lastdecember said:

rialb said:

If I can chime in here just because someone covers or samples/uses elements from "Take on Me" or "Your Song" does not mean that they will end up making money from it. 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? I do think that the original creator should continue to be identified as the creator 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.

Well the thing is the artist/owner has the "right" to pass along the "rights" if i own a house and die and want it to go to my wife instead of the state of NYC that goes in my will, why should i not be allowed that right? why should anyone feel they can take the house now because im dead or its been long enough.

In the case of music again i feel its the artists right if they own it, if they want it to go to the homeless guy on the corner than they have that right if they own it. NOW i agree that family shouldnt just feel its their stuff now that so and so is dead, which OFTEN happens, Michael Hutchence of INXS fame, his family raided his estate when he died, all except his dad, everyone else got SUE happy, and even sued the band, which basically the reason Michael had money for them to steal in the first place.Now with that said, in his will things were passed to his daughter, and call me crazy, if he feels that SHE should have the right to sell "need you tonight" in 25 years as form of money that he wanted to leave her, why not? Why should the public get that right if the artist didnt want it.

Because it's not property you can control like that! It's not property. This whole system is predicated on people pretending song rights are property, but they aren't. You can't honestly believe they're the same. I mean, there was never a Napster for downloading houses for a reason.

AlexdeParis said:

lastdecember said:

Well the thing is the artist/owner has the "right" to pass along the "rights" if i own a house and die and want it to go to my wife instead of the state of NYC that goes in my will, why should i not be allowed that right? why should anyone feel they can take the house now because im dead or its been long enough.

In the case of music again i feel its the artists right if they own it, if they want it to go to the homeless guy on the corner than they have that right if they own it. NOW i agree that family shouldnt just feel its their stuff now that so and so is dead, which OFTEN happens, Michael Hutchence of INXS fame, his family raided his estate when he died, all except his dad, everyone else got SUE happy, and even sued the band, which basically the reason Michael had money for them to steal in the first place.Now with that said, in his will things were passed to his daughter, and call me crazy, if he feels that SHE should have the right to sell "need you tonight" in 25 years as form of money that he wanted to leave her, why not? Why should the public get that right if the artist didnt want it.

Because it's not property you can control like that! It's not property. This whole system is predicated on people pretending song rights are property, but they aren't. You can't honestly believe they're the same. I mean, there was never a Napster for downloading houses for a reason.

yeah i think it is the same thing because it is yours, if you pay for the copyright and legally own it, its yours, to do with what you want, even sell the rights if that be your choosing. I mean if thats the case why do artists even care about "rights" and "ownership" do we feel that when they record a song and release it, its just free for everyone to take and make their own money off of it? if thats the case why do these artists go to court, i think if you tear all this down, you will end the abiltiy to keep creating music, it still takes $$ to keep on, i know alot on this forum think that you can make a living on having nothing and giving your music away, but you cant, there at some point has to be some form of ownership so money is coming in. Napster was just set up to take music without paying for it, and then the people at Napster made money off that business, but you cant sell someone elses stuff and just expect that you can get away with it. I mean when i do my stage/theatre shows, alot of times i use "music" in it, now i have to get permission especially because the theatre is charging for tickets and TECHNICALLY money is being made and so and so's music is being used, so if they wanted to charge they could charge me for using it or i have to have a written agreement within saying and granted permission, i cant just wake up one day and use an a-ha song in a segue in a film and not tell anyone, nor should i be allowed to by a "public domain" rule

So Big Bird can put in a request to get his masters back.

lastdecember said:

AlexdeParis said:

Because it's not property you can control like that! It's not property. This whole system is predicated on people pretending song rights are property, but they aren't. You can't honestly believe they're the same. I mean, there was never a Napster for downloading houses for a reason.

yeah i think it is the same thing because it is yours, if you pay for the copyright and legally own it, its yours, to do with what you want, even sell the rights if that be your choosing. I mean if thats the case why do artists even care about "rights" and "ownership" do we feel that when they record a song and release it, its just free for everyone to take and make their own money off of it? if thats the case why do these artists go to court, i think if you tear all this down, you will end the abiltiy to keep creating music, it still takes $$ to keep on, i know alot on this forum think that you can make a living on having nothing and giving your music away, but you cant, there at some point has to be some form of ownership so money is coming in. Napster was just set up to take music without paying for it, and then the people at Napster made money off that business, but you cant sell someone elses stuff and just expect that you can get away with it. I mean when i do my stage/theatre shows, alot of times i use "music" in it, now i have to get permission especially because the theatre is charging for tickets and TECHNICALLY money is being made and so and so's music is being used, so if they wanted to charge they could charge me for using it or i have to have a written agreement within saying and granted permission, i cant just wake up one day and use an a-ha song in a segue in a film and not tell anyone, nor should i be allowed to by a "public domain" rule

I just don't know how I can explain it any simpler. An idea can't be controlled the same way actual property can. You must know that. The minute you share an idea, a riff, or an entire song with anyone, that person is able to copy it or use it. That's just reality. It's like peeing in a pool. Once it's in/out there, it's in/out there. The copyright system was an artificial method designed by lawmakers to allow artists to profit from their works (for a limited amount of time) because those works (and having artists in general) ultimately benefit society as a whole. But again, you can't own an idea and sell rights to it. I mean, that's how the system is set up now, but does it really make sense? If you honestly believe people should be suing people so that Beethoven's great, great, great, greatgrandchildren and their decendents can live off his creativity... well, we just have to agree to disagree.

AlexdeParis said:

lastdecember said:

yeah i think it is the same thing because it is yours, if you pay for the copyright and legally own it, its yours, to do with what you want, even sell the rights if that be your choosing. I mean if thats the case why do artists even care about "rights" and "ownership" do we feel that when they record a song and release it, its just free for everyone to take and make their own money off of it? if thats the case why do these artists go to court, i think if you tear all this down, you will end the abiltiy to keep creating music, it still takes $$ to keep on, i know alot on this forum think that you can make a living on having nothing and giving your music away, but you cant, there at some point has to be some form of ownership so money is coming in. Napster was just set up to take music without paying for it, and then the people at Napster made money off that business, but you cant sell someone elses stuff and just expect that you can get away with it. I mean when i do my stage/theatre shows, alot of times i use "music" in it, now i have to get permission especially because the theatre is charging for tickets and TECHNICALLY money is being made and so and so's music is being used, so if they wanted to charge they could charge me for using it or i have to have a written agreement within saying and granted permission, i cant just wake up one day and use an a-ha song in a segue in a film and not tell anyone, nor should i be allowed to by a "public domain" rule

I just don't know how I can explain it any simpler. An idea can't be controlled the same way actual property can. You must know that. The minute you share an idea, a riff, or an entire song with anyone, that person is able to copy it or use it. That's just reality. It's like peeing in a pool. Once it's in/out there, it's in/out there. The copyright system was an artificial method designed by lawmakers to allow artists to profit from their works (for a limited amount of time) because those works (and having artists in general) ultimately benefit society as a whole. But again, you can't own an idea and sell rights to it. I mean, that's how the system is set up now, but does it really make sense? If you honestly believe people should be suing people so that Beethoven's great, great, great, greatgrandchildren and their decendents can live off his creativity... well, we just have to agree to disagree.

But all that is understood, BUT you cant think that just because an artist who sits down writes an album and puts it out, somebody now can come along and totally cover the whole album word for word and put their name on it as if they did it from scratch? With nothing going to the artist, or whom the artists wants it to go to? Thats what im saying, i dont want some asshole rapper or goofy pop kid thinking he can dive into some "80's group" catalog because the "80's are a trend thats in" and make money off that like they thought of it, to me thats just ripping off not spreading knowledge.

lastdecember said:

With nothing going to the artist, or whom the artists wants it to go to?

What if the creator of the song does not own it? In the past, it was common for record label heads or managers to put their name on records and register their name at the copyright office as the writer and the real writers are not credited at all and make no money. The real writer has no legal standing, but the registered "writer" does. Also in many cases, some songwriters give people (or even pets) credit who don't have anything to do with the song to help them out, such as friends or relatives. You can also have an act like a gospel choir, which might have 50 members. Does each member (or their descendants) have a say? In a situation like Motown in the 1960's, the performer just sang songs they were told to sing and have no say in what was done with the material. That's how the music business always worked.

Harlepolis said:

FunkiestOne said:

There is a different between the physical master tapes and the rights to such songs/material.

I know

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

I guess I will just post here too what I posted to these threads in Prince music and more.

I still wish some people would read that NY article before they post. It basically says it all really. And there have been loads of threads about this issue on the org.

Still, there are so many myths being repeated over and over by some people. The FACTS are:

The statutory termination date is 35 years after transferring the rights. NOT 30 years.

It applies to all authors of a copyrighted work, including recording artists and sound recordings, UNLESS the work in question is a "work for hire".

It does not apply to works created before january 1st 1978 and it is only valid in the US.

In 2013 there is going to be a WAR in the (US) music industry over this rule. There will be legal battles flying all over the place, because this is about the music moguls bread and butter vs many established recording artists wishing to regain control over their work.

Record companies will claim that all the recordings they released are "works for hire". But most of them are not and so the record companies are going to lose that war by and large.

As for Prince: he IS going to get HIS rights back to the recordings he made for WB, one by one, starting in 2013 with For You.

BUT that does NOT mean that Prince is the only one who will be able to get his rights back. Recordings and compositions/lyrics of songs other artists contributed to, are subject to the same rule. Basically this could mean that all the recordings he made with other artists would become jointly owned. Unless these artists made a work for hire, but they (arguably) didn't either.

And WB will not let go easily. They will deem it to be in their interest to hold on as long and as much as they can. And they may have some more contractual tricks up their sleeve. A court battle is therefore not unlikely. However, since they will likely lose, it will not be in their interest to let that come to a ruling. Therefore they will probably drag it as long as they can and in the meantime keep on trying to come to a (new) agreement.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Harlepolis said:

I know

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

Prince doesn't keep on saying that! You and other people on this board do.

And only because some guys from some podcast SAID that Prince SAID that.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

With nothing going to the artist, or whom the artists wants it to go to?

What if the creator of the song does not own it? In the past, it was common for record label heads or managers to put their name on records and register their name at the copyright office as the writer and the real writers are not credited at all and make no money. The real writer has no legal standing, but the registered "writer" does. Also in many cases, some songwriters give people (or even pets) credit who don't have anything to do with the song to help them out, such as friends or relatives. You can also have an act like a gospel choir, which might have 50 members. Does each member (or their descendants) have a say? In a situation like Motown in the 1960's, the performer just sang songs they were told to sing and have no say in what was done with the material. That's how the music business always worked.

Basically yes, but not the law on copyrights since 1978.

Tremolina said:

I guess I will just post here too what I posted to these threads in Prince music and more.

I still wish some people would read that NY article before they post. It basically says it all really. And there have been loads of threads about this issue on the org.

Still, there are so many myths being repeated over and over by some people. The FACTS are:

The statutory termination date is 35 years after transferring the rights. NOT 30 years.

It applies to all authors of a copyrighted work, including recording artists and sound recordings, UNLESS the work in question is a "work for hire".

It does not apply to works created before january 1st 1978 and it is only valid in the US.

In 2013 there is going to be a WAR in the (US) music industry over this rule. There will be legal battles flying all over the place, because this is about the music moguls bread and butter vs many established recording artists wishing to regain control over their work.

Record companies will claim that all the recordings they released are "works for hire". But most of them are not and so the record companies are going to lose that war by and large.

As for Prince: he IS going to get HIS rights back to the recordings he made for WB, one by one, starting in 2013 with For You.

BUT that does NOT mean that Prince is the only one who will be able to get his rights back. Recordings and compositions/lyrics of songs other artists contributed to, are subject to the same rule. Basically this could mean that all the recordings he made with other artists would become jointly owned. Unless these artists made a work for hire, but they (arguably) didn't either.

And WB will not let go easily. They will deem it to be in their interest to hold on as long and as much as they can. And they may have some more contractual tricks up their sleeve. A court battle is therefore not unlikely. However, since they will likely lose, it will not be in their interest to let that come to a ruling. Therefore they will probably drag it as long as they can and in the meantime keep on trying to come to a (new) agreement.

Would this mean that his albums by The Time, The Family and Vanity 6 will be co-owned by their members too?

AlexdeParis said:

lastdecember said:

yeah i think it is the same thing because it is yours, if you pay for the copyright and legally own it, its yours, to do with what you want, even sell the rights if that be your choosing. I mean if thats the case why do artists even care about "rights" and "ownership" do we feel that when they record a song and release it, its just free for everyone to take and make their own money off of it? if thats the case why do these artists go to court, i think if you tear all this down, you will end the abiltiy to keep creating music, it still takes $$ to keep on, i know alot on this forum think that you can make a living on having nothing and giving your music away, but you cant, there at some point has to be some form of ownership so money is coming in. Napster was just set up to take music without paying for it, and then the people at Napster made money off that business, but you cant sell someone elses stuff and just expect that you can get away with it. I mean when i do my stage/theatre shows, alot of times i use "music" in it, now i have to get permission especially because the theatre is charging for tickets and TECHNICALLY money is being made and so and so's music is being used, so if they wanted to charge they could charge me for using it or i have to have a written agreement within saying and granted permission, i cant just wake up one day and use an a-ha song in a segue in a film and not tell anyone, nor should i be allowed to by a "public domain" rule

I just don't know how I can explain it any simpler. An idea can't be controlled the same way actual property can. You must know that. The minute you share an idea, a riff, or an entire song with anyone, that person is able to copy it or use it. That's just reality. It's like peeing in a pool. Once it's in/out there, it's in/out there. The copyright system was an artificial method designed by lawmakers to allow artists to profit from their works (for a limited amount of time) because those works (and having artists in general) ultimately benefit society as a whole. But again, you can't own an idea and sell rights to it. I mean, that's how the system is set up now, but does it really make sense? If you honestly believe people should be suing people so that Beethoven's great, great, great, greatgrandchildren and their decendents can live off his creativity... well, we just have to agree to disagree.

You do make sense, but like you say yourself: That's how the system is set up now.

V10LETBLUES said:

Tremolina said:

I guess I will just post here too what I posted to these threads in Prince music and more.

I still wish some people would read that NY article before they post. It basically says it all really. And there have been loads of threads about this issue on the org.

Still, there are so many myths being repeated over and over by some people. The FACTS are:

The statutory termination date is 35 years after transferring the rights. NOT 30 years.

It applies to all authors of a copyrighted work, including recording artists and sound recordings, UNLESS the work in question is a "work for hire".

It does not apply to works created before january 1st 1978 and it is only valid in the US.

In 2013 there is going to be a WAR in the (US) music industry over this rule. There will be legal battles flying all over the place, because this is about the music moguls bread and butter vs many established recording artists wishing to regain control over their work.

Record companies will claim that all the recordings they released are "works for hire". But most of them are not and so the record companies are going to lose that war by and large.

As for Prince: he IS going to get HIS rights back to the recordings he made for WB, one by one, starting in 2013 with For You.

BUT that does NOT mean that Prince is the only one who will be able to get his rights back. Recordings and compositions/lyrics of songs other artists contributed to, are subject to the same rule. Basically this could mean that all the recordings he made with other artists would become jointly owned. Unless these artists made a work for hire, but they (arguably) didn't either.

And WB will not let go easily. They will deem it to be in their interest to hold on as long and as much as they can. And they may have some more contractual tricks up their sleeve. A court battle is therefore not unlikely. However, since they will likely lose, it will not be in their interest to let that come to a ruling. Therefore they will probably drag it as long as they can and in the meantime keep on trying to come to a (new) agreement.

Would this mean that his albums by The Time, The Family and Vanity 6 will be co-owned by their members too?

Once they performed on it and or co-wrote it, in principal they all have a say in it yes. It's called "joint ownership" of a copyrighted work (i.e a song, lyrics, arrangement or performance on a sound recording). Unless the contributions of these artists to these albums would have to be considered "works for hire". But for whom exactly (despite that the fact that they are probably not)?

Same goes for his work with the Revolution and other band members. Did they work for hire?

That NY article is a clear sign that all the parties involved are getting ready for the battle.

It is going to be very interesting, for the artists and companies involved, for copyright lawyers, for the fans, for the entire world actually.

Don't forget that this rule doesn't just apply to musical works or sound recordings. Basically all copyrighted works (post jan. 78) are subject to it!

And there will be very interesting subsequent issues such as:

Does this rule also apply to so called "producers" and (some) recording engineers who contributed creatively to a record?

What if some contributions to a record are a work for hire, but others are not?

What happens when one author or bandmember terminates the transfer of rights, but others don't?

What happens when one author or one of the bandmembers terminates the transfer but then immediately sells back his rights to the (record) company again?

What happens when a record or publishing company has transferred the copyright to a third party in the meantime?

What if the copyright transfer that the artist has signed is governed by another country's laws than the US?

What if the contract obliges to keep on doing business with the (record) company even after terminating the transfer?

What if any of the parties involved has become insolvent or non existent?

etc, etc.

[Edited 8/17/11 6:09am]

Tremolina said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Would this mean that his albums by The Time, The Family and Vanity 6 will be co-owned by their members too?

Once they performed on it and or co-wrote it, in principal they all have a say in it yes.

You mean, it's not just a question of who's registered as the songwriter at ASCAP? If that's true, it's gonna be a crazy war, indeed. Like, how far do we go? Does Ingrid own points in 'Alphabet St.'? Does Tony own points in 'Gett Off'?

Tremolina said:

Same goes for his work with the Revolution and other band members. Did they work for hire?

I would say they did. They worked for Prince. Their job description included performing live, rehearsing, sometimes recording. They got a paycheck paying them for doing their job. As a bonus, they probably get royalty checks for tracks they are credited with co-creating.

Tremolina said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Would this mean that his albums by The Time, The Family and Vanity 6 will be co-owned by their members too?

Once they performed on it and or co-wrote it, in principal they all have a say in it yes. It's called "joint ownership" of a copyrighted work (i.e a song, lyrics, arrangement or performance on a sound recording). Unless the contributions of these artists to these albums would have to be considered "works for hire". But for whom exactly (despite that the fact that they are probably not)?

But those suppose groups. Didn't write or do anything on those albums. Prince did everything. Only thing that was done was there voices was overdubbed over his. Prince even owns the names Vanity 6,The Time & The Family.

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

Prince doesn't keep on saying that! You and other people on this board do.

And only because some guys from some podcast SAID that Prince SAID that.

Prince said it in a conversation with Peach & Black Podcast. So I c u r calling the Peach & Black Podcast people liars!

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Harlepolis said:

I know

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

Because he is either lying/in error (nothing new) or the podcast reported it wrong.

It might be as simple as he has filed for return, under the two year rule.

SquirrelMeat said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

Because he is either lying/in error (nothing new) or the podcast reported it wrong.

It might be as simple as he has filed for return, under the two year rule.

Weren't there two Podcast members that went to chat with Prince? So how can both of them get it wrong? He said he has started getting them back. They said he said he got "4 u". "Prince," & just recieved "Dirty Mind". How can that be a misunderstanding or an error? This really needs to be cleared up. Because it is very important. I'm sure if it wasn't true. The Prince police would have shut that podcast down quick & in a hurry. THEY ARE NOT LYING!

Tremolina said:

This was discussed 10 years ago by Don Henley, when 2013 was still a long time away, then the focus became all about online piracy.

So this is nothing new for Prince. The entire focus for the past decade wound up being all about downloading and kind of forgotten. Now the artists are lining up to file the paperwork.

The RIAA spent the past decade fighting downloading, but they know they will probably lose in this fight, because it's record industry vets vs record industry vets, not just artists. Irving Azoff's on the artists side, and he knew all the guys who used to run Warners, Columbia, Atlantic, etc.

BTW, Prince is an RIAA member (listed under NPG Records). A lot of artists are, esp. ones who own a subsidary label.

Will we see a lot of artists decide to disassociate themselves from the RIAA, and say who cares about gold and platinum records on the wall?

As far as WB goes, Prince's back catalog is handled by Rhino, but he must own "For You", because they don't list it on their site. So it's possible Prince has a 30 year deal, not a 35 year deal.

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

SquirrelMeat said:

Because he is either lying/in error (nothing new) or the podcast reported it wrong.

It might be as simple as he has filed for return, under the two year rule.

Weren't there two Podcast members that went to chat with Prince? So how can both of them get it wrong? He said he has started getting them back. They said he said he got "4 u". "Prince," & just recieved "Dirty Mind". How can that be a misunderstanding or an error? This really needs to be cleared up. Because it is very important. I'm sure if it wasn't true. The Prince police would have shut that podcast down quick & in a hurry. THEY ARE NOT LYING!

Tell me you're not teaching Because I'd hate to be the one taking your exams.

dalsh327 said:

This was discussed 10 years ago by Don Henley, when 2013 was still a long time away, then the focus became all about online piracy.

So this is nothing new for Prince. The entire focus for the past decade wound up being all about downloading and kind of forgotten. Now the artists are lining up to file the paperwork.

The RIAA spent the past decade fighting downloading, but they know they will probably lose in this fight, because it's record industry vets vs record industry vets, not just artists. Irving Azoff's on the artists side, and he knew all the guys who used to run Warners, Columbia, Atlantic, etc.

BTW, Prince is an RIAA member (listed under NPG Records). A lot of artists are, esp. ones who own a subsidary label.

Will we see a lot of artists decide to disassociate themselves from the RIAA, and say who cares about gold and platinum records on the wall?

As far as WB goes, Prince's back catalog is handled by Rhino, but he must own "For You", because they don't list it on their site. So it's possible Prince has a 30 year deal, not a 35 year deal.

Bingo! I also notice that a lot of vinyl reissues have been released with Prince recently. I also heard him mention that he prefers vinyl over digital.

Tremolina said:

MickyDolenz said:

What if the creator of the song does not own it? In the past, it was common for record label heads or managers to put their name on records and register their name at the copyright office as the writer and the real writers are not credited at all and make no money. The real writer has no legal standing, but the registered "writer" does. Also in many cases, some songwriters give people (or even pets) credit who don't have anything to do with the song to help them out, such as friends or relatives. You can also have an act like a gospel choir, which might have 50 members. Does each member (or their descendants) have a say? In a situation like Motown in the 1960's, the performer just sang songs they were told to sing and have no say in what was done with the material. That's how the music business always worked.

Basically yes, but not the law on copyrights since 1978.

The law is irrelevant. It would still benefit the registered writers, and not necessarily the creators if they are not the same. Like it has been said that Puff Daddy doesn't really write or produce much, and he has a staff of ghost writers/producers. But his name is on the product and not the ghostwriters. So the ghostwriters have no legal standing. Also, how would this work with an act that does not write? Do they get master recordings too? What about songs with samples or borrowed lyrics? I've heard several songs quote lines from DeBarge's I Like It. Or that case where Jagger & Richards sued George Michael about Waiting For That Day. They won and were added as writers. The same song samples the beat from James Brown's Funky Drummer, but James is not credited.

From looking at ASCAP, Prince is listed as "Writer" on most of The Time's work.

Joint Ownership will be interesting to resolve when you get into things like Covers, Samples, and the like.

SquirrelMeat said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Then why does Prince keep saying he has gotten his masters back one by one Since three years ago & it hasn't even reached 35 years yet? Explain that!

Because he is either lying/in error (nothing new) or the podcast reported it wrong.

It might be as simple as he has filed for return, under the two year rule.

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Prince has gone through a lot of negotiations with WB since the contract in '92 that he immediately regretted. It's possible that although 35 years is the legal requirement, he negotiated it down to 30. It doesn't seem likely, but, unless he was just lying to Peach & Black, it is possible.

djThunderfunk said:

SquirrelMeat said:

Because he is either lying/in error (nothing new) or the podcast reported it wrong.

It might be as simple as he has filed for return, under the two year rule.

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Prince has gone through a lot of negotiations with WB since the contract in '92 that he immediately regretted. It's possible that although 35 years is the legal requirement, he negotiated it down to 30. It doesn't seem likely, but, unless he was just lying to Peach & Black, it is possible.

I'm not sure if he was "lying" but Prince truly does live in his own world and often sees things very differently than the rest of us.

eyewishuheaven said:

Tremolina said:

Once they performed on it and or co-wrote it, in principal they all have a say in it yes.

You mean, it's not just a question of who's registered as the songwriter at ASCAP? If that's true, it's gonna be a crazy war, indeed. Like, how far do we go? Does Ingrid own points in 'Alphabet St.'? Does Tony own points in 'Gett Off'?

Come on people don't be so lazy, READ!

Read that damn article and my post.

We are not just talking songwriter copyrights/ "publishing rights" to songs here, we are especially talking sound recording copyrights / "masters". You know, the rights to THE RECORDING... sigh

Rule: Every author, including recording artist performing on a record, in principal owns (part of) the copyright, UNLESS his/her record or contribution to it is a "work for hire".

Since most recording artists' work does not fit within the legal definition of a "work for hire", but most artists DO contractually transfer their (part of the) copyright to (usually) record companies, the statutory 35 year termination of transfer clause applies to them AS WELL.

Do we get it now?

[Edited 8/18/11 4:36am]