Someone commented on one of the many legal threads that Prince should release all his old live shows (which he definitely should!) but that he "wouldn't make money it" cuz WB owns it or something like that.

What exaclty is the deal with the WB catalog? I know WB owns the "masters", but what does that really mean?

I always thought it meant they own the master tapes, so they control the distribution of these recordings (i.e. if they are still available, re-issued, pricing etc.).

But P would still makes money on them as both the performer and songwriter...right? (I realize perhaps less $ than if he did it w/o WB but he still earns money!)

Moreover, since he does own all the publishing rights via Controversy music, wouldn't that mean he can issue live recordings of WB-era stuff (say PR tour, 1999 tour etc.) if he chooses? Don't they just own the physical masters of tapes he officially released on the WB label?

Just curious.

Cuz if what i'm sayin is right (someone who knows more about entertainment law please correct me)... imagine this scenario:

2004: WB re-releases PR boxed set with extra tracks, outtakes etc...

Prince releases via his own label a "LIVE" boxed set with DVD/audio from the Avenue performance as well as PR Tour shows.

I know I"d buy all of it!

Broadly, the points you are making are, as far as I can see, correct. (I'm sorry if that seems vague, but I think you're looking for words of general confirmation or otherwise? Of course it would be possible to fine-tune the way you've expressed it to make clearer the legal rights that Prince and other parties actually have, as far as we know.)

I think it's also correct to say that the scenario you describe at the end is indeed imaginary.



You might find this a useful link providing a basic primer?

http://www.music-law.com/home.htm

.
[This message was edited Thu Jan 22 13:45:28 PST 2004 by langebleu]

Thanks for the reply. Let me be more specific:


Is it correct that Prince theoretically could release live, unreleased recordings of concerts he performed while under contract to WB (i.e. a 1999 show, a PR show etc.)?

i.e. WB just owns those specific masters of the studio sessions that ended up as official WB albums.

But all the tapes P made for himself of his shows could become a huge revenue stream for the guy if he so chose.


(I realize the Syracuse PR show coudl be an exception since it show up on a WB video).

In short, yes.

Someone commented on one of the many legal threads that Prince should release all his old live shows (which he definitely should!) but that he "wouldn't make money it" cuz WB owns it or something like that.

Which is bullshit.

What exaclty is the deal with the WB catalog? I know WB owns the "masters", but what does that really mean?

No one knows what the deal is exactly besides P and WB.

"Owning the masters" means that WB owns the copyrights in the officially released sound recordings produced by Prince while under contract (1978-1996).

Whether WB fully owns all the copyrights in those sound recordings is another question.

I always thought it meant they own the master tapes, so they control the distribution of these recordings (i.e. if they are still available, re-issued, pricing etc.).

Just owning the physical tapes (if that's what you mean) doesn't give you control over the distribution. You need to own the copyright in the sounds recorded on the tapes to control the distribution.

But P would still makes money on them as both the performer and songwriter...right? (I realize perhaps less $ than if he did it w/o WB but he still earns money!)

As a songwriter yes. As a performer probabaly yes, depends on what his contracts state in regard to this.

Moreover, since he does own all the publishing rights via Controversy music, wouldn't that mean he can issue live recordings of WB-era stuff (say PR tour, 1999 tour etc.) if he chooses?

basically yes

Don't they just own the physical masters of tapes he officially released on the WB label?

They own the copyrights of the sound recordings he released on their label. Whether they fully own those copyrights depends on the what the contracts state. And we don't know what they state.


--
[This message was edited Fri Jan 23 1:50:43 PST 2004 by Abrazo]

Thanks Abrazo.

So after all that bitchin' about WB and being a "slave," it seems like he coulda released all the live stuff anytime he wanted.

All WB coulda done was control when official recordings got out and of course take some of the $$.s

It's amazing how so many peeps on here get all self-rightous and opionated without understanding the legalities involved.

GaryMF said:

When he was under contract to WB, he could not release any live or studio recordings except on WB. (An exception was made for TMBGITW single, but that was specially negotiated with WB at the time.)

Now that he is not under contract with them, he can release any studio outtakes or live recordings that were recorded at any time... including when he was under contract with WB (provided that such recordings were not released already by WB--see It's Gonna Be a Beautiful Night live on SOTT as an example).

So yes, he could CDs containing live performances during the '80s if he wanted to.

BanishedBrian said:[quote]

GaryMF said:

That's all I wanted to know.

Okay P... we're waiting... just release the sh*t already so we can buy it!!! You'll get your money, we'll get our music... bootleggers go out of business... it seems like a simple plan.

GaryMF said:[quote]

BanishedBrian said:

It sure seems, but there still may be issues with the rights of the other performers. Now that it seems he is burying the hatch with Wendy and is in good contact with Sheila E, Eric Leeds and perhabs others too, this shouldn't have to be a big problem tho'.

Crystal Ball is full of stuff he recorded while under contract with WB, but released independently. Some of it is even remixes of songs released under warners. If he can independently release remixes of songs that were released under warners, he can certainly release live recordings.

He's also released live recordings of material that was released under warners (the rave DVD and one nite alone live both contain songs originally released under warner bros). There may be some issue of the other performers, but I kind of doubt it - he likely has an agreement before hand giving him the rights to release the material.
[This message was edited Fri Feb 13 11:35:57 PST 2004 by alandail]

alandail said:

That may indeed be so, but we don't know for sure, do we? Agreements before hand that transfer rights to unspecified material and unspecified releases are tricky. This shouldn't be a problem if the relationship with these performers is okay and he is willing to give them a fair share of the profits.

--
[This message was edited Fri Feb 13 12:30:57 PST 2004 by Abrazo]