TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ Tremolina you are back....hurrah!!! Haven't seen u much around here recently, i wonder why

Now, now, now... don't get so excited, it's only been a day or two

[Edited 8/25/11 12:40pm]

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ Tremolina you are back....hurrah!!! Haven't seen u much around here recently, i wonder why

Now, now, now... don't get so excited, it's only been a day or two

[Edited 8/25/11 12:40pm]

I can't help it Trem...u have that effect on me (and I'm sure some of the ladies round here too hahahah)

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ AGREED that he can't do anything with them YET

Exactly

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

Now, now, now... don't get so excited, it's only been a day or two

[Edited 8/25/11 12:40pm]

I can't help it Trem...u have that effect on me (and I'm sure some of the ladies round here too hahahah)

^ Forgive me trem...i'll be sober in the morning..that is if you don't try and prevent it hahah

[Edited 8/25/11 12:46pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

If anyone who ever participated on a recording can claim copyrights as you state, it opens up an ugly can of worms.

VB, I wanted to get back to you on this and try to explain why you are basically right, but also why in many cases it doesn't have to become such a huge problem.

Let's take an example of a song Prince co-wrote and recorded with another artist, like Dirty Mind.

On the album, dr. Fink is credited as co-writer of this song (publishing rights) and as the performer (master recording rights) of the essential keyboard parts on the record (also on Head btw).

At the time of creation, Fink was probably working under a contract stipulating that whatever he made shall be considered a "work for hire" and moreover, that any and all copyrights to whatever he made, would be granted, to either WB or Prince. (I am really not sure about this, but it is common, so for the sake of argument, I am merely assuming here this was the case)

In that case, Fink could now terminate those copyright transfers. If and when he does, they would all have the choice to come to a new agreement on it, or not.

If they would come to a new agreement, nothing really changes, except perhabs the legal position for the parties involved. But the fans would still get to hear the same recording.

If there is no new agreement however, then all involved would have the option to either sue eachother or Prince/WB could replace dr. Finks's keyboard parts with new parts (recording) and get a compulsory license to Fink's part of the copyright to the composition (publishing).

[Edited 8/25/11 13:25pm]

Interesting note from Wiki:

"The ownership to the master will however not necessarily correspond with the title to the copyright in the audio work. Thus, the sale of a master tape will in most jurisdictions not necessarily imply the transfer of copyright to the songs recorded."

Does this mean that ownership of the masters doesn't mean that the artist will necessarily have publishing rights?

^ YES. Read a few posts back, it's what me and Tremolina were discussing...

coltrane3 said:

Interesting note from Wiki:

"The ownership to the master will however not necessarily correspond with the title to the copyright in the audio work. Thus, the sale of a master tape will in most jurisdictions not necessarily imply the transfer of copyright to the songs recorded."

Does this mean that ownership of the masters doesn't mean that the artist will necessarily have publishing rights?

This means that ownership of physical master tapes is DISTINCT from ownership of the copyright to those tapes.

You can sell somebody a tape, but just by doing that, doesn't mean you also sold the copryight to it.

You need a CONTRACT or some other form of written conveyance of rights to do that.

[Edited 8/25/11 15:03pm]

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ YES. Read a few posts back, it's what me and Tremolina were discussing...

My bad. I should have read all the posts.

^ No worries.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ YES. Read a few posts back, it's what me and Tremolina were discussing...

Tremolina said:

coltrane3 said:

Interesting note from Wiki:

"The ownership to the master will however not necessarily correspond with the title to the copyright in the audio work. Thus, the sale of a master tape will in most jurisdictions not necessarily imply the transfer of copyright to the songs recorded."

Does this mean that ownership of the masters doesn't mean that the artist will necessarily have publishing rights?

No, this means that ownership of physical master tapes is DISTINCT from ownership of the copyright to those tapes.

You can sell somebody a tape, but just by doing that, doesn't mean you also sold the copryight to it.

You need a CONTRACT or some other form of written conveyance of rights to do that.

Exactly!. So when Prince finally gets total control of his masters . He will then own the copyrights as he already does now & the masters. He will clean up. That is why he is being so strict about anything concerning his songs, that he wrote for him & others. He knows he will be set into his twilight years..He is not messing that up 4 no one. Even TheTime.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

So when Prince finally gets total control of his masters . He will then own the copyrights as he already does now & the masters. He will clean up.

Yes, clearly Prince's intention is to get (back) as many rights as he can.

He already pretty much owns all the publishing rights to his back catalogue of songs, just not the copyrights to the master recordings.

All he really needs to do is wait untill he can terminate the copyright transfers to the recordings of those songs and he has full and total control. Dream come true...

Or so it seems.

The POINT is that when Prince can do this, so can can dr. Fink, or Dez, or Wendy & Lisa, or Eric Leeds, or Sheila E or... etc...

UNLESS all they made was a "work for hire"

The only albums therefore this really properly works 100% as you just envisioned are his first two.

[Edited 8/25/11 15:10pm]

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

So when Prince finally gets total control of his masters . He will then own the copyrights as he already does now & the masters. He will clean up.

Yes, clearly Prince's intention is to get (back) as many rights as he can.

He already pretty much owns all the publishing rights to his back catalogue of songs, just not the copyrights to the master recordings.

All he really needs to do is wait untill he can terminate the copyright transfers to the recordings of those songs and he has full and total control. Dream come true...

Or so it seems.

The POINT is that when Prince can do this, so can can dr. Fink, or Dez, or Wendy & Lisa, or Eric Leeds, or Sheila E or... etc...

UNLESS all they made was a "work for hire"

The only albums therefore this really properly works 100% as you just envisioned are his first two.

[Edited 8/25/11 15:10pm]

If The Time and The Family stuff is Prince's then surely all of his own stuff is his and not the musicians he hired.

djThunderfunk said:

If The Time and The Family stuff is Prince's then surely all of his own stuff is his and not the musicians he hired.

How can I put this in a way everybody understands?

When a tune is "composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince" (and not anybody else) then surely yes.

But when it's Prince & the Revolution, or Prince and the NPG or some other artists on a record that wasn't 100% composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince, then not.

Unless they worked for hire.

But it doesn't appear that they did.

Tremolina said:

djThunderfunk said:

If The Time and The Family stuff is Prince's then surely all of his own stuff is his and not the musicians he hired.

How can I put this in a way everybody understands?

When a tune is "composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince" (and not anybody else) then surely yes.

But when it's Prince & the Revolution, or Prince and the NPG or some other artists on a record that wasn't 100% composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince, then not.

Unless they worked for hire.

But it doesn't appear that they did.

Of course they did. Prince has hired and fired many musicians. He fired Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis. The rest of The Time didn't agree with that decision, but, it wasn't their decision to make, because they were ALL just hired musicians. They WORKED for HIRE.

So did The Revolution. So did all the various incarnations of The New Power Generation. So did The Family. Etc, etc, etc...

djThunderfunk said:

Tremolina said:

How can I put this in a way everybody understands?

When a tune is "composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince" (and not anybody else) then surely yes.

But when it's Prince & the Revolution, or Prince and the NPG or some other artists on a record that wasn't 100% composed, arranged, performed and produced by Prince, then not.

Unless they worked for hire.

But it doesn't appear that they did.

Of course they did. Prince has hired and fired many musicians. He fired Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis. The rest of The Time didn't agree with that decision, but, it wasn't their decision to make, because they were ALL just hired musicians. They WORKED for HIRE.

So did The Revolution. So did all the various incarnations of The New Power Generation. So did The Family. Etc, etc, etc...

Did you even read this thread and the NYT article?

Because it sure doesn't look like you did.

And you surely are not a lawyer specialising in copyright and entrtainment law.

Tremolina said:

djThunderfunk said:

Of course they did. Prince has hired and fired many musicians. He fired Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis. The rest of The Time didn't agree with that decision, but, it wasn't their decision to make, because they were ALL just hired musicians. They WORKED for HIRE.

So did The Revolution. So did all the various incarnations of The New Power Generation. So did The Family. Etc, etc, etc...

Did you even read this thread and the NYT article?

Because it sure doesn't look like you did.

And you surely are not a lawyer specialising in copyright and entrtainment law.

Yes I did and no I'm not. Are you an entertainment lawyer? If not, pointing out that I'm not is pointless.

I am not addressing the entire article. It clearly speculates on many possibilities. One of which you have focused in on: How does this play out when multiple musicians are involved?

In doing so you are addressing the issue: Did the musicians around Prince work for hire, or not.

I am simply addressing that question. Nothing else.

That said, IMO, the answer is clear. Yes. The musicians who worked for Prince worked for hire. I base this on the fact that he has hired and fired many of them.

I specifically point out Jimmy and Terry as it is clear that Prince was solely responsible for firing them and that Morris and the rest of The Time did not agree with the decision.

If Prince could fire them regardless of what the band thought, they worked for hire.

It's also interesting to note, The Revolution didn't write, or play on, a large amount of the music from the Prince And The Revolution era. Much of that music is all Prince as well. But it doesn't matter because Prince hired the members of The Revolution as well.

Prince had the contract with WB. Not Wendy. Not Lisa. Not Tony M.

djThunderfunk said:

Tremolina said:

Did you even read this thread and the NYT article?

Because it sure doesn't look like you did.

And you surely are not a lawyer specialising in copyright and entrtainment law.

Yes I did and no I'm not. Are you an entertainment lawyer? If not, pointing out that I'm not is pointless.

I am not addressing the entire article. It clearly speculates on many possibilities. One of which you have focused in on: How does this play out when multiple musicians are involved?

In doing so you are addressing the issue: Did the musicians around Prince work for hire, or not.

I am simply addressing that question. Nothing else.

That said, IMO, the answer is clear. Yes. The musicians who worked for Prince worked for hire. I base this on the fact that he has hired and fired many of them.

I specifically point out Jimmy and Terry as it is clear that Prince was solely responsible for firing them and that Morris and the rest of The Time did not agree with the decision.

If Prince could fire them regardless of what the band thought, they worked for hire.

It's also interesting to note, The Revolution didn't write, or play on, a large amount of the music from the Prince And The Revolution era. Much of that music is all Prince as well. But it doesn't matter because Prince hired the members of The Revolution as well.

Prince had the contract with WB. Not Wendy. Not Lisa. Not Tony M.

I'm getting confused. The musicians (such as W&L or Eric Leeds) who played on an artist's (Prince's) songs really isn't what "work for hire" addresses, correct?

The issue is whether Prince, in writing, arranging, producing the songs was "work for hire" in regards to the record label.

The secondary musicians who Prince (or any other artist) hired to help him comtemplate his visions (whether openly consulting with him or simply playing exactly what he told them to to) aren't part of the equation, unless they are actual co-writers of the song or if they have an independent contract with the record label. Is this correct?

This could definitely be an issue with Motown releases where the primary artist and the studio musicians are all under contract from the record label. I have no idea how it worked for Prince and his various bands, but I'm guessing it was Prince who was under contract and the label simply gave him the freedom to pick his band, and then Prince and the band members had contracts or agreements between themselves as to payment for the band members' services.

But, I seriously don't know and am interested in learning how this all works.

If they were work for hire, they wouldn't get the money anyway. But I think if you did contribute to someone's project, you're not work for hire, you're in line to get paid from the copyrights because of what you contributed to the song. Prince may have more of a battle with the musicians he worked with than the labels itself if he does end up getting what he wants - which is easier said than done.

Timmy84 said:

If they were work for hire, they wouldn't get the money anyway. But I think if you did contribute to someone's project, you're not work for hire, you're in line to get paid from the copyrights because of what you contributed to the song. Prince may have more of a battle with the musicians he worked with than the labels itself if he does end up getting what he wants - which is easier said than done.

Why would Prince have a battle when he was the sole writer & copyright owner for everything he wrote mainly. Wendy Lisa the rest names were not on there.. They were just work for hire & were let go. They were already paid for there services playing back up.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Timmy84 said:

If they were work for hire, they wouldn't get the money anyway. But I think if you did contribute to someone's project, you're not work for hire, you're in line to get paid from the copyrights because of what you contributed to the song. Prince may have more of a battle with the musicians he worked with than the labels itself if he does end up getting what he wants - which is easier said than done.

Why would Prince have a battle when he was the sole writer & copyright owner for everything he wrote mainly. Wendy Lisa the rest names were not on there.. They were just work for hire & were let go. They were already paid for there services playing back up.

They're credited on SOME songs lol so they'll get a percentage.

Timmy84 said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Why would Prince have a battle when he was the sole writer & copyright owner for everything he wrote mainly. Wendy Lisa the rest names were not on there.. They were just work for hire & were let go. They were already paid for there services playing back up.

They're credited on SOME songs lol so they'll get a percentage.

Only royalties. But the majority of Prince songs were published through his own Controversy music.I don't remember seeing any other publishing companies on his catalog, that didn't have anything to do with him. But the masters are totally his when it happensSo I don't know what U are talking about..

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Timmy84 said:

They're credited on SOME songs lol so they'll get a percentage.

Only royalties. But the majority of Prince songs were published through his own Controversy music.I don't remember seeing any other publishing companies on his catalog, that didn't have anything to do with him. But the masters are totally his when it happensSo I don't know what U are talking about..

OK. So what makes you so sure he'll easily get it back then? Besides I only said that shit to see your response lol

Timmy84 said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Only royalties. But the majority of Prince songs were published through his own Controversy music.I don't remember seeing any other publishing companies on his catalog, that didn't have anything to do with him. But the masters are totally his when it happensSo I don't know what U are talking about..

OK. So what makes you so sure he'll easily get it back then? Besides I only said that shit to see your response lol

I know U did. U trying to push my buttons. Prince will get them back, because he has worked really hard all his life in the studio. It will pay back 4 him.

Timmy84 said:

If they were work for hire, they wouldn't get the money anyway. But I think if you did contribute to someone's project, you're not work for hire, you're in line to get paid from the copyrights because of what you contributed to the song. Prince may have more of a battle with the musicians he worked with than the labels itself if he does end up getting what he wants - which is easier said than done.

I don't know what the law is.

But, the musicians he hired deserve continued compensation for their contribution to the creative works. They do not deserve in say so or control on in future releases.

IMO of course.

djThunderfunk said:

I don't know what the law is.

I do.

And I'm telling you that the NYT article is very much on it. If you read that and understand what it says, you will completely understand why it's NOT JUST Prince who can excercise the right to terminate a copyright transfer, but also associated artists.

"Work for hire" is not what you think it is. It's NOT JUST Prince being able to hire and fire band members and play their "boss". There are a lot of other factors coming into play to determine whether a musician made a work for hire (they are listed here in this thread).

As soon as one or two essential elements as to what constitutes a work for hire are missing, it doesn't really matter how small or insignificant somebody's creative contribution has been, it is NOT a work for hire. Therefore the musicans responsible for it can demand back their share in the copyright to it.

coltrane3 said:

The secondary musicians who Prince (or any other artist) hired to help him comtemplate his visions (whether openly consulting with him or simply playing exactly what he told them to to) aren't part of the equation, unless they are actual co-writers of the song or if they have an independent contract with the record label. Is this correct?

No that is not correct. Everybody who made a creative contribution to a song, or a recording of a song, in principal has a say over that song or recording. Unless their contribution is a work for hire, or when they grant their copyright to somebody else.

Both are standard industry practices. However, most recording artists' work does not fit within the legal definition of a work for hire, at least not fully. What then becomes legally relevant, is that they transferred their copyright (usually to the record company for the copyright to the recording and to the music publisher for the song). However such conveyance of rights can be reversed under US Copyright law 35 years after the transfer. And that's the issue at play here.

There are certain musicans whose work often does fit within the definition of a work for hire. For example musicians who play in an orchestra or session musicians. Meaning EMPLOYED musicians on the payroll of a record company or studio, who work regular hours, always and exclusively playing and recording stuff the company tells them to, how they tell them to and for whomever the company wants them to. Who normally don't have any creative input of their own, and who get paid a simple monthly salary INCLUDING provisons for insurances, employee taxes and social security.

I am pretty sure Prince's band members were not "session musicians". Yes, they did have some of their characteristics but definitly not all of them.

I'm getting confused. The musicians (such as W&L or Eric Leeds) who played on an artist's (Prince's) songs really isn't what "work for hire" addresses, correct?

No, they most likely did not make any works for hire, if you ask me at least. And I am pretty sure that when all the facts are laid out on the table most copyright lawyers would agree with me.

For example: Eric Leeds.

He wasn't employed to Prince in the sense of an employment contract. Prince hired him as an independent contractor whenever he needed sax in his music. And he could record elsewhere and do his own projects as well.

But NOT JUST that. Eric also composed and arranged all the solos he recorded for Prince pretty much himself. Moreover, I am pretty sure he performed and often produced them as well. And again NOT JUST, but also in a way that Prince could never have achieved himself and also never will. Eric Leeds' creative contributions to Prince's records are therefore ESSENTIAL and practically works of art themselves. Same goes for the work of W&L and several others.

The issue is whether Prince, in writing, arranging, producing the songs was "work for hire" in regards to the record label.

It doesn't really matter to what party a musician was employed. What really matters is: WERE they employed (in the sense of a "work for hire")?

My point is: Prince wasn't and neither were his band members.

So after 35 years they ALL have a stake in the copyright claims.

[Edited 8/27/11 9:17am]

Tremolina said:

It doesn't really matter to what party a musician was employed. What really matters is: WERE they employed (in the sense of a "work for hire")?

My point is: Prince wasn't and neither were his band members.

So after 35 years they ALL have a stake in the copyright claims.

If you are an entertainment lawyer, please say so. You asked if I was, and, you stated you do know the law. I would ask the same. That said,

I don't disagree that they have a stake in copyright claims when it comes to compensation.

I disagree that they have a say so in remastering, re-releasing, etc...

Only Prince will have a say-so in how the legacy in handled in the future.

Sure they may get paid, but it will be Prince's ball game...

or, at least, it should....

I'm not completely uneducated on the subject. I'm aware for instance, of the case of the Dead Kennedy's suing Jello Biafra because he wouldn't sell out and allow their music to be used in commercials. Their argument was, although the decision was Jello's, he was depriving them of income by sticking to his artistic ideals. Unfortunately, they won, and the courts forced him to allow the commercialization of his music so his bandmates could profit... that's F'd up!