Jump to content

Is Madonna the owner of her masters?


tonyamaya
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, New_Boy said:

If she filed for reclaiming the rights of the albums she made over 35 years ago, which should be done a year or two before that expires, she should have them back. So far, it has only happened for "Madonna" and "Like a Virgin", but there was no news on it. For everything else, I highly doubt it.

She should do that before that guy that messed with TayTay does lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She does... from "MDNA".

Check this out :cute:

She owns everything from "MDNA" but it's exclusively licensed to Interscope/Live Nation for distribution (at least for the moment, we don't know if that is for a X number of years, probably it is). That's why Interscope put minimum effort in promoting her: it's not her product anyway, so why spend big amounts of money in promoting it? I'm sure they did the least they could according to their contract with her.

Prince got everything Warner owned back to him as part of his coming back contract in 2014, but that contract included Warner got a exclusive license to distribute. That license expires soon for all the non-soundtrack albums, they will keep "Purple Rain" forever, for instance.

With Madonna, they both could benefit for something like that. She could have started reclaiming her masters back 35 years after each release (that means she could have "Madonna" and "Like A Virgin" already back to her if she wanted to), but maybe they're working or have worked on a extensive contract that both parts can benefit from. And maybe all these new digital single releases and video remasters are part of that before announcing the big news.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Prayer said:

She does... from "MDNA".

Check this out :cute:

She owns everything from "MDNA" but it's exclusively licensed to Interscope/Live Nation for distribution (at least for the moment, we don't know if that is for a X number of years, probably it is). That's why Interscope put minimum effort in promoting her: it's not her product anyway, so why spend big amounts of money in promoting it? I'm sure they did the least they could according to their contract with her.

Prince got everything Warner owned back to him as part of his coming back contract in 2014, but that contract included Warner got a exclusive license to distribute. That license expires soon for all the non-soundtrack albums, they will keep "Purple Rain" forever, for instance.

With Madonna, they both could benefit for something like that. She could have started reclaiming her masters back 35 years after each release (that means she could have "Madonna" and "Like A Virgin" already back to her if she wanted to), but maybe they're working or have worked on a extensive contract that both parts can benefit from. And maybe all these new digital single releases and video remasters are part of that before announcing the big news.

 

So does this mean her MDNA songs cannot be on a GH compilation if Warner distributes it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, musicinferno said:

So does this mean her MDNA songs cannot be on a GH compilation if Warner distributes it? 

Her "MDNA", "Rebel Heart" and "Madame X" songs are hers but exclusively licensed to Interscope at the moment. Warner would need to reach and agreement with her and Interscope right now if they wanted to use any of those songs on a compilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Prayer said:

Her "MDNA", "Rebel Heart" and "Madame X" songs are hers but exclusively licensed to Interscope at the moment. Warner would need to reach and agreement with her and Interscope right now if they wanted to use any of those songs on a compilation.

Hopefully they don't decline or charge too much for rights. The next compilation will likely have GMAYL, Living For Love, Ghosttown, and Medellín included (and that's being generous). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, musicinferno said:

Hopefully they don't decline or charge too much for rights. The next compilation will likely have GMAYL, Living For Love, Ghosttown, and Medellín included (and that's being generous). 

I think they won’t disagree. When Kylie released her latest GH for the 1989th time, all the Warner and other songs were included. 

Or maybe it was released with Warner. Idk. 
 

JLO also did the same. Sony made the compilation and songs from UMG were included. 

Edited by tonyamaya (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonyamaya said:

I’ve always asked myself this, I really would like to know. 

No, if you go back in 2012, her music videos where distributed towards 3 different accounts in YT including a Vevo account that (somehow) is still operating on its own. This was all due to full ownership and rights of her videos especially the old ones from WB. It's wasn't until recently that any of her music videos under the WBmusicuniversal account was merged into one YT account which was "Madonna" . 

This was such a shit show back then because MDNA could've been bigger if it was distributed properly. The tour organically did the job of keeping her status in the business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonyamaya said:

I think they won’t disagree. When Kylie released her latest GH for the 1989th time, all the Warner and other songs were included. 

Or maybe it was released with Warner. Idk. 

BMG released it and they control the PWL/Deconstruction stuff and Golden. The Parlophone stuff (Can't Get You Out of My Head, Spinning Around, etc) had to be requested for use since Warner handles Parlophone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreements between right owners are quite common. Taylor Swift's case was impressive, like Prince or George Michael before, and Kylie too though not as dramatic as the other ones. In most cases record companies are willing to make money in the end, it's only business. Madonna has been involved in this dimension of her career long enough, even before Maverick, so even tough she doesn't own many masters, she still has total control over them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, New_Boy said:

If she filed for reclaiming the rights of the albums she made over 35 years ago, which should be done a year or two before that expires, she should have them back. So far, it has only happened for "Madonna" and "Like a Virgin", but there was no news on it. For everything else, I highly doubt it.

i don't know how things work, every album she released 35 years ago belong to her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Régine Filange said:

i don't know how things work, every album she released 35 years ago belong to her?

Yeah, but she has to legally claim them back to Warner and so fat it seems it hasn't happen, since "Madonna" and "Like A Virgin" are still copyrighted to Warner everywhere. Maybe they have some kind of agreement behind the scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ScottyX said:

I want to see evidence before I believe any answers. no offense.

https://www.grammy.com/grammys/news/why-are-so-few-artists-fighting-get-back-their-masters

Due to a legal provision outlined in the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, artists whose albums were released in the year 1978 and afterward all become eligible to file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office allowing them to reclaim ownership of their music copyrights and master recordings from their record labels after a period of 35 years.

"Madonna" (1983) turned 35 in 2018 and "Like A Virgin" in 2019 but they both still have Warner copyright:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/madonna-bonus-tracks-2001-remaster/80815644

https://music.apple.com/us/album/like-a-virgin-bonus-tracks-2001-remaster/80815235

(Digital services update copyright info as soon as it's changed from the source).

Need more evidence? :cute: Legally she could have those two albums back to her by now but she doesn't (yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Webo girl is for publishing only. It means lyrics and sheets are published through her publishing company, Webo girl.

In France, almost 40% of royalties go to the publisher and then 60% are distributed between the writer, composer, producer and distributer of the song. So it's important for artists to become their own publisher for they can earn more royalties.

Regarding her back catalog, as she's producing her albums since True blue, she's the owner of the tapes because she invested for it. Being producer means paying studios and musicians you choose and so on. Many times if artist produces, he can get an advance from record company but at the end, if he leaves the record company, he can claim to get back his tapes. But these are some times very long reclaims. And every artist contract is different from another. So it's hard to imagine what can Madonna really do, what Warner is limited to.

For sure Warner still has rights to reissue back catalog as all of her albums are still available and they even do (bad) reissues with Rhino. But do they have rights to sell unreleased things that were never issued.... I'm not very sure. If Madonna was one of the producer, they don't own tapes she didn't want to be released. This explains, maybe, the lack of unreleased stuff we always missed.

Anyway, I really think she has a bad team that gives bad advices regarding her back catalog which is a huge treasure where she could earn a lot if they did efforts. But sometimes I imagine it's the deal for people working with her : she doesn't want to focus on past stuff so don't talk to her about that. I just imagine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playpause said:

Publishing rights and masters rights are 2 different things. This conversation is going nowhere. Why do you care if she owns her masters or not to begin with? Hasn't her career been amazing anyway?

I personally don't care either, she's loaded anyway, sure. But generally, master ownership DOES matter. It doesn't have anything to do with her careeer being already amazing or not. It's her, owning her work - and legally she can do it. And yes, it would mean even more money for her too - if it's done right.

I think it's a very valid and current conversation, with Taylor Swift and many other artists fighting for their rights and being very vocal about it. :) Of course Madonna is very savvy person, so if she hasn't done it yet it's because it's not time yet or she has bigger plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 1:46 PM, Prayer said:

https://www.grammy.com/grammys/news/why-are-so-few-artists-fighting-get-back-their-masters

Due to a legal provision outlined in the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, artists whose albums were released in the year 1978 and afterward all become eligible to file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office allowing them to reclaim ownership of their music copyrights and master recordings from their record labels after a period of 35 years.

"Madonna" (1983) turned 35 in 2018 and "Like A Virgin" in 2019 but they both still have Warner copyright:

https://music.apple.com/us/album/madonna-bonus-tracks-2001-remaster/80815644

https://music.apple.com/us/album/like-a-virgin-bonus-tracks-2001-remaster/80815235

(Digital services update copyright info as soon as it's changed from the source).

Need more evidence? :cute: Legally she could have those two albums back to her by now but she doesn't (yet).

The labels don't just say "Okay here you go" on such and such a date 35 years later and hand over everything in their vaults for free lol  You still have to pay them. Before the CRA labels could keep the music rights forever, and artists who maybe signed bad contracts were just s.o.l. Artists before 1978 still are unfortunately. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use