New topic
PrintableYou are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
ahem this from the Compulsory License for making and distributing phonorecords Circular by the US Copyright Office says... quite interesting if I may say :
"MAY A NEW ARRANGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL WORK BE MADE FOR THE RECORDING? Yes. The compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work “to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpre-tation of the performance involved.” However, section 115 also provides that the arrangement “shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work...except with the express consent of the copyright owner.”" Aaahh so if the copyrightowner does not expressly consent that the your cover will be be subject to protection as a derivative work you will NOT own your cover... You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kmc said: here's a thought:
I believe that I read somewhere that Prince had a clause that songs record pseudynymously were handled differently... i.e., a song penned by "Alexander Nevermind" wasn't the same as a song recorded by "Prince." I personally think that every author or creator has a fundamental right to create his/her/their work under a pseudonym name... that's what P did on exodus as well, acting 'anonymous' band member named Tora Tora who always wore that crazy mask!  You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said: kmc said: here's a thought:
I believe that I read somewhere that Prince had a clause that songs record pseudynymously were handled differently... i.e., a song penned by "Alexander Nevermind" wasn't the same as a song recorded by "Prince." I personally think that every author or creator has a fundamental right to create his/her/their work under a pseudonym name... that's what P did on exodus as well, acting 'anonymous' band member named Tora Tora who always wore that crazy mask! But Exodus had Sonny T as the lead singer. I don't think he could have released this album independently (without WB's consent) if the lead vox were all by "Tora Tora", lol. No Candy 4 Me | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Brian mf! I left you an orgnote to read! I still don't think you are getting it... lol You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo--this 'ish is too "ducking" complicated, lol. No Candy 4 Me | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo--
I'm almost 100% with you, but it still doesn't completely make sense. If what you are saying is true, couldn't Prince (as  ) have released an album (before his 10 album contractual obligation was finished in 1996) independently? I mean, if using an alternate name allowed him to release Exodus independently, then WTF was the fight about with WB over The Gold Experience?!?
could have simply released it independently, right? It just wouldn't have counted as one of the ten albums he owed.No Candy 4 Me | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Okay this is some crazy long ass shit I posted on the Tora Tora thread, but it applies to this discussion as well. There just for you! Very good leisure reading! Don't fall asleep, it's really very interesting 
Y'all must think I'm crazy 
Dauphin said: ----- I believe he used WEA or Bellmark to distribute this album (Exodus)in Europe. ----- To clear it more up (hopefully lol) I took this from the back-cover of Exodus Distribution: Germany: "edel" company Austria: emv Switserland: Phonag UK: edel UK/Phinnacle France: edel france Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg for all y'all not knowing this lol): edel/Sony Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Sweden): edel/Sony Finland: edel/Sony Italy: edel Italia Spain: edel/Errece printed and manufactured in Germany P-1995 NPG records C-1995 NPG records Now that's a WHOLE lot of companies there! lol and no mentions of any Warner Bros. records involvement... NPG records, his new record company next to PP at the time, owns the copyrights to Exodus, not Warner in some way. But Paisley Park and Prince the artist were contracted to WB records at the time. Prince the author and composer was contracted to to Warner Chappel publishing untill 2000. However Prince supposedly had nothing to do with Exodus and was supposed to be dead!! ( aahhh the good old Get wild dayz...lol) Prince, or better actually did some cool stuff with releasing this record. As far as I can remember they (The "NPG") made this deal with the Edel company from Germany and Warner was not invlolved. Edel took further care of the distribution using all those obscure sounding small distributors lol. Edel is, or at least was at the time, one of the biggest independed recordcompanies, operating mainly in Europe. As far as I can tell from Exodus, WB had NO involvemnet in it. But in 1994 there was also the mini-cd "The Beautiful Experience" by released even before Exodus, there the distribution was done by: G: edel company A: emv Ch: Phonag AG Benelux: Red Bullet Productions B.V. (Lol really!) UK: Grapevine/terry Blood (who???? ) Scandinavia: Mega Records Israel: IMP Dance printed and manufactured in Germany by Optimal. Here a couple of other small companies are also doing the distribution. Again it says P & C 1994 NPG RECORDS BUT also: Appears courtesy Warner Bros. records. Telling us that the name change did not really help him to get out of his contract right? But Warner did go along with the name change, they did not like it, but neither did they let him get it out of his contractual obligations. ----- Oddly, the songs are all published by Warner Chapell, if I recall. ----- Don't know for sure again about Exodus. The booklet from Exodus only says about the publishingrights: Copyright 1994 NPG Music publishing (ASCAP). That's the publishing from the NPG bandmembers that wrote those songs. Not a Controversy or Emancipation Music(he used this since 1996) mention there since the band NPG wrote the songs and noooo Prince wasn't in the band!! Lol. really?? In short no sign, mention or indication of Warner Chappel involvement, also hardly a sign of Prince involvement lol. On the other hand the booklet from The Beautiful Experience tells us: copyright controversy music: the publishing company Prince owns himself and that holds the publishingrights to his songs, but which was also contracted to Warner Chappel which administered these rights untill 2000, indicating that Warner Chappel as well as WB records (see above) could very well have been involved with this release...The name Prince adopted: was actually his SLAVE name during the entire period he was contracted to WB records and Warner Chappel publishing. so there you have the two theories-more or less- like you said Dauphin :
"Like I said, there are two schools of thought on this: 1) Prince did this so that he could perform and promote the band without using his name and likeness that was under contract with Warner. 2) Prince did this with the consent of Warner but played it to his Slave tirades at the time. Something that probably wouldn't go over very well with Warner very well. Granted, Warner did release The Black Album...as far as I know, there was some back dealing there too. The book _Days of Wild_ from Per Nielson at Uptown magazine goes into more (and probably more accurate) detail on this if I recall. I definately recommend picking it and _DanceMusicSexRomance_ (by the same author) up. Cheers[/quote] Cheers You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lol fuck! all the symbols have disappeared from my post!! phuckphuckphuckadephuck!
How am I gonna repair that???  lol fuckYou are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Abrazo said:[quote]What's up super?? I didn't say it was true what i was saying. It could be either that or this. I did express some doubt there didn't I? Like that it could be something else then I thought? lol
this american system of compulsory licences does NOT exist in my country, so I was a little confused there lol here is a quote "Can I copyright an arrangment of someone else's song? Yes, with their permission - this is called a derivative work. Quoting from Copyright Office circular 14: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyright-able in itself. [b]and additionally [b] Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. What is a compulsory license? Once a song has been published, people other than the copyright holder may produce their own versions under a compulsory license. In this context, compulsory means the artist covering the song must pay royalties at a standard rate to the copyright holder. Commonly, at least in cases where there are likely to be substantial sales of the cover version, the performer and the copyright holder will negotiate a rate more favorable to the performer (after all, if the performer decides it's too expensive and doesn't release their cover, the author makes nothing). See circular 73 for more details. " See you were right and I was not wrong, in fact I mentioned it could be a possibility, I just wasn't sure lol
Sorry, Abrazo. I must have missed the post where you explained that. My fault. But US law differs from the law in the netherlands. here is what it says more or less, in English lol:
Yeah, there are some music industry laws that differ from country to country. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
i LOVED the idea of P changing his name 2 but when he changed it back i was kind of confused. remember back on Oprah how he mentioned that it was GOD who told him 2 change his name?
well, in some Respects i can see that he possible felt The Cr8tor told him 2 change his name. consider the Fact that anything POSITIVE u do or say comes from The Cre8tor in the 1st place & then i can understand P's point. i wonder if u were 2 hold up a & say 2 P: "Hey & waive it in the air" would he answer u.
was never pronouncable. now when u see P he just has the NPG on a pendant & u don't see the any longer. it was fun while it lasted.
still lives on In The Inner Minds Eye, tho...Peace ... & Stay Funky ...
~* The only love there is, is the love "we" make *~ www.facebook.com/purplefunklover |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator