Is Madonna the owner of her masters?

[me1981 1,358]

Speaking of rights and the business stuff, if I can bring up something related but off topic. Does anyone else remember a story told by a WB employee about Madonna, around the time Like a Virgin came out WB tried to screw her over, something to do with rights or royalties or something. She somehow found out and hired the most ruthless old school lawyer she could find, went into a meeting and grabbed them by the balls and never let go. The execs walked out saying "I guess Madonna owns the place now" 

I wish I could remember where I read this and what the full story was.

[Brendanlovesu1 11,966]

I wish she would just go and set up her own independent record label (yeah I know she had Maverick) but it would be cool for her to do a Mya and Prince thing and set up an independent label where she's in charge of everything, but it would be important to get a pre- and post-recording agreement to hold the producers, writers, artists, and engineers liable for leakage, sharing, placement, and playing of the music

[rlittler81 1,601]

56 minutes ago, Brendanlovesu1 said:

I wish she would just go and set up her own independent record label (yeah I know she had Maverick) but it would be cool for her to do a Mya and Prince thing and set up an independent label where she's in charge of everything, but it would be important to get a pre- and post-recording agreement to hold the producers, writers, artists, and engineers liable for leakage, sharing, placement, and playing of the music

Yeah, I've always been a bit surprised that she didn't seem to bothered about owning her masters. I think out of all of the megastars from the 80's, she seems to be the only one that had relatively few issues with her record label (the Maverick case, aside) Maybe she's been more willing to 'play the game' with the industry. Considering how she's pretty much been in control of every aspect of her career, it just seems strange she hasn't taken full control of her work. Even losing the Blond Ambition tour recordings seems a bit careless. Who knows? She seemed to have a lot of recordings and items for the biopic at hand, maybe she has just trusted Warners with her back catalogue.

[PlayPause 2,683]

10 hours ago, Prayer said:

I think it's a very valid and current conversation

Yes it is, but since the question was about masters, the answer can't be about publishing.

To be clear :

- "masters" are master tapes, originally in a material sense. What Madonna and her musicians have performed to be released as a song. It's the final version of the original audio that has been recorded and that you can actually hear. It can be played, replicated or distributed. Valuable indeed, as long as the albums and singles by Madonna make money, depending on each country's market.

- copyright / publishing rights are intellectual property. What the lyricists and the composers have written down as a song (or whatever piece of music). It's only notes and words that need to be performed by someone to be heard. Supposed to make money as soon as anyone plays it or covers it for rent, sale, broadcasting or streaming. Not necessarily linked to Madonna (but most of it, obviously), her share on each song isn't a secret: it's on the liner notes. Can be very profitable for more than 50 to 70+ years in many countries, even with crappy covers on Spotify.

[Craigypants 15,283]

On 3/9/2021 at 11:17 AM, deathproof said:

If she owned it, what would be the copyright? Boy Toy Inc?

Boy Toy & Webo Girl Publishing. How often do you see her songs on compilation albums or in film or music, Not very often. At this point its kind of like what Lucasfilm used to do. They made their own movies and published them, They were licenced and distributed through 20th Century Fox. They only owned the first movie until, George brought it back. Even now that Disney owns Star Wars and Marvel they still have to send a check to the Stan Lee estate and Cut a cheque to George Lucas. That don't own the characters. This is why the so called 25% rule exists. Notice C3PO had a red arm in The Force Awakens? They change it so its recognizable but don't have to pay the creator as they have changed the character. They were so cheap the didn't even put the right satellite dish on the Millennium Falcon. The OT characters barely got much screen time, It would have cost them a lot more money. 

They cant even make a Biopic about Madonna because they cant use her music. She is the only one who can sign of on it no matter how many executives pressure her. She is doing it herself and you can bet her music will be a major part of it. The possibilities for a soundtrack are overwhelming, Remixes, Demos, Its would be a goldmine. Now go and find that Paris Blond Ambition Footage for Christ's sake.?❤?

 

[deathproof 10,592]

8 hours ago, Craigypants said:

How often do you see her songs on compilation albums or in film or music

Quite a lot actually. 

[Semtex1 845]

Interesting .... I honestly never knew the reason for c3po and the red arm. 

[MDRA 4,223]

1 hour ago, Semtex1 said:

Interesting .... I honestly never knew the reason for c3po and the red arm. 

Don't believe everything you read...

[Semtex1 845]

26 minutes ago, #BelieveVictims said:

Don't believe everything you read...

Ok haha

[steady75 9,569]

I’m not sure Madonna owning her masters would lead to more special editions. Her lack of affection for what’s been and gone would probably mean they staying in storage. For the fan base it might be better for Warner to own her stuff as they’re more likely to be the people pushing for various special editions. 

[AModSquad 514]

On 3/8/2021 at 11:26 PM, shakeyerdix said:

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...

hmmm, not sure this is accurate.  Prince also on Warner is a perfect example. He's the sole producer of all his work and had quite a battle.  What do you think?

[AModSquad 514]

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

filing paperwork to reclaim ownership - i need more clarity here.  It reads like you just have til fill out a form and your label no long has anything to do with your work BUT im assuming what its saying is the process to reclaim starts with paperwork and involves some type of negotiation, payment(?) for those masters?