Last week we lost not only a Prince, but also a King of intellectual property rights for artists. Many talk the talk, but few have walked the walk and fought the fight, as did Prince Rogers Nelson.
Prince was renowned by many for his business acumen almost as much as for his musical talent. He was also an individual that rightfully stood up for his autonomy and his rights as an artist. Prince has shown numerous times that personhood and your freedom to do what you love on your own terms outweighs everything else. And Prince made sure to live up to that principle as best as he could.
The term “masters” is the life blood of musicians in the music industry. “Masters” are the rights to the actual “original” physical sound recordings. The individual or company holding this right has the ability to license the right to whomever they wish, (or not at all) in exchange for a sum they see fit. Furthermore, they have the right to say who may reproduce the music and in what form(s). Unfortunately, most artists give up the master rights, publishing rights and even copyrights to their music in exchange for a contract with a big record label; therefore, all of this may be done with no permission, consent or approval from the artist himself.
Prince, seeing the irony in the recordings being called masters, referred to this concept of others owning his work as “slavery”. Around 1996 Prince started painting the word “slave” on his face when performing in public famously proclaiming. “People think I’m a crazy fool for writing ‘slave’ on my face, but if I can’t do what I want to do, what am I?” Prince strongly posed this question in a 1996 Rolling Stone interview. It seems that to Prince he was nothing more than a slave to Warner Bros. Records; they controlled and owned his name and anything released under that name.
Around 1993, Prince decided to break out of the “chains” that he felt his label had him tied to. By initiating a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Records, Prince fought for his name, rights and music. He even removed his name from releases and changed his name to a symbol. After a lengthy lawsuit against Warner Bros. Prince lost this battle and was obligated to fulfill his contractual obligations under the agreement he signed when he was only eighteen years old. But this was just the beginning for Prince. Prince’s conviction that you need the freedom to do what you love, on your own terms, led him to his success as a business person who had full control over his talent and work.
Once Prince’s contractual obligations with Warner Bros were fulfilled Prince became an independent artist who had control over his art and his talent. For some time Prince released his own music, and sold tickets to his show online. He even successfully engaged in some limited partnership agreements, with big record labels. But Prince recognized other issues that victimize artists; one beast was the internet. Prince said in a Rolling Stone interview that “If you don’t own your masters, your masters own you.”
Prince believed that an artist has a fundamental right to control the work he created, and no one else should have that right; not the music record labels, and certainly not the Internet. In 2007, Prince decided to take legal action against YouTube, eBay and Pirate Bay for the unauthorized use of his music. According to the article, Remembering Prince’s Fight for Artist Independence by Rashad Drakeford, “over 2,000 Prince Clips from YouTube and over 300 eBay auctions” were pulled down. And by 2015 “he [successfully] pulled his music from all streaming services….” Link.: https://revolt.tv/stories/2016/04/21/remembering-princes-fight-artist-independence-7513c31cce
The Prince is dead. Long live the ideals he stood up for and fought for.
#1 by Edward Greenberg on April 25, 2016 - 6:09 pm
A question sent directly to Ed’s office (basically) asked how live performers can maximize both their creative control and obtain the highest cash percentage of the gate when ie on tour or doing concerts or when asked to photograph “for free” with an option to sell prints.
For SOME performers – most notably George Carlin- the following type of deal is optimum. Typically a venue ie a Vegas hotel will pay a performer X dollars to perform on given dates. Carlin had performed as per the rather usual agreement many times over many years in Las Vegas. He then chose a different business model – for certain shows/venues/occasions only- he would “rent” the showroom and pay the hotel XXX$ regardless of how many tickets were sold to a given performance. In exchange he controlled the sometimes controversial material and would “take home” most or all of the money paid for tickets. If the house were packed, its Lotto time. If however he paid XXX$ rent and nobody showed up, it would be a financial disaster and he would lose a fortune for that/those performances having paid to work.
This is a business model that can only be successful under very narrow circumstances and is not for everyone. Another common form of this type of compensation is a band that plays a club “for free” but gets most or all of the seat charges.
There are photographers who do (especially local) events who use the above formulas and/or variations for all sorts of social event photography like fund raisers, charity balls, town parades or carnivals. You make your money by “selling” photos and get zero for showing up. Choose wisely, if it is a small event you must be the sole photographer and take your time before you sign on the dotted line. This is all part of the art of negotiation and especially knowing your customers.
#2 by Ron on April 26, 2016 - 12:58 pm
DP Review had an interesting interview with a photographer who photographed Prince’s tour in 2011…. Seems Prince’s arrangement with the photographer was pretty much WFH, with Prince retaining ownership/control over the images by the photographer, whom he described as an artist. Ironic, but not surprising.
#3 by Ed Greenberg on May 18, 2016 - 4:36 am
Charlie Chaplin was the first artist/producer who required all set shooters to work under a WFH. Chaplin realizing the potential value of the shots, took the unprocessed film from the cameras himself and paid the shooters only for their time. This novel procedure for the era netted Chaplin and later his estate, both 100% creative control and an archive of valuable images
Prince simply and wisely followed Chaplin’s example set some 70 plus years earlier. Everything old is new again.
“