I think we can summarise this important matter as follows:

US copyright law provides for a rule that the author of a copyrighted work, that was created on or after January 1, 1978, and who has transferred the copyright to that work to a different party, has an inalienable right to terminate such transfer, 35 years after its execution.

Many songwriters and recording artists therefore have the opportunity to reclaim the copyrights to their respective (post 1977) songs and recordings, 35 years after handing them over to their music publisher or record company.

Within a couple of years (2013) the music industry is going to be all up in arms about this. Altho' this issue does not just concern music but all types of copyrighted works, music companies will probably fight the most over it. Primarily they will claim that most of the works (they now still own) are actually "works for hire".

That they were the "employer", and that most of the songwriters and recording artists this concerns, were "employees", not independent contractors. That therefore legally, they are "the author" of pretty much all the music they released (and not released) since 1978. And that therefore basically none of that music is eligible for termination of a transfer of copyright by their true creators.

Songwriters and recording artists however, will generally stand a good chance in fighting that claim in court and winning back their rights, because their work usually does not fit within the legal definition of "a work for hire". Unfortunately tho', this battle will ultimately and probably have to be decided by the US Supreme Court, many years from now.

In the meantime, things will get much more messy. There will be lots of legal uncertainty, litigation, bargaining, strongarming, threatening, and also bribing going on, ensuring that many issues will drag on for years. Lawyers will have a field day (again), while songwriters, recording artists and music companies will suffer even more in the hole they are already in.

As for Prince, "remasters" may in the end surface because of all of this, but that's certainly not guaranteed. Before that can even happen, several issues will have to be resolved, with WB records but also with the several artists Prince co- "produced, performed, arranged and composed" much of his work with.

Interesting times.

[Edited 9/22/11 11:20am]

rialb said:

To us it seems pretty clear that the artists will win this battle but it is never a good idea to underestimate lawyers and their ability to make something simple complicated beyond understanding. Of course I am on the side of the creators but I would not be surprised if the labels somehow found a way to circumvent the law and maintain control of those masters in perpetuity.

I just hope that all of the creators are fully aware of the possibility of regaining control of their music and do not miss out on the opportunity due to the five year rule.

Also, does anyone know if the labels have taken steps to alter new contracts in such a way to get around this law?

Some definitly have. But sufficiently? I don't think so.

Is a new artist starting out today guaranteed to get their masters back after 35 years or have the labels found a way to hold on to them?

Time and court rulings will tell.

Timmy84 said:

^ I think Prince is against re-releases for some reason...

I'm afraid you could be right. Would be a real shame tho'.

AlexdeParis said:

artists shouldn't be able to pass on the rights of songs to anyone else.

That would surely solve a lot of the current problems.

But it's also a problem in itself to do that.

rialb said:

I think that as long as a proper amount of time has lapsed then all intellectual property should go into the public domain. How much time? I would say a fair bit, maybe 50-75 years?

The current duration of copyright for most works in most countries, before they to go into the public domain, is around 70 years plus the life of the (last living) author. When it's a work for hire around 70-100 years from the date of publication.

I do think that the original creator should continue to be identified as the creator

Many countries, tho' not (exactly) the US, have rules on so-called "personality rights" of the author, like the right to be identified as author of the work and also the right not to have your work be mutilated or your name and reputation damaged. These rights usually cannot be waived or transferred. Contrary to "exploitation rights" such as reproducing, arranging and publishing the work.

but should the family or, more likely, a corporation that had nothing to do with creating the work profit from it in perpetuity? No, I do not believe so.

In perpetuity? Nobody should ever have that right. But many would like.

[Edited 10/3/11 14:28pm]

MickyDolenz said:

You can also have an act like a gospel choir, which might have 50 members. Does each member (or their descendants) have a say?

It's an extreme example, but yes, in case it's not a work for hire, in principal they all have a say.