djThunderfunk said:

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.

Yes they "worked for Prince". But were they truly "employed" as in an employment contract with Prince? Were they really Prince's "employees" according to the legal definition of that term or were they "independent contractors" / "freelancers"? Did they really just do any and everything Prince told them to creatively, or were they creative co-producers? Did Prince really pay them a monthly or weekly salary, or did WB perhabs? Were they paid including arrangements for employee income taxes, social security premiums etc. and did he insure them as employees against damages?

If not, they did not work for hire.

[Edited 8/18/11 4:52am]

wiki has a fairly good explanation of it all too. READ IT:

In the Supreme Court case affirming that the common law of agency should be used to distinguish employers from independent contractors in the work for hire context, Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,^[4] the Court listed some of these factors:

In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party.

See Restatement § 220(2) (setting forth a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to determining whether a hired party is an employee)."

Examples of works made for hire in an employer-employee context are a software program created by an employee programmer or ad copy created by a marketing department employee.^[5]

On the other hand, if the work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer, the work may be considered a work for hire only if all of the following conditions are met:

• the work must come within one of the nine limited categories of works listed in the definition above, namely (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, (9) an atlas;
• the work must be specially ordered or commissioned;
• there must be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.^[3]

In other words, mutual agreement that a work is a work for hire is not enough. For example, if Willy James commissioned Octavia Goodnotes to write a symphony in honor of WillyJamesCo's 10th Anniversary, and she agreed in writing that the work was a work for hire, and promised in writing to never consider the symphony anything but a work for hire — it would not be a work for hire because symphony was not created as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. In other words, the work does not come within one of the nine categories of WFH that are created by an independent contractor.

{...}

An author has the inalienable right to terminate a copyright transfer 35 years after agreeing to permanently relinquish the copyright.^[6] However, according to the US Copyright Office, Circular 9 "the termination provisions of the law do not apply to works made for hire."^[3]These restrictions, in both the work for hire doctrine and the right of termination, exist out of recognition that artists frequently face unequal bargaining power in their business dealings.

{...}

An author can grant their copyright rights (if any) to the hiring party. However, if not a work made for hire, the author or the author's heirs may exercise their right to terminate the grant. Termination of a grant cannot be effective until 35 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).^[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...k_for_hire

[Edited 8/18/11 4:57am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Tremolina said:

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.

Did i say they they did "anything" on those records?

I said that "once" they did, in principal they would have a claim to terminate as well.

Unless they made a work for hire of course!

[Edited 8/18/11 5:21am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Tremolina said:

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!

Will you stop with your drama and get real please?

[Edited 8/18/11 5:20am]

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.

Right.

AlexdeParis said:

Tremolina said:

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

Believe me, I know my argument is more theoretical than anything else. I recognize where we are today and I am realistic enough to know it isn't going to change drastically at all (or at least not in my lifetime).

Well who knows. These upcoming internal wars could very well be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Tremolina said:

eyewishuheaven said:

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]

Yes but I am pretty sure it will be more than the record companies challenging this. If anyone who ever participated on a recording can claim copyrights as you state, it opens up an ugly can of worms. An entertainment lawyers wet dream come true.

Expect entertainment lawyers lifestyles to become even more lavish and luxurious.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:05am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

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.

It's nothing but SPECULATION. And it is not founded on nothing other than: gosh I don't see For You on Rhino's catalogue lits... or gee, Prince prefers vinyl...

FACT 1: Nobody knows exactly what deals he has. But it is likely that his first were fairly standard as in work for hire and copyright transfer clauses.

FACT 2: About a decade ago Prince spoke DIRECTLY on his own site about the law enabling to get his rights back to For You in 2013 (35 years!)

FACT 3: a fan podcast is NOT the gospel.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:24am]

MickyDolenz said:

Tremolina said:

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

The law is irrelevant.

Uh yeah okay... next

Dauphin said:

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

That's the publishing side of it tho, not the recordings.

Only if Prince also performed and produced everything on all those recordings, only then he has full and complete control over it.

But again: Unless somebody worked for hire of course.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:23am]

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.

Yeah, aAnything is possible. Perhabs he already owns each and every 80's record completely, but he just doesn't want to release remasters, who knows right?

V10LETBLUES said:

Tremolina said:

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]

Yes but I am pretty sure it will be more than the record companies challenging this. If anyone who ever participated on a recording can claim copyrights as you state, it opens up an ugly can of worms. An entertainment lawyers wet dream come true.

Expect entertainment lawyers lifestyles to become even more lavish and luxurious.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:05am]

You are right, it is a dream come true for the lawyers. First they make money by drawing up all these contracts, for decades telling their clients that thereby they will own their records fully and completely for all eternity and across the entire universe, but then after 35 years they tell them, tough luck, there is a law that says the orginal author can terminate a copyright transfer. Plus there is a law on work for hire that won't help you out either.

Tremolina said:

Dauphin said:

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

That's the publishing side of it tho, not the recordings.

Only if Prince also performed and produced everything on all those recordings, only then he has full and complete control over it.

But again: Unless somebody worked for hire of course.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:23am]

Prince is listed as writer, and I think that's the part that refers to whom the rights go to when that album "reverts to the owners". The Publishing is seperate, and is currently administered by Universal.

Prince is listed as writer, and I think that's the part that refers to whom the rights go to when that album "reverts to the owners". The Publishing is seperate, and is currently administered by Universal.

Why would you think that?

You need to distinguish between publishing rights and rights to masters/sound recordings.

The "writer" refers to the one writing the song's composition and lyrics (in this case Prince). A songwriter's copyrights are also called "publishing rights". These are usually "administered" by a larger music publisher such as Universal.

Those copyrights to a song are DISTINCT from the copyrights to the sound recording (recorded PERFORMANCE) of a song. As you can see the PERFORMERS on "Get it up" are said to be THE TIME. If this is true, then the members of the time who performed on that record can terminate their transfer of rights as well.

Unless they worked for hire.

Tremolina said:

eyewishuheaven said:

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?

Wow, I just wanted to make sure I had it right before chatting about the change, and its implications.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a jerk!

eyewishuheaven said:

Tremolina said:

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?

Wow, I just wanted to make sure I had it right before chatting about the change, and its implications.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a jerk!

Well sorry if I came off as a jerk. Nothing personal, it's just that so many people repeat the same myths over and over again, it gets tired having to rebuke it again and again too.

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

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

Will you stop with your drama and get real please?

[Edited 8/18/11 5:20am]

IC U don't want Prince 2 have them back yet 4 ur own personal pleasure. But guess what? He will or already has. So eat crow troll....

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

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.

It's nothing but SPECULATION. And it is not founded on nothing other than: gosh I don't see For You on Rhino's catalogue lits... or gee, Prince prefers vinyl...

FACT 1: Nobody knows exactly what deals he has. But it is likely that his first were fairly standard as in work for hire and copyright transfer clauses.

FACT 2: About a decade ago Prince spoke DIRECTLY on his own site about the law enabling to get his rights back to For You in 2013 (35 years!)

FACT 3: a fan podcast is NOT the gospel.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:24am]

It is if Prince verified that he has started getting his masters back....Please stop with the negativity against Prince & his rights to his masters..Ur wasting my time & the org..

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.

Sure it is. Ever heard of "Intellectual Property?" It refers to ideas, lyrics, music, poetry, etc. Stuff that technically isn't tangible but can and should be allowed to be controlled by those responsible for creating it.

guitarslinger44 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.

Sure it is. Ever heard of "Intellectual Property?" It refers to ideas, lyrics, music, poetry, etc. Stuff that technically isn't tangible but can and should be allowed to be controlled by those responsible for creating it.

"Intellectual property"? You mean the same phrase I called an oxymoron earlier in the thread?

Yes, the lawyers, companies, and artists want you to believe that intellectual property is property. The fact they can't control it anywhere near as easily as tangible objects tells a different story. As they say, "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." Ideas can't be possessed in any meaningful way, which is why there's so much chaos and they keep changing the laws to suit those who have the most lobbying influence and money.

Tremolina said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

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.

It's nothing but SPECULATION. And it is not founded on nothing other than: gosh I don't see For You on Rhino's catalogue lits... or gee, Prince prefers vinyl...

FACT 1: Nobody knows exactly what deals he has. But it is likely that his first were fairly standard as in work for hire and copyright transfer clauses.

FACT 2: About a decade ago Prince spoke DIRECTLY on his own site about the law enabling to get his rights back to For You in 2013 (35 years!)

FACT 3: a fan podcast is NOT the gospel.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:24am]

Yes i think the date must be 2013 as I think we would have heard about it or got re-issues by now if it was 30 years.

However, I thought Prince got back some rights when he left WB...or was that purely the masters!?

rialb said:

djThunderfunk said:

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.

This is very true.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

It's nothing but SPECULATION. And it is not founded on nothing other than: gosh I don't see For You on Rhino's catalogue lits... or gee, Prince prefers vinyl...

FACT 1: Nobody knows exactly what deals he has. But it is likely that his first were fairly standard as in work for hire and copyright transfer clauses.

FACT 2: About a decade ago Prince spoke DIRECTLY on his own site about the law enabling to get his rights back to For You in 2013 (35 years!)

FACT 3: a fan podcast is NOT the gospel.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:24am]

Yes i think the date must be 2013 as I think we would have heard about it or got re-issues by now if it was 30 years.

However, I thought Prince got back some rights when he left WB...or was that purely the masters!?

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

It's nothing but SPECULATION. And it is not founded on nothing other than: gosh I don't see For You on Rhino's catalogue lits... or gee, Prince prefers vinyl...

FACT 1: Nobody knows exactly what deals he has. But it is likely that his first were fairly standard as in work for hire and copyright transfer clauses.

FACT 2: About a decade ago Prince spoke DIRECTLY on his own site about the law enabling to get his rights back to For You in 2013 (35 years!)

FACT 3: a fan podcast is NOT the gospel.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:24am]

Yes i think the date must be 2013 as I think we would have heard about it or got re-issues by now if it was 30 years.

However, I thought Prince got back some rights when he left WB...or was that purely the masters!?

What do you mean by that ("purely the masters?) and why do you think that?

There is only two things in this whole debate that you can count on as a fact: this 35 year termination rule is very REAL ( incl. for recording artists) and Prince spoke on it himself about a decade ago (that he would get his rights to his recordings back starting with For You in 2013).

Anything else you read about it, like that podcast stuff, you can file under speculation, because none of that has been confirmed and because nobody involved is talking about it.

Given the potentially huge amounts of money at stake and the delicacy of the issues, both record companies, and recording artists and their managers have been reticent in talking about termination rights.

[Edited 8/23/11 11:27am]

Obviously, expect a LOT of lawsuits between artists and record companies. And, unfortunately, I'd expect lawsuits between artists as well (writers, performers, musicians, producers, etc.)

I'd expect that at the circuit court or district court level (if filed in federal court), there will be a variety of outcomes. There's no way that court decisions will be uniform, as the record companies will argue the "work for hire" issue to death. And, each individual artist will have to be examined on its own, resulting, possibly in some artists' work escaping the "work for hire" designation (and thus return of the masters), while other artists will be deemed "work for hire" (and thus no return of the masters). It will be all over the place.

Further, the record companies' attorneys will be pouring over the original contracts with a fine tooth comb looking for provisions, clauses, amendements, etc. which can override the 35-year rule. Something as simple as a contract that says that the record company owns the recordings "in perpetuity." The artist can argue that the 35-year law overrides any such "in perpetuity" provision, but the whole point is that it will have to be settled in court with drawn out legal battles.

The legal arguments are no cut and dried, they are not as simplistic as they might appear. And, again, because every situation is unique, every contract is not the same, expect a vast array of outcomes before the "law" starts to come into sharper focus. It should be an interesting, and to some degree sad, showdown. A very long, complicated showdown.

I'm also interested to see what percentage of artists (or artists' estates) actually file a petition to get their rights back. It seems like something every artist would do, but I'm not so sure.

As for Alexadeparis' argument that intellectual property really isn't property (ostensibly beause it's not physical property), I see his/her point. But, in as much as he/she says that the inellectual property/copyright apparatus is merely a way to ascribe property status to something that isn't property (and therefore profit off of it), I don't think the legal status of such "fake" property is going anywhere soon. True, ideas can't really be contained and controlled. As noted, if someone hears a song that he likes, he can readily use it for his own purposes because a song (unlike a piece of jewlery or other tangible object) can't be locked away once it's out in the public domain and replicated. But, record companies and their attorneys, and artists as well, know they can never completely control the use of such ideas and that many, many legally unauthorized uses will go undetected. But, the apparatus is set up to at least gain payment (both upfront payment for authorized use, and payment in the form of court ordered judgments against the user for unauthorized use) where possible. I simply don't see that going anywhere anytime soon no matter how romantic the notion of an open market place of ideas where artists can legally use any ideas to incorporate into their own work. So, yes, ideas aren't property in the traditional sense, but there's a whole lot of people who will work to make sure that ideas ARE property in the legal sense, even if ideas can never be completely (or even close to completely) controlled and regulated.

Trem....i mean I'm sure Prince got back some masters after he left WB, didn't we hear this back in 99?

I know legally he probably can't re-release them til 2013 but I thought that he got them back in terms of actual ownership...

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

What do you mean by that ("purely the masters?) and why do you think that?

There is only two things in this whole debate that you can count on as a fact: this 35 year termination rule is very REAL ( incl. for recording artists) and Prince spoke on it himself about a decade ago (that he would get his rights to his recordings back starting with For You in 2013).

Anything else you read about it, like that podcast stuff, you can file under speculation, because none of that has been confirmed and because nobody involved is talking about it.

Given the potentially huge amounts of money at stake and the delicacy of the issues, both record companies, and recording artists and their managers have been reticent in talking about termination rights.

[Edited 8/23/11 11:27am]

[Edited 8/24/11 10:25am]

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Trem....i mean I'm sure Prince got back some masters after he left WB, didn't we hear this back in 99?

I know legally he probably can't re-release them til 2013 but I thought that he got them back in terms of actual ownership...

Again freaker, Why do you think this?

The only thing that happened at the end of 1999 was that his publishing agreement with Warner Chappel music expired.

But that´s about the publishing rights to his songs, not the copyrights to his recordings/masters. Prince has always owned the publishing rights to his songs, but not the rights to his recordings of those songs. Those rights have always been owned by Warner brothers records and those rights are now in issue with this 35 year termination rule.

[Edited 8/24/11 16:01pm]

^ Trem i mean the physical masters, ie the actual tapes etc, it was my understanding he got those back already, just not the rights on paper to do anything with them.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ Trem i mean the physical masters, ie the actual tapes etc, it was my understanding he got those back already, just not the rights on paper to do anything with them.

I never heard that this happened in '99, but I don't read/hear/know everything either. There are some folks who claim Prince has always had possesion of the physical master tapes, but I've never heard that coming from the horse's mouth itself.

However, that wouldn't really matter anyway. If he doesn't own the copyrights to those master tapes, legally he can do nothing with them but play and copy them for private, personal, non-commercial use, whether he has possesion of them or not.

[Edited 8/25/11 12:44pm]

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

^ Trem i mean the physical masters, ie the actual tapes etc, it was my understanding he got those back already, just not the rights on paper to do anything with them.

I never heard that this happened in '99, but I don't read/hear/know everything either. There are some folks however who claim Prince has always had possesion of the physical master tapes, tho' I've never heard that from the horse's mouth itself.

However, it wouldn't really mattery anyway. If he doesn't own the rcopyrights to those master tapes, he can legally do nothing with them but play and copy them for personal use, whether he has possesion of them or not.

[Edited 8/25/11 12:36pm]

^ AGREED that he can't do anything with them YET, but always thought he actually holds the physical masters himself after he left the WB roster.

Tremolina good to c u back....hurrah!!! Haven't seen u much around here recently, i wonder why

[Edited 8/25/11 12:38pm]