Masters vs. Publishing/Copyright Issues
JuvenileHi
(NuPwrSoul) writes:
>What is the difference between ownership of master recordings, ownership of
>publishing rights, and copyrights?
The master recording is the actual recording. The actual master take of
"1999," "Sign O The Times" etc. If Prince wanted to record a live album, he
could include any of his songs he wanted and sell it himself. Warner only owns
what you've heard on Warner released CD's, LP's, etc.
Publishing Rights date from the days when sheet music was the primary vehicle
for exploitation of a musical work. Prince controls his publishing through
Ecnirp (on the first couple of records), Controversy Music, Paris Songs, Girl
Songs, Tionna Music, etc. This means he owns the companies that can "publish"
his songs. The term "publish" originally referred to sheet music, song
folios...but now it includes the collecting of royalties for songs Prince has
written. he did not appear on Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U," but
because he wrote the song AND controls the publishing he gets 75 percent of the
airplay and sales royalties Sinead's recording generates. Sinead only gets
royalties for units sold of her performance. She does get extra songwriting
royalties for the other songs she may have written on the album that contains
Nothing Compares...
Prince publishing companies are administered by Warner/Chapell publishing.
They get 25 percent for taking care of the bookwork and keeping up with
royalties. The airplay royalties are collected from radio stations, clubs,
stores, and the girl scouts (to mention a famous case) by ASCAP, BMI, and
SESAC. Prince is affiliated with ASCAP.
In order for a radio station to play copyrighted works, they have to pay a fee
to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC based on the size of the station and their ratings.
ASCAP, in prince's case, keeps track of how many times "Little red Corvette" is
played over a three month period, and they pay his publishing company
accordingly. If Prince had "sold his publishing" as he referred to in his
song "Big White Mansion," he still would get a songwriters royalty from
whichever company owned the publishing...but it would be only 50 percent of the
money they collect from ASCAP from the airplay of his song.
the Harry fox Agency takes care of movie rights...theoretically, every time
Risky Business plays on Cinemax, or is sold on videocassette, prince gets payed
a few pennies because DMSR is in the movie.
the record labels also must pay a songwriters royalty ro ASCAP for every unit
sold, typically in the neighborhood of 6 cents a song. ASCAP and BMI are both
non-profit companies set up by artists, SESAC is privately owned.
There are many other companies that handle the airplay issue around the
world..JASRAC in japan in one that comes to mind.
The COPYRIGHT on a piece of music means that Prince can collect money on the
songwriting. For anyone that covers the song, for his performance...etc. When
I graduated record business school in 1994, the length of time something could
stay under copyright protection was 75 years. I'm pretty sure the length of
time has changed by now. But the Copyright is mainly a good way legally to
prove you wrote the song in case you ever go to court over it. the copyright
legally is inherent in the work. Meaning as soon as you write it, it's
copyrighted...but its always a good idea to register the copyright for legal
reasons.
If anyone thinks I'm wrong somewhere, or didn't explain something good enough,
please speak up. It's been 4 years since I got outta school!
>
>O(+> has the copyright to all of his songs, right?
Yes
>
>Does he have the publishing rights?
yes
>
>I know he doesn't own the masters.
>
>So if an artist or company wanted to use his music in a commercial, in a
>sample, or as a remake, who would they go to for permission? The copyright
>owner, the publishing rights owner, or the owner of the master recordings?
If an ad agency wanted to use "1999," with someone else performing it, they
would need the permission of the Publisher. if they wanted to use the actual
hit version of "1999," they would need the permission of the record label and
the publisher.
>
>As a follow up to that question, since O(+> doesn't own his masters, how much
>control does he have over how his music is used/sampled/etc.?
Complete control. Warners would still need his permission to clear a sample
since he owns the publishing.
>
>Thanks in advance for the intelligent answers to this one.
>
>Peace & Dance On
>NuPwrSoul
>The Evolution Will Be Colorized
>
>
lee
uh-oh. I have a new CD on the market! Check out the crappy web page for it
at: http://www.angelfire.com/va/RosebudRecords/index.html
http://members.aol.com/JuvenileHi/index.html
Pll1999
as well as giving out publishing licenses for some big publishing companies to
use on albums - not just movies
>the record labels also must pay a songwriters royalty ro ASCAP for every unit
>sold, typically in the neighborhood of 6 cents a song.
not true, labels pay that 6 cents (now 7.1 cents) to either the songwriters or
their publishing companies, only TV, radio, muzak, clubs, anything that plays
music in public, pays ASCAP, BMI, etc
>If an ad agency wanted to use "1999," with someone else performing it, they
>would need the permission of the Publisher.
um, yes and no, anybody can take a song that has been recorded and distributed
and rerecord their own version without permission but if they intend on selling
it they must pay the statutory mechanical (7.1 cents per unit) which involves
getting a license, the publishing company or its agent that distributes
licenses (like Harry Fox) must issue the license,
usually out of courtesy, artists will ask other artists permission to do a
version of the latter's work-but it's not really necessary
>Warners would still need his permission to clear a sample
>since he owns the publishing.
>
>
He probably has a clause in his old contracts which gives him and the label
"mutual" approval of the use of the masters but again as far as the publishing
goes - one doesn't need Prince's permission (unless the song has never been
released - that's a different story)
JuvenileHi
>>would need the permission of the Publisher.
>
>um, yes and no, anybody can take a song that has been recorded and
>distributed
>and rerecord their own version without permission but if they intend on
>selling
>it they must pay the statutory mechanical (7.1 cents per unit) which involves
>getting a license
But I'm talking about for use in advertising. Knew I wasn't making myself
clear in that regard.
Lee
Pll1999
Scott Warner
>
> >>If an ad agency wanted to use "1999," with someone else performing it, they
> >>would need the permission of the Publisher.
> >
> >um, yes and no, anybody can take a song that has been recorded and
> >distributed
> >and rerecord their own version without permission but if they intend on
> >selling
> >it they must pay the statutory mechanical (7.1 cents per unit) which involves
> >getting a license
>
> But I'm talking about for use in advertising. Knew I wasn't making myself
> clear in that regard.
>
Excellent discussion you two! But if a song is used in a tv ad, for
example; wouldn't that require a syncronization licence.
This is the clearest, most accurate explanation of these confusing laws
I've heard on this group. Kudos!
-Scott
JoeyPasta
hire you.
JBCME98
>version of the latter's work-but it's not really necessary
>
I've read on a couple of different occassions that Prince has
denied an artist permission to remake his songs. The only one i can remember
offhand is Weird Al saying once he wanted to redo a song but Prince said
no.
How does the above statement relate to a situation like that?
Peace.
I got the butter for yo muffin, just need the keys to the room.
ICQ#---12774603
RudeDog
Rudedog
JoeyPasta wrote in message <199807241536...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
JuvenileHi
(JoeyPasta) writes:
>Damn Lee, If I ever decide to become a musician(Fat Chance); I am going to
>hire you.
any music biz book would tell you the same info.
Hopefully.
JuvenileHi
(JBCME98) writes:
>>usually out of courtesy, artists will ask other artists permission to do a
>>version of the latter's work-but it's not really necessary
>>
>
> I've read on a couple of different occassions that Prince has
>denied an artist permission to remake his songs. The only one i can remember
>offhand is Weird Al saying once he wanted to redo a song but Prince said
> no.
> How does the above statement relate to a situation like that?
>
> Peace.
Weird Al could still have released his parody, but without the blessing of
Prince it probably would not be as fun. He asks permission because he is a
nice guy. Parodies are protected under the first amendment. The landmark case
in this concerning television was SNL's "Ricky Rat" club, obviously spoofing
Disney, and in music it was 2 Live crew's spoof of "Pretty Woman."
Scott Warner
Isn't it weird that it takes Larry Flynt and Luther Campbell to protect
us and our rights? Oh, Ozzy and Judas Priest too. While we're at it,
let's not forget George Carlin. Dance On!
-Scott
Pll1999
thanks dude
> But if a song is used in a tv ad, for
>example; wouldn't that require a syncronization licence.
absolutely
>This is the clearest, most accurate explanation of these confusing laws
>I've heard on this group. Kudos!
thanks again dude
Scott Warner
>
> >usually out of courtesy, artists will ask other artists permission to do a
> >version of the latter's work-but it's not really necessary
> >
>
> I've read on a couple of different occassions that Prince has
> denied an artist permission to remake his songs. The only one i can remember
> offhand is Weird Al saying once he wanted to redo a song but Prince said
> no.
> How does the above statement relate to a situation like that?
>
As Lee said, parodies and satire are covered under the First. And
recording a 'straight cover' of a copyrighted work, under the terms of
the compulsory license, requires no permission of the publisher. You
still have to pay mechanical royalties and account for copies
manufactured on a quarterly basis. But so long as you don't 'change the
song around' (lyrics, arrangement); you cannot be denied permission to
cover a song that has already been published. You are permitted to
change things like gender (he's to she's, etc...), but not much else.
Had Weird Al wished to record a straight cover, he wouldn't have needed
Prince's permission. However, my guess is that he proposed some type of
alteration (Purple Stain?) and was denied.
Although, Al's work is parody and satirical; it is commercial also. His
motivation is to make money; not critique.
Hope I didn't step on your toes, Lee.
Scott
JuvenileHi
writes:
>Hope I didn't step on your toes, Lee.
>
>Scott
Not at all.