independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sun 10th Dec 2017 7:38pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Associated artists & people > Royalties
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/25/17 3:19am

khill95

Royalties

Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right? And also, how come the Vanity 6 album is out of print? What causes an album to STILL be out of print in the digital age??

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/25/17 4:45am

laurarichardso
n

khill95 said:

Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right? And also, how come the Vanity 6 album is out of print? What causes an album to STILL be out of print in the digital age??

WB stupidness causes this to happen. It looksl like the Mavis and Madhouse CDs are out with some other company. Meaning WB may have sold the master tapes to these two projects.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/25/17 12:19pm

langebleu

avatar

moderator

khill95 said:

Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right?


If Vanity 6 performed a song live, the performance right royalty would be due to the composer as copyright holder for the song (or whoever the copyright holder has granted a licence to collect or receive that royalty).

The performer likely has rights related to their live performance of a composition e.g. the right not to have their performance recorded etc.. Protection of these rights is usually reflected through the terms and conditions of contracts that concert attendees enter into when they purchase a ticket to attend a show.


ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/25/17 12:20pm

khill95

laurarichardson said:



khill95 said:


Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right? And also, how come the Vanity 6 album is out of print? What causes an album to STILL be out of print in the digital age??



WB stupidness causes this to happen. It looksl like the Mavis and Madhouse CDs are out with some other company. Meaning WB may have sold the master tapes to these two projects.




Stupid. I mean, it’s great to have them on YouTube, but I actually want to BUY them to own them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/25/17 12:37pm

khill95

langebleu said:



khill95 said:


Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right?





If Vanity 6 performed a song live, the performance right royalty would be due to the composer as copyright holder for the song (or whoever the copyright holder has granted a licence to collect or receive that royalty).

The performer likely has rights related to their live performance of a composition e.g. the right not to have their performance recorded etc.. Protection of these rights is usually reflected through the terms and conditions of contracts that concert attendees enter into when they purchase a ticket to attend a show.





So basically they didn’t get any money?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/25/17 1:59pm

crimesofparis

khill95 said:

langebleu said:



khill95 said:


Since I've been getting into the protege acts, I just need some clarification. Prince gets the songwriter/producer royalties for say, the Vanity 6 album, but whenever they would perform it live, they would get a performance royalty, right?





If Vanity 6 performed a song live, the performance right royalty would be due to the composer as copyright holder for the song (or whoever the copyright holder has granted a licence to collect or receive that royalty).

The performer likely has rights related to their live performance of a composition e.g. the right not to have their performance recorded etc.. Protection of these rights is usually reflected through the terms and conditions of contracts that concert attendees enter into when they purchase a ticket to attend a show.





So basically they didn’t get any money?


They would have gotten paid from the performance by the promoter for a live performance.

They would not be paid by a PRO for songs they didn't write. Not in America.

For non-terrestrial radio and for terrestrial radio in other countries, performers do get part of the money for live performances on the radio. TBH I'm not sure about live venue performances in other countries.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/26/17 4:23am

laurarichardso
n

khill95 said:

laurarichardson said:

WB stupidness causes this to happen. It looksl like the Mavis and Madhouse CDs are out with some other company. Meaning WB may have sold the master tapes to these two projects.

Stupid. I mean, it’s great to have them on YouTube, but I actually want to BUY them to own them.

It would have been nice if WB had not let these titles go out of print but they did and they obvisouly do not care about Prince's side projects.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/26/17 8:50am

crimesofparis

laurarichardson said:

khill95 said:

laurarichardson said: Stupid. I mean, it’s great to have them on YouTube, but I actually want to BUY them to own them.

It would have been nice if WB had not let these titles go out of print but they did and they obvisouly do not care about Prince's side projects.

Everything that doesn't sell consistently eventually goes out of print. Labels have to prioritize, and physical distribution is expensive and has limited capacity.

.

I don't know exactly why things didn't get put onto iTunes, but I suspect it's the same reason old TV shows often have trouble with music sync rights when they want to go onto DVD or streaming services--no one predicted these mediums, so they weren't written into contracts. As such, shows like The Wonder Years or WKRP had to reobtain those rights or change the music.

.

In other words, WB possibly explicitly had the right to distribute via physical means, but didn't have rights to distribute via digital means for the simple reason that it didn't exist and they couldn't have predicted it. That's just my guess. Most labels will happily put anything online--it costs them next to nothing if they have the rights.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/26/17 9:11am

laurarichardso
n

crimesofparis said:

laurarichardson said:

It would have been nice if WB had not let these titles go out of print but they did and they obvisouly do not care about Prince's side projects.

Everything that doesn't sell consistently eventually goes out of print. Labels have to prioritize, and physical distribution is expensive and has limited capacity.

.

I don't know exactly why things didn't get put onto iTunes, but I suspect it's the same reason old TV shows often have trouble with music sync rights when they want to go onto DVD or streaming services--no one predicted these mediums, so they weren't written into contracts. As such, shows like The Wonder Years or WKRP had to reobtain those rights or change the music.

.

In other words, WB possibly explicitly had the right to distribute via physical means, but didn't have rights to distribute via digital means for the simple reason that it didn't exist and they couldn't have predicted it. That's just my guess. Most labels will happily put anything online--it costs them next to nothing if they have the rights.

The Mavis and Madhouse albums are on Tidal. I have a hard time believing that Mavis and Madhouse took up that much room at the warehouse when we kept those Monkees greatest hits.

I worked in a record store at the height of popualarity. I ordered CDs for people for all sorts of obsurce artist. If WB had wanted to they could have put out some sort of box set in a limited run back in the day and called it a day.

Same thing with the rumor that Prince wanted them to do a greatest hits of his love songs and they had no interest.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/03/17 5:09pm

SanDiegoFunkDa
ddy

Remember Vanity 6 and The Time weren't signed to Warners. They were signed to Prince's Starr Company. So as far as money they were at Prince's mercy. I'm sure there were plenty of clauses in the contracts that stated them not getting any money. Denise said she didn't get a dime for the Vanity 6 album

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/03/17 5:25pm

jjam

laurarichardson said:

crimesofparis said:

Everything that doesn't sell consistently eventually goes out of print. Labels have to prioritize, and physical distribution is expensive and has limited capacity.

.

I don't know exactly why things didn't get put onto iTunes, but I suspect it's the same reason old TV shows often have trouble with music sync rights when they want to go onto DVD or streaming services--no one predicted these mediums, so they weren't written into contracts. As such, shows like The Wonder Years or WKRP had to reobtain those rights or change the music.

.

In other words, WB possibly explicitly had the right to distribute via physical means, but didn't have rights to distribute via digital means for the simple reason that it didn't exist and they couldn't have predicted it. That's just my guess. Most labels will happily put anything online--it costs them next to nothing if they have the rights.

The Mavis and Madhouse albums are on Tidal. I have a hard time believing that Mavis and Madhouse took up that much room at the warehouse when we kept those Monkees greatest hits.

I worked in a record store at the height of popualarity. I ordered CDs for people for all sorts of obsurce artist. If WB had wanted to they could have put out some sort of box set in a limited run back in the day and called it a day.

Same thing with the rumor that Prince wanted them to do a greatest hits of his love songs and they had no interest.

The Madhouse albums would probably shift 5,000 each at best worldwide - probably not even that.

I've been involved in projects for reissue labels. There is very little profit margin even in back catalogue release these days.

My understanding also is that any Prince protege act that's available digitally is essentially not authorised by WB.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/07/17 2:45pm

databank

avatar

jjam said:



laurarichardson said:




crimesofparis said:



Everything that doesn't sell consistently eventually goes out of print. Labels have to prioritize, and physical distribution is expensive and has limited capacity.


.


I don't know exactly why things didn't get put onto iTunes, but I suspect it's the same reason old TV shows often have trouble with music sync rights when they want to go onto DVD or streaming services--no one predicted these mediums, so they weren't written into contracts. As such, shows like The Wonder Years or WKRP had to reobtain those rights or change the music.


.


In other words, WB possibly explicitly had the right to distribute via physical means, but didn't have rights to distribute via digital means for the simple reason that it didn't exist and they couldn't have predicted it. That's just my guess. Most labels will happily put anything online--it costs them next to nothing if they have the rights.



The Mavis and Madhouse albums are on Tidal. I have a hard time believing that Mavis and Madhouse took up that much room at the warehouse when we kept those Monkees greatest hits.



I worked in a record store at the height of popualarity. I ordered CDs for people for all sorts of obsurce artist. If WB had wanted to they could have put out some sort of box set in a limited run back in the day and called it a day.



Same thing with the rumor that Prince wanted them to do a greatest hits of his love songs and they had no interest.




The Madhouse albums would probably shift 5,000 each at best worldwide - probably not even that.



I've been involved in projects for reissue labels. There is very little profit margin even in back catalogue release these days.



My understanding also is that any Prince protege act that's available digitally is essentially not authorised by WB.




The rights to the Madhouse and Mavis Staples albums reverted back to Prince in 1994,WB has no business reprinting them or putting them on streaming platforms. And since NPG records didn't do it either, those upload are likely to be illegal bootlegging that's slipped thru the cracks.
A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/08/17 10:53am

crimesofparis

databank said:

The rights to the Madhouse and Mavis Staples albums reverted back to Prince in 1994,WB has no business reprinting them or putting them on streaming platforms. And since NPG records didn't do it either, those upload are likely to be illegal bootlegging that's slipped thru the cracks.

Can I ask how you know details of that contract? Was it discussed in an interview somewhere?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/08/17 8:33pm

databank

avatar

crimesofparis said:



databank said:


The rights to the Madhouse and Mavis Staples albums reverted back to Prince in 1994,WB has no business reprinting them or putting them on streaming platforms. And since NPG records didn't do it either, those upload are likely to be illegal bootlegging that's slipped thru the cracks.

Can I ask how you know details of that contract? Was it discussed in an interview somewhere?


This is common knowledge: it has been revealed by both Alan Leeds and a former exec from Edel Records. Besides, the second Staples and Clinton records have been rereleased by Edel/NPG in 95 and Prince once planned more Paisley Park rereleases with them. A few Paisley Park albums stayed with WB, though.
[Edited 10/8/17 20:34pm]
A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/08/17 10:29pm

crimesofparis

databank said:

crimesofparis said:



databank said:


The rights to the Madhouse and Mavis Staples albums reverted back to Prince in 1994,WB has no business reprinting them or putting them on streaming platforms. And since NPG records didn't do it either, those upload are likely to be illegal bootlegging that's slipped thru the cracks.

Can I ask how you know details of that contract? Was it discussed in an interview somewhere?


This is common knowledge: it has been revealed by both Alan Leeds and a former exec from Edel Records. Besides, the second Staples and Clinton records have been rereleased by Edel/NPG in 95 and Prince once planned more Paisley Park rereleases with them. A few Paisley Park albums stayed with WB, though.
[Edited 10/8/17 20:34pm]

Awesome, thanks!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/11/17 8:16pm

206Michelle

SanDiegoFunkDaddy said:

Remember Vanity 6 and The Time weren't signed to Warners. They were signed to Prince's Starr Company. So as far as money they were at Prince's mercy. I'm sure there were plenty of clauses in the contracts that stated them not getting any money. Denise said she didn't get a dime for the Vanity 6 album

Interesting, so Prince did to others what Warner Brothers did to him....

Live 4 Love ~ Love is God, God is love, Girls and boys love God above
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/11/17 9:26pm

databank

avatar

206Michelle said:

SanDiegoFunkDaddy said:

Remember Vanity 6 and The Time weren't signed to Warners. They were signed to Prince's Starr Company. So as far as money they were at Prince's mercy. I'm sure there were plenty of clauses in the contracts that stated them not getting any money. Denise said she didn't get a dime for the Vanity 6 album

Interesting, so Prince did to others what Warner Brothers did to him....


No. At least not in that case.

.

Vanity/Apollonia 6 and The Time were employed by Prince on a weekly salary, similarly to Prince's own bandmembers, who had no business with WB whatsoever. Their recording contracts as bands were with Warner Bros, but while I am not aware of the legal details (unsure if anyone is), it seems the bands were signed to WB as an extention of Prince's own contract (apparently thanks to a clause that Prince asked in his contract from the beginning), as opposed to signing a deal as individuals who formed a band. This is what allowed Prince to fire people from a band, for example, while a direct contract with WB would have protected the musicians from any such thing. Apparently, this didn't apply to Sheila, who was a single individual and who released her fourth album directly with WB, without the Paisley Park imprint, in 1991. WB remained sole owner of all the Starr Company albums' masters, both after the rights to most of the Paisley Park catalogue reverted to Prtince in 1994, and after Prince regained his own masters in 2014. And there wasn't any such thing as a legal entity called "Starr Company", by the way.Therefore, this has virtually nothing to do with anything WB would have "done" to Prince, whose contract with WB was a recording contract, entirely different from the way he employed his musicians at the time. The analogy makes no sense at all.

.

I also believe those albums' masters should have been given back to Prince in 2014, as well as Sheila's first 2 and The Family: those records were Prince records in all but in name, and almost entirely offsprings of Prince's creative process. If I was to compose, arrange, record, produce, decide on the tracklist and cover art of a record and just have someone replace my vocals with theirs, I wouldn't consider the work "theirs" at all. It would be like saying John Blackwell should own the masters for The Rainbow Children just because he plays all the drums.

.

However, Prince did to others what WB did to him when he retained the masters of most Paisley Park albums after 1994, including those many recordings he had little or nothing to do with, such as Good Question, Tony LeMans, Dale, Eric Leeds' second album, etc. However, I am not aware of any of the artists in question reclaiming their masters from Prince, but had Prince lived it would have been interesting to see what would have happened on the long run, including once those records would have reached the 35 years age. I'm sure Clinton or his estate, at least, will reclaim The Cinderella Theory and Hey Man in 2024 and 2027 respectively, and given Prince's vocal stance on recovering one's masters, I'm actually surprised that Clinton didn't attempt it long ago (Prince would have been in a bad position refusing him his masters, particularly given Clinton's prestigious status as an elder musician and major influence on Prince).

.

In some cases, Prince actually did worse to some artists than WB ever did to him: Jill Jones had a record deal with Paisley Park that extended until 1993, and when she declined to keep working with Prince after 1989, Prince refused to let her go, by doing so forbidding her to get another record deal or release any further music with any other label. I don't remember the details but Bart recently said that something similar happened with Margie Cox, but IDK exactly what. Margie probably addressed it in the interview she gave to that cool blog that was made by an orger with all those great interviews (can't recall the blog's name now, but I'm sure others will). WB could have done that to Prince in 1996, but chose to let him go and get it over with instead. Of course, Prince had the media's ears and his bashing WB was much more dissuasive for WB than anything Jill or Margie could have said against Prince.

.

I think we should have a FAQ about all that stuff, because I find myself reexplaining it over and over again. Nobody's fault, but maybe it should be in the Org FAQ.

[Edited 10/11/17 21:26pm]

A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCE DISCOGRAPHY (work in progress ^^): https://sites.google.com/...iscog/home
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/12/17 7:32pm

206Michelle

databank said:

206Michelle said:

Interesting, so Prince did to others what Warner Brothers did to him....


No. At least not in that case.

.

Vanity/Apollonia 6 and The Time were employed by Prince on a weekly salary, similarly to Prince's own bandmembers, who had no business with WB whatsoever. Their recording contracts as bands were with Warner Bros, but while I am not aware of the legal details (unsure if anyone is), it seems the bands were signed to WB as an extention of Prince's own contract (apparently thanks to a clause that Prince asked in his contract from the beginning), as opposed to signing a deal as individuals who formed a band. This is what allowed Prince to fire people from a band, for example, while a direct contract with WB would have protected the musicians from any such thing. Apparently, this didn't apply to Sheila, who was a single individual and who released her fourth album directly with WB, without the Paisley Park imprint, in 1991. WB remained sole owner of all the Starr Company albums' masters, both after the rights to most of the Paisley Park catalogue reverted to Prtince in 1994, and after Prince regained his own masters in 2014. And there wasn't any such thing as a legal entity called "Starr Company", by the way.Therefore, this has virtually nothing to do with anything WB would have "done" to Prince, whose contract with WB was a recording contract, entirely different from the way he employed his musicians at the time. The analogy makes no sense at all.

.

I also believe those albums' masters should have been given back to Prince in 2014, as well as Sheila's first 2 and The Family: those records were Prince records in all but in name, and almost entirely offsprings of Prince's creative process. If I was to compose, arrange, record, produce, decide on the tracklist and cover art of a record and just have someone replace my vocals with theirs, I wouldn't consider the work "theirs" at all. It would be like saying John Blackwell should own the masters for The Rainbow Children just because he plays all the drums.

.

However, Prince did to others what WB did to him when he retained the masters of most Paisley Park albums after 1994, including those many recordings he had little or nothing to do with, such as Good Question, Tony LeMans, Dale, Eric Leeds' second album, etc. However, I am not aware of any of the artists in question reclaiming their masters from Prince, but had Prince lived it would have been interesting to see what would have happened on the long run, including once those records would have reached the 35 years age. I'm sure Clinton or his estate, at least, will reclaim The Cinderella Theory and Hey Man in 2024 and 2027 respectively, and given Prince's vocal stance on recovering one's masters, I'm actually surprised that Clinton didn't attempt it long ago (Prince would have been in a bad position refusing him his masters, particularly given Clinton's prestigious status as an elder musician and major influence on Prince).

.

In some cases, Prince actually did worse to some artists than WB ever did to him: Jill Jones had a record deal with Paisley Park that extended until 1993, and when she declined to keep working with Prince after 1989, Prince refused to let her go, by doing so forbidding her to get another record deal or release any further music with any other label. I don't remember the details but Bart recently said that something similar happened with Margie Cox, but IDK exactly what. Margie probably addressed it in the interview she gave to that cool blog that was made by an orger with all those great interviews (can't recall the blog's name now, but I'm sure others will). WB could have done that to Prince in 1996, but chose to let him go and get it over with instead. Of course, Prince had the media's ears and his bashing WB was much more dissuasive for WB than anything Jill or Margie could have said against Prince.

.

I think we should have a FAQ about all that stuff, because I find myself reexplaining it over and over again. Nobody's fault, but maybe it should be in the Org FAQ.

[Edited 10/11/17 21:26pm]

Databank,

Thanks for the information. And yes, I agree with you about the FAQ section.

Live 4 Love ~ Love is God, God is love, Girls and boys love God above
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/16/17 5:57am

jjam

Well The Family album's digital release is going through Tunecore - there is NO way that this has been legally done. I'm surprised that Paul Peterson hasn't tried to look into this. As mentioned earlier, it's essentially bootlegging.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Associated artists & people > Royalties