In a cover story for the April issue of Vogue, Abby Aguirre reports that after she released her last album in 2012, Rihanna left her old label and acquired the masters to all of her previous recordings. This is an incredible business move for star who also founded her own label imprint under her new home RocNation.

Artists hand over the rights to the master recordings as a part of traditional recording contracts. This allows the record company to profit from the music in perpetuity. Whomever owns the masters has the right to license the music for commercials, samples, and placement in television or film. Owners of the master rights get paid when a song is played, so now with the rise of streaming, there are even more ways to earn. But artists without ownership only get a small piece of the pie, if anything.

When Ray Charles signed with ABC records in 1962, he brokered a deal that made him one of the first Black artists to purchase the rights to the master recordings of his records. Every song he ever wrote, co-wrote or arranged from that point on was owned by his own publishing companies. The move was a smart one. The recordings were valued at $25 million in 2008 and continue to generate millions in revenue.

This can be a huge source of income for any artist or label, and with a catalog of hits (14 number ones to be exact) like Rihanna's, she, and perhaps her heirs, are sure to bank millions of this smart business deal for years to come.

Read more: http://theculture.forharr...z43Izo8Ezx
Follow us: @ForHarriet on Twitter | forharriet on Facebook

How does it work?

SoulAlive said:

214 said:

How does it work?

Whomever owns the masters has the right to license the music for commercials, samples, and placement in television or film. Owners of the master rights get paid when a song is played

SoulAlive said:

I still believe that if Prince had not "went to war" with Warners and bad mouthed them,he could have gotten his master recordings much sooner than he did.Instead,he behaved irrationally and made things worse.

and his move educated a lot of these artist now to do those things....his efforts werent in vain and if anything, he rolls hard for what he beleives and has the discipline to make decisions and follow thenm up with fucking actions say what you want about him but if nothing else the mfer disciplened

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said:

I still believe that if Prince had not "went to war" with Warners and bad mouthed them,he could have gotten his master recordings much sooner than he did.Instead,he behaved irrationally and made things worse.

--- But he got them in the end.

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

laurarichardson said:

Sometimes you have the knock off the butt kissing.

If he had behaved in a nice,respectful way,he would gotten his master recordings much sooner.It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're going around acting like a drama queen.

SoulAlive said:

laurarichardson said:

Sometimes you have the knock off the butt kissing.

If he had behaved in a nice,respectful way,he would gotten his master recordings much sooner.It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're going around acting like a drama queen.

if you werent sitting int he fucking room , please sxtop about what you think haoppened

And how do the artists get their hands on their masters?

RiRi had 14 songs to go number one in The States or are we talking Internationally combined #1's?

214 said:

And how do the artists get their hands on their masters?

Very, very, very Good question that needed to be asked a long time ago...I read where Taylor Swift owns her Songs & The Masters...She owns BOTH..So is it easy to get the Masters from the Recording Label when you are the Original Songwriter?

Chancellor said:

Chancellor said:

RiRi had 14 songs to go number one in The States or are we talking Internationally combined #1's?

That number they keep quoting is based on the American Billboard chart, including three songs she FEATURED on.

SoulAlive said:

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said: --- But he got them in the end.

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Somebody had to have the balls to put up a fight to the greedy labels. Actually if it wasnt for all of Prince's highly publicized antics in the 90s singers like Rihanna would not own their masters...so yes in the end it was all necessary

2020 said:

SoulAlive said:

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Somebody had to have the balls to put up a fight to the greedy labels. Actually if it wasnt for all of Prince's highly publicized antics in the 90s singers like Rihanna would not own their masters...so yes in the end it was all necessary

I agree.

Prince was probably one of the main pioneers in artists owning their own music and artists rights on big labels. He took a lot of heat but he helped in the progression of that for sure.

Cinny said:

That number they keep quoting is based on the American Billboard chart, including three songs she FEATURED on.

Okay, so she has 14 #1 Solo & Duet Hits...I did not think she had 14 #1 Solo hits...

Chancellor said:

214 said:

And how do the artists get their hands on their masters?

Very, very, very Good question that needed to be asked a long time ago...I read where Taylor Swift owns her Songs & The Masters...She owns BOTH..So is it easy to get the Masters from the Recording Label when you are the Original Songwriter?

It depends mostly on two things.

1. What deal did the artist sign back in the day?

2. How much are the rights perceived to be worth today?

A typical deal for a hungry, young artist involves the artist getting an advance and a royalty scheme, with the company owning the masters and having the rights to release them. As owners of the masters, the company has the right to sell them to another party.

.

So, let's say I start a band and get signed to Death Row Records. I need a record deal real bad so I accept whatever terms they offer and hope for the best. I negotiate a 13% royalty which is said to be pretty good for a new artist, and they own the masters. They have the right to distribute and sell copies of it, and the responsibility to pay me 13% of wholesale after expenses are recouped.

.

Fast forward ten years. I am now a superstar, selling out arenas. My contract with the label is up and I'm ready for a new deal. I go to Death Row and say, "Hey I know it was part of our deal that you guys own the masters on those old records, but now I want them back. How much?"

.

Death Row then has to decide if they want to make a deal with me or tell me to go pound sand, which they could do, because I accepted a one-sided deal back when I was hungry.

.

But let's say, they decide they can give me my masters back and relinquish the distribution rights for $20 million. I can give them $20 million out of my tour receipts and own them outright. Then I can put them out myself, or make a deal with another label to distribute them for five years, while I still own them. Five years later, I can make another distribution deal. I can create a box set with unreleased tracks and live recordings. I can annoy my fans by offerring a new reissue of the same title every few years, on a different label, with different bonus tracks. It's up to me, I own the masters. I can do anything I want. Yay!

.

If I don't have $20 million handy, maybe I make a deal with the label, to give me my masters back AND sign a new contract to put my next five albums out on their label. I have enough leverage to get a better deal for return of the old stuff, and it's part of the deal that I will always have ownership of my masters for any new music I record. I can make this deal, because I'm a superstar now, and the label knows they will make a lot of money by pressing up copies. Even if they only get to keep 25 cents a copy instead of $2 as in my old deal, it's still going to be a lot of money.

.

Now, what if I was thinking ahead back in the days when I first needed a record deal? If I insisted on owning my masters as part of the deal, it would definitely make it harder to get a deal. It's like being on Shark Tank, and saying to the financiers "I'll give you a 1% stake for a million dollars." Some label would have to REALLY believe in me to put money into the startup of my career, knowing they would never own the work. They might not promote me as hard, if they didn't think I would be that profitable to them. So it would be tough going at the start, maybe I couldn't get off the ground. But if it worked out for me, and I managed to become a superstar off albums where I already owned the masters, I'd start raking in big checks a lot faster.

.

I don't know much about Taylor Swift but would guess that she renegotiated terms when she started getting famous.

As for ownership of the publishing rights to the songs, that is also something you negotiate in your contract. The label will ask for 100% of publishing, the artist will say no, I want 100% of publishing, and it comes down the negotiation. Who blinks?

.

It may come down to a split, like the artist retaining 85% and the label taking 15%.

SoulAlive said:

SoulAlive said:

mechanicalemotion17 said:

SoulAlive said:

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Prince writing 'slave' on his face is an iconic moment in the history of music. His epic battle with Warner Bros. set precedence and awakened other artists to just how much of their souls they were selling

????

.

Last time I checked, he was a laughing stock. You couldn't turn on the late night shows without hearing "TAFKAP" or "Taffy" jokes. I remember Howard Stern at the time calling him "The Artist Formerely Known As Successful". Alot of people at the time did not view the whole "war" as revolutionary, they thought Prince lost his mind...

bobzilla77 said:

It depends mostly on two things.

1. What deal did the artist sign back in the day?

2. How much are the rights perceived to be worth today?

A typical deal for a hungry, young artist involves the artist getting an advance and a royalty scheme, with the company owning the masters and having the rights to release them. As owners of the masters, the company has the right to sell them to another party.

.

So, let's say I start a band and get signed to Death Row Records. I need a record deal real bad so I accept whatever terms they offer and hope for the best. I negotiate a 13% royalty which is said to be pretty good for a new artist, and they own the masters. They have the right to distribute and sell copies of it, and the responsibility to pay me 13% of wholesale after expenses are recouped.

.

Fast forward ten years. I am now a superstar, selling out arenas. My contract with the label is up and I'm ready for a new deal. I go to Death Row and say, "Hey I know it was part of our deal that you guys own the masters on those old records, but now I want them back. How much?"

.

Death Row then has to decide if they want to make a deal with me or tell me to go pound sand, which they could do, because I accepted a one-sided deal back when I was hungry.

.

But let's say, they decide they can give me my masters back and relinquish the distribution rights for $20 million. I can give them $20 million out of my tour receipts and own them outright. Then I can put them out myself, or make a deal with another label to distribute them for five years, while I still own them. Five years later, I can make another distribution deal. I can create a box set with unreleased tracks and live recordings. I can annoy my fans by offerring a new reissue of the same title every few years, on a different label, with different bonus tracks. It's up to me, I own the masters. I can do anything I want. Yay!

.

If I don't have $20 million handy, maybe I make a deal with the label, to give me my masters back AND sign a new contract to put my next five albums out on their label. I have enough leverage to get a better deal for return of the old stuff, and it's part of the deal that I will always have ownership of my masters for any new music I record. I can make this deal, because I'm a superstar now, and the label knows they will make a lot of money by pressing up copies. Even if they only get to keep 25 cents a copy instead of $2 as in my old deal, it's still going to be a lot of money.

.

Now, what if I was thinking ahead back in the days when I first needed a record deal? If I insisted on owning my masters as part of the deal, it would definitely make it harder to get a deal. It's like being on Shark Tank, and saying to the financiers "I'll give you a 1% stake for a million dollars." Some label would have to REALLY believe in me to put money into the startup of my career, knowing they would never own the work. They might not promote me as hard, if they didn't think I would be that profitable to them. So it would be tough going at the start, maybe I couldn't get off the ground. But if it worked out for me, and I managed to become a superstar off albums where I already owned the masters, I'd start raking in big checks a lot faster.

.

I don't know much about Taylor Swift but would guess that she renegotiated terms when she started getting famous.

Bobzilla you broke that all-the-way-down BEAUTIFULLY...Every bit of what you said makes sense...The way you explained it reminded me of the Deal Oprah had with Dr. Phil...He told the story how Oprah owned his show and paid him BEYOND Handsomely...His show became a mega Hit and he wanted to own it, so she sold it to him with other deal(s) under-the-table....Had Oprah hated his Guts she did not have to sell it to him....In the long run everybody wins if everybody is willing to give up 100% control and settle for Mega-Money...

SoulAlive said:

laurarichardson said:

SoulAlive said: --- But he got them in the end.

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Prince doesn't see it that way............

Graycap23 said:

SoulAlive said:

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Prince doesn't see it that way............

nor do i, what damage,,,,he doing fine isnt he the emd justifies the means

Chancellor said:

bobzilla77 said:

It depends mostly on two things.

1. What deal did the artist sign back in the day?

2. How much are the rights perceived to be worth today?

A typical deal for a hungry, young artist involves the artist getting an advance and a royalty scheme, with the company owning the masters and having the rights to release them. As owners of the masters, the company has the right to sell them to another party.

.

So, let's say I start a band and get signed to Death Row Records. I need a record deal real bad so I accept whatever terms they offer and hope for the best. I negotiate a 13% royalty which is said to be pretty good for a new artist, and they own the masters. They have the right to distribute and sell copies of it, and the responsibility to pay me 13% of wholesale after expenses are recouped.

.

Fast forward ten years. I am now a superstar, selling out arenas. My contract with the label is up and I'm ready for a new deal. I go to Death Row and say, "Hey I know it was part of our deal that you guys own the masters on those old records, but now I want them back. How much?"

.

Death Row then has to decide if they want to make a deal with me or tell me to go pound sand, which they could do, because I accepted a one-sided deal back when I was hungry.

.

But let's say, they decide they can give me my masters back and relinquish the distribution rights for $20 million. I can give them $20 million out of my tour receipts and own them outright. Then I can put them out myself, or make a deal with another label to distribute them for five years, while I still own them. Five years later, I can make another distribution deal. I can create a box set with unreleased tracks and live recordings. I can annoy my fans by offerring a new reissue of the same title every few years, on a different label, with different bonus tracks. It's up to me, I own the masters. I can do anything I want. Yay!

.

If I don't have $20 million handy, maybe I make a deal with the label, to give me my masters back AND sign a new contract to put my next five albums out on their label. I have enough leverage to get a better deal for return of the old stuff, and it's part of the deal that I will always have ownership of my masters for any new music I record. I can make this deal, because I'm a superstar now, and the label knows they will make a lot of money by pressing up copies. Even if they only get to keep 25 cents a copy instead of $2 as in my old deal, it's still going to be a lot of money.

.

Now, what if I was thinking ahead back in the days when I first needed a record deal? If I insisted on owning my masters as part of the deal, it would definitely make it harder to get a deal. It's like being on Shark Tank, and saying to the financiers "I'll give you a 1% stake for a million dollars." Some label would have to REALLY believe in me to put money into the startup of my career, knowing they would never own the work. They might not promote me as hard, if they didn't think I would be that profitable to them. So it would be tough going at the start, maybe I couldn't get off the ground. But if it worked out for me, and I managed to become a superstar off albums where I already owned the masters, I'd start raking in big checks a lot faster.

.

I don't know much about Taylor Swift but would guess that she renegotiated terms when she started getting famous.

Bobzilla you broke that all-the-way-down BEAUTIFULLY...Every bit of what you said makes sense...The way you explained it reminded me of the Deal Oprah had with Dr. Phil...He told the story how Oprah owned his show and paid him BEYOND Handsomely...His show became a mega Hit and he wanted to own it, so she sold it to him with other deal(s) under-the-table....Had Oprah hated his Guts she did not have to sell it to him....In the long run everybody wins if everybody is willing to give up 100% control and settle for Mega-Money...

David Bowie was a famous example of an artist getting his masters back. During the 1990s he made himself a commodity on the stock exchange and sold "Bowie Bonds" so he could get I think $50 million in one place at one time and buy them from RCA. Then he started a reissue program, went on tour, started an artist website real early in the game, and paid everybody back within a few years. I think there were some things like, special small-venue shows for the bond holders and fan club members. As I remember the fans who invested seemed pleased with the deal and felt like they had helped their old pal Bowie, which they were glad to do.

mechanicalemotion17 said:

SoulAlive said:

yes he did but look at all the damage he did to his career in the 90s...the name change,writing "slave" on his face,etc.....all of that was totally unnecessary.I didn't see Rihanna behaving that way.

Prince writing 'slave' on his face is an iconic moment in the history of music. His epic battle with Warner Bros. set precedence and awakened other artists to just how much of their souls they were selling

Whoops!! They still sell their souls, just not their publishing.

lwr001 said:

SoulAlive said:

I still believe that if Prince had not "went to war" with Warners and bad mouthed them,he could have gotten his master recordings much sooner than he did.Instead,he behaved irrationally and made things worse.

and his move educated a lot of these artist now to do those things....his efforts werent in vain and if anything, he rolls hard for what he beleives and has the discipline to make decisions and follow thenm up with fucking actions say what you want about him but if nothing else the mfer disciplened

actually did ask Warners nicely for his Masters back. They told him"We won't give you back your Masters if you gave us a billion dollars" . Back then ownership of Masters weren't easy to obtain. is looked up to by EVERY artist in the muziq industry & HIGHLY respected. He made the right decision. Whose to say where he would be at now if he didn't take a stand. The supposedlly biggest artist in the world died broke & in debt. isn't.

Anywho props to Rihanna! This is unheard of by any artist that's her peer. Even Beyonce doesn't own hers.