Luv4oneanotha said:

Thanks to GreyKing for correcting this above.

Some fans could do a little home work before presenting their opinions as fact

//

BinaryJustin said:

I think you may be on the right track.

What about that all the WB material from NPGMC Year One were part of limited release download "Ahdio" (Radio) shows - although they were for download, maybe classifying them as radio shows, or limited time member-only downloads was why they were allowed - same goes for the postings in the Reflection room over at the current NPGMC, they are streaming (or supposed to be) - and only for a limited time.

Or, maybe:
a) WB don't know
b) WB don't care
c) WB being paid a percentage by Prince for their use (VERY unlikely)
d) Prince's contract allows him such use.

Thinking about it, I think it might be b) - the revenue from NPGMC is just not enough to warrant giving a shit about a couple of songs that 95% of the people downloading in their limited release will already have purchased on WB-issued releases.

//

BinaryJustin said:

Remember when Prince was harping on about re-recording his entire back-catalogue?

I don't have the quote, but I do recall him saying something along the lines that to re-record the song would not mean re-record everything from scratch - he could just add a bass-part, or a vocal part [or an edit? Re: Good Love]

And I've seen BorisFishpaw stated on here that he did in fact complete these re-recordings.

BinaryJustin said:[quote]BorisFishpaw said:


Under copyright law, there is a difference between owning the composition of a song and owning the actual recording. Most likely, WB owns the recordings of those compositions while Prince still owns the actual compositions (i.e., the sheet music).

if they owned the unreleased stuff.. then he wouldnt have been able to release splash for sale/download in year 1.


that is a straight up oldie

Sdldawn said:

That's my whole point. The operative word in the question, "Do Warner Music own masters of some unreleased material?" is "some". Why has some of the vault material appeared in its original format but most hasn't?

Se7en said:

From what I've read up on recently, its more than likely that there is more than one master tape of each album. Warner Music WILL definitely have one physical copy of a master tape for each album in a secure vault. Prince is likely to have multiple digital copies of each master - PLUS, of course, the original multi-track source tapes in the Paisley Park vault.

Ownership of these masters is obviously a legal term but once 35 years has passed, I'm assuming that Warner Music would have to physically give their copy back to him (even though Prince has copies), as a legal formality.

Sdldawn said:

But it wasn't ever submitted on any album (correct me if I'm wrong).

This is about submitted material, we know they don't have any rights non-submitted, I think they only have rights to music actually released.

RE: Rebirth Of The Flesh - I just think Prince isn't 100% happy with it, like the studio version of Days Of Wild - both released as live tracks, never released the studio tracks, despite them appearing on early configurations of albums.

Prince seemed very happy with all the other Camille / Gold tracks since they've all been released in one form or another since their conception.

BinaryJustin said:

You are right - it is a legal term.

My guess is that 'ownership' of the master recording remains with Prince.

On the other hand, 'possession' of a master recording might rest with Warner Brothjers for a period of time.

When / if, Prince provides a master recording to Warners, it is simply to enable them to exercise the legal rights they have to use the master recording.

We could even quibble over the term 'ownership' with regard to the rights. The rights to use the master tapes originally belong to Prince but he has assigned those rights for a fixed period of time to Warner Brothers under contract.

The standard period of 35 years results in those rights reverting back to Prince. Prince would also likely be entitled to the return of any master recording in the possession of Warner Brothers at the point.
.

Useful resources for some of these issues:

Plainly-written US music law firm guidance:

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

How Stuff Works website:

http://entertainment.hows...alties.htm

Comprehensive UK-based site:

http://www.musicjournal.org/home.html

particularly: http://www.musicjournal.o...urces.html

World Intellectual Property Organisation website:

http://www.wipo.int/index.html.en
.
.

BinaryJustin said:

I think you've made some good observations. At times when people at this site and NPGMC have asked why doesn't he release certain things, I have said that we don't know what his contract was like with WB. Stuff he submitted the master recordings, they may have instantly become WB property. Prince may have created new masters for the things released on Crystal Ball, just like he did with 1999.

PurpleCharm said:

At the time Prince gave them the Master Recordings, he didn't know that that was the ultimate key to owning your music. He has publishing rights, which he shares with WB. I had a nephew involved in the music business and he explained it to me and never once did the words Master Recordings come up. So, I'm certain this aspect of the business isn't mentioned to most artist.

wyld1 said:

WB no longer co-owns his publishing. His publishing deal with them expired in 1999, and all rights reverted back to Prince. He has since inked a publishing deal with Universal Music Group.

JediMaster said:

so, does this mean that it's PRINCE who doesn't want to release his old material????
I think at this point nothing's clear...
When the time comes for P to re-own ALL his WB music, HE'S GONNA BE DEAD....

tritoncin said:

You need to make a clear distinction between the right that Prince has over:

1. his compositions - the songs themselves, and
2. the recordings that he makes of the compositions.

1. Compositions: Prince is original copyright holder for all of his own compositions. In order to collect monies due to him (when the composition is performed in public, when sheet music versions are sold, when a recording of the composition is broadcast, etc..) people usually sign what is commonly referred to as a publishing deal. Under this deal, the rights to the composition are usually assigned to the publishing company, who act as the collector, mediating with various music agencies, broadcasters etc.. They collect the monies, keep their fee or percentage, and pass the balance on to the songwriter on a regular basis.

Originally, Prince's publishing deal was with Warner's, possibly written in as part of his overall deal. When that expired a few years ago, he signed with Universal. Whatever the contract expiry date is with Universal, the full rights will then once again revert to Prince. But essentially, he is not in dispute over this matter (as far as we know).

Prince has commented on how mishandling of publishing rights (favouring the publishing company at the expense of the artist) can lead to injustice. He makes passing reference in 'White Mansion', for example. Undoubtedly, in the past, some record companies will sign an artist or band and indicate that part and parcel of the deal is that they also handle the publishing!

Under current copyright law, Prince (and later Prince's estate) can assert these rights (receive monies) up until 50 year's after Prince's death.

2. Recordings: Under Prince's recording contracts with Warners, he was basically asked to deliver up a certain number of albums within a certain period.

The rights to the use of the recordings (or at least some of them - the essence of the question posed by this thread is to understand precisely which recordings) are retained by Warners for a period of time.

These are the rights which Prince has previously considered unjust.

It looks most likely that they will revert back to Prince 35 years after each recording was made available to Warners.


What BinaryJustin is suggesting here is that it is possible that not only do Warners continue to retain rights to the officially-released recordings dating back to his first album, but also (potentially) rights to recordings of material Prince offered to Warners for release at some stage, but which - for whatever reason, was never released.

This does happen. A band signs a three-album contract with a record company. The artist is obliged to deliver up three album's worth of material. But the record company might well reserve the option to release the material - or not! If the first album underperforms, the record company might hear the second album and decide it doesn't have the commercial appeal they require. Said band then discovers that not only is the second album effectively shelved (or under-promoted at best), but they also have to record a third album, with no guarantee that it will ever see the light of day either. Worst still, in fulfilling their contractual obligations, the right to use the recordings they serve up will remain with the record company for years to come.

The band now has a difficult choice. They can try to deliver their finest work in the full knowledge that the record company which has just rejected their last effort, will continue to profit from their artistry for years to come. Or they can deliver up their cast-offs, which isn't going to do their reputation any good if they go looking for a new deal in a few years time - and by which time 'the word is out' that the band is a bunch of awkward, difficult, patchy, one-hit wonder has-beens.

Of course, in Prince's case, he never had any difficulty in delivering up material - he was usually desperate to find one more way to release material whilst Warners were still trying to milk the last album for every last cent.

But BinaryJustin's question is a valid one:

Did Prince ever offer up a track such as 'Empty Room' or 'Rebirth Of The Flesh' which left Warners contractually entitled to use those master recordings, and preventing Prince from releasing those particular recordings for years?

.