how samples are licensed, but I can't feel sorry for that guy at all.

.

Not trying to completely absolve George, but, he got screwed too. I'd recommend his autobiography for a bit of his side of the story.

That said, I can't find Bernie's stories about George on his site. Could you help me out with a link?

.
Yes, I said too that "I know that George was robbed too". But that will never justify him ripping of everyone else.

http://wooniversaltruths.bernieworrell.com

KaresB said:

djThunderfunk said:

Not trying to completely absolve George, but, he got screwed too. I'd recommend his autobiography for a bit of his side of the story.

That said, I can't find Bernie's stories about George on his site. Could you help me out with a link?

.
Yes, I said too that "I know that George was robbed too". But that will never justify him ripping of everyone else.

http://wooniversaltruths.bernieworrell.com

Thanks for the link. Guess I'm going to need to track down that Tear The Roof Off documentary too.

databank said:

The Cocteau Twins sample was never cleared in the first place, as indicated by the absence of any such mention on Martika's Kitchen's or Emancipation's liner notes. Up until 1992 it was still possible to get away with sampling without clearance (Prince also sampled other acts without clearance on Tick Tick Bang, Release It, Daddy Pop and Gett Off), then artists and record companies began to be super strict about it and Prince himself began licencing samples beginning with

.

As far as I know clearing a sample implicates crediting it in liner notes (just as movies have to write down samples from other films and songs in their ending credits), so it's safe to say that if there's no mention of a sample in a record's liner notes, it means it hasn't been cleared.

.

George Clinton was quite intrumental in this change in the industry, because he realized he was being oversampled by rappers without getting a penny. But note that he had to licence his own sample from Capitol Records when he sampled himself (Atomic Dog) on his Paisley Park album Hey Man... Smell My Finger, as indicated by the album's liner notes. There was also a huge scandal aroung Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet, which was a massive money making success but full of samples from beginning to end. Rick James also fought Hammer to get his share of the Can't Touch This pie (and won), etc.

.

Prince was lucky to get away with it again on Emancipation because by 1996 samples were always credited: One Little Indian even had to withdraw all initial prints of Björk's Post in 1995 just because of one little unlicenced sample (a phone ringing!).

.

One can assume that using the song with an unlicenced sample in a big Hollywood movie was crossing a line that, in our day and age, couldn't have been crossed. I'm entirely speculating here but it's possible that clearing the sample now would have opened the door to 4AD asking both Sony (for Martika's version) and Prince (for One Of Us) to retroactively pay back royalties for previous use of it, and one can imagine the legal nightmare that this would mean for every party involved. That is if the sample was indeed the problem with that movie, from what I remember the director didn't specify what the exact issue was, it could also be that Prince couldn't licence the instrumental basic tracks from Sony, as evoked earlier by Kares who explained the problem with songs given to others, and didn't feel like rerecording the whole song because he wanted those basic tracks specifically. Finally, it could also have something to do with Martika's publishing rights as a co-author (therefore be about the composition itself, not the sound recording): sometimes publishing rights involve intricate matters and, young as she was, you can be sure Martika was ripped of a good share of her publishing by Sony at that time (Oliver Lieber, for one, explains in an interview how, young and naive as he was, he lost 50% of his publishing rights to Paula Abdul's record company, and wishes to fight for those in order for his children to have that money after he's gone).

.

As for Prince sampling elements from WB owned songs after 1996, WB just wasn't going to start yet another public war with him over such things. Prince even rereleased previously released, fully WB owned songs on Crystal Ball (Good Love, Interactive) and NPGMC (Horny Pony, Thieves), and got away with it.

[Edited 3/10/17 22:06pm]

Great info!

databank said:

There was also a huge scandal aroung Public Enemy's Fear Of A Black Planet, which was a massive money making success but full of samples from beginning to end.

.

Huh? FOABP a "massive money making success"? What nonsense is this?

.

Prince was lucky to get away with it again on Emancipation because by 1996 samples were always credited: One Little Indian even had to withdraw all initial prints of Björk's Post in 1995 just because of one little unlicenced sample (a phone ringing!).

.

Licensed and credited aren't the same thing.

As most know, Prince was a fan of The Cocteau Twins, so perhaps he just wanted to acknowledge them in some way. In any case, as a huge fan of both artists I'm quite pleased that there's at least some connection between the two of them, however vague!

He could have made a similar beat all on his own of course, but I think the sample works really well for this track and it's a nice little homage.

Scotsman1999 said:

As most know, Prince was a fan of The Cocteau Twins, so perhaps he just wanted to acknowledge them in some way. In any case, as a huge fan of both artists I'm quite pleased that there's at least some connection between the two of them, however vague!

He could have made a similar beat all on his own of course, but I think the sample works really well for this track and it's a nice little homage.

.

Prince would've sued your ass for such "a nice little homage".

And that Cocteau Twins sample consists of nothing more than a single, repeated note. ONE note.