Does Madonna own her masters?

[Fabiolous 5,494]

With all the talk about Taylor Swift lately, I was just wondering.

I know that she owns the publishing rights for all of her songs (under Boy Toy Publishing if I'm not wrong), and that's how she was able to sell MDNA, Rebel heart and Madame X to Warner for 2025. I believe she owns the masters for those three albums as well, but what about Erotica? Like a virgin? Hard Candy? Does she own any of the masters of her previous albums? 

Is there someone here more knowledgeable? 😃

[androiduser 2,471]

there is an interesting article about this topic.... but not sure how reliable it is?

https://www.benvaughn.com/does-madonna-own-her-masters-a-breakdown-of-the-businesswomans-dealings/

[Scottyx 8,781]

she has to. she just has to.

[androiduser 2,471]

21 minutes ago, ScottyX said:

she has to. she just has to.

just went through some old topics about it here, and apparently she does not, only for albums from MDNA and later

[Chris 1,023]

i believe she never did?

[Jackie 8,076]

It's highly complex - there's 'masters' and the rights that comes with that and then 'composition' and the rights that come with that - almost all of Madonna's music infers a composition right to her and some level of ownership by her placing her name as a writer and/or producer.

I am sure someone here knows the difference and how it works - but I would imagine that if you sold the masters, you are selling the composition of the song as it was released and that's it - but if you don't also have the composition rights - you can't approve changes or other ways to publish that track (like live performances, it being used in a film or advert)? Did I get that right? Or am I way off lol 

[Donna 16,499]

The fact her music (even the first couple of albums) aren't whored out to compilation albums (80's albums), commercials, multiple Record company re-issues, compilations, etc., makes me think she has huge control over her catalog. She may not have complete control over all her songs' masters, but I'm betting by 1992, she negotiate enough of a deal that nothing can be done without her approval.

[Jackie 8,076]

2 minutes ago, McDonna said:

The fact her music (even the first couple of albums) aren't whored out to compilation albums (80's albums), commercials, multiple Record company re-issues, compilations, etc., makes me think she has huge control over her catalog. She may not have complete control over all her songs' masters, but I'm betting by 1992, she negotiate enough of a deal that nothing can be done without her approval.

I agree - nothing has been whored out of her's - even in the re issue campaign - if Warner had complete control - I am 100 % certain we would have had a re issue by now lol - BUT also, maybe they want to respect the longer term relationship with her and her music to not just do that.

[Donna 16,499]

1 minute ago, Jackie said:

I agree - nothing has been whored out of her's - even in the re issue campaign - if Warner had complete control - I am 100 % certain we would have had a re issue by now lol - BUT also, maybe they want to respect the longer term relationship with her and her music to not just do that.

I have a feeling she took notes from Michael Jackson.  Think about it.  She knew right from the start who she wanted as her manager which was his manager.  Ever since then, she built her self as this bigger than life persona as Michael has.  I'm sure she saw how he bought up the Beatles Catalog (right up from under Paul McCartney) in the late 80's. So I'm sure she knows she's at least needs to own a majority of her own work, to keep it from being used in ways she doesn't want it to be. 

[Jackie 8,076]

56 minutes ago, McDonna said:

I have a feeling she took notes from Michael Jackson.  Think about it.  She knew right from the start who she wanted as her manager which was his manager.  Ever since then, she built her self as this bigger than life persona as Michael has.  I'm sure she saw how he bought up the Beatles Catalog (right up from under Paul McCartney) in the late 80's. So I'm sure she knows she's at least needs to own a majority of her own work, to keep it from being used in ways she doesn't want it to be. 

I agree totally!

[Fabiolous 5,494]

2 hours ago, androiduser said:

there is an interesting article about this topic.... but not sure how reliable it is?

https://www.benvaughn.com/does-madonna-own-her-masters-a-breakdown-of-the-businesswomans-dealings/

So this article says she owns the masters of everything after 1992, which makes sense. It's the year she founded Maverick and probably negotiated a new contract.

I read somewhere that the masters of her previous work returns to her after it turns 40 years old? So I think she now owns the masters of her debut album, and she will eventually own all of them by 2030 (when the Immaculate Collection turns 40)?

Or maybe it was bullshit lol I don't know. Someone here surely knows better.

[Prayer 14,381]

To sum it up: she owns everything from "MDNA" but not all her previous work with Warner.

A song has two sides, regarding to rights: writing rights (the composition of the song, music and lyrics) and master rights (the actual recording of that song, the version recorded). Obviously she has writing rights of all the songs she's written (in the % they agreed originally with the other writers if it was more than herself) since day one. Master rights are usually owned by the label in the old business model but they expire after 35 years in the US.

She could claim to have the master rights reverted to her for the first three albums now, but she hasn't. They're still Warner. So I guess it's a matter of having a better deal with Warner about it, maybe more money or whatever, than if she did it on her own. She's smart, so there's no reason for her to not want to own her master unless the deal she's got for not doing so it's better than for doing it.

My guess is she negotiated a deal to come back to Warner in the late 10s, she got a good amount and was more profitable than just having her masters back and have to work them "herself" or finding another label partner to do it.

So basically she has decided to keep the pre-2012 masters on Warner, at least for now. We don't know if this current deal expires at some point (I guess so, she's been very vocal lately about "owning" her own music so that should be a sign that this is just a deal for this period and she knows she can claim her masters back in the future anyway if she wants to).

"MDNA", "Rebel Heart" and "Madame X" are owned by her but licensed to Interscope for a limited period of time. Starting 2025, they'll pass onto Warner (I guess licensed too).

[clkelley39 991]

13 hours ago, androiduser said:

there is an interesting article about this topic.... but not sure how reliable it is?

https://www.benvaughn.com/does-madonna-own-her-masters-a-breakdown-of-the-businesswomans-dealings/

I think this article was written by AI or something. A lot of it doesn't make sense. It says:

"Under this contract, Madonna was paid an advance of $5,000 and a royalty rate of 15 percent. This meant that for every album sold, Madonna would receive 15 cents." 

So does that mean there is only $1 profit from every album sold? Or that's the assumption? I don't follow. Then it goes on to say:

"It was revealed that Rihana had purchased the rights to all of her albums.You can find the album Beyblade on both Parkwood Entertainment and Columbia Records. Because of the arrangement, the master recordings of some of Bey’s songs appear on her albums. Furthermore, the singer signed a global recording contract with Sony Music Entertainment, the company that owns Columbia Records, in January 2020."

Wait, now we're suddenly talking about Rihanna and/or Beyonce and some album called Beyblade? Then later: 

"The album Becoming Blackened Recordings is the ultimate in independence, according to Metallica guitarist Lardrup Ulrich. The rapper’s manager, Kei Henderson, revealed that 21 Savage owns his master’s degree."

Becoming Blackened Recordings? Lardrup? Master's degree?

 

 

[artlover 3,972]

I've always wondered that as well. But I don't think she does, especially of her first three or four records

[PlayPause 2,686]

18 hours ago, androiduser said:

there is an interesting article about this topic.... but not sure how reliable it is?

https://www.benvaughn.com/does-madonna-own-her-masters-a-breakdown-of-the-businesswomans-dealings/

That's not a very good nor interesting article. It's for SEO purpose, not for information.

[PlayPause 2,686]

The majority of M masters are owned by Sire, Warner or one of their subsidies.

Her albums under Interscope are owned by Boy Toy Inc, aka Madonna.

Boy Toy Inc. and Webo (another M company) also own most of M's publishing rights.

The phonographic master owner comes after ℗ on the credit notes.

 

[Roland Barthes 5,850]

She probably got back to Warner for that reason. I can totally see her signong a deal with Warner under the lie that she would re-release deluxe versions of her albums with the sole purpose to block them from being released hahahah.

Joke aside, i have a real question for people in the know, when an album is re-released in a remastered version (with extra content or not) is the re-release considered a new release separated from the original album ( meaning the contract for its  original release is also valid for its re-release) or is it the same contract hence same owner and same divides between producers ? (for the first album, Stein made sure Kamins had a really good share even though he only produced one track on it. If there's a new contract could this share be renegociated ?)

[Honey Little 3,996]

8 hours ago, Roland Barthes said:

She probably got back to Warner for that reason. I can totally see her signong a deal with Warner under the lie that she would re-release deluxe versions of her albums with the sole purpose to block them from being released hahahah.

Joke aside, i have a real question for people in the know, when an album is re-released in a remastered version (with extra content or not) is the re-release considered a new release separated from the original album ( meaning the contract for its  original release is also valid for its re-release) or is it the same contract hence same owner and same divides between producers ? (for the first album, Stein made sure Kamins had a really good share even though he only produced one track on it. If there's a new contract could this share be renegociated ?)

I don’t know. 

[LongIslandTea 1,591]

I believe she owns the master for all 3 LN era flop albums, and co-owned the master for anything post 1992 in WB.

[PlayPause 2,686]

20 hours ago, Roland Barthes said:

She probably got back to Warner for that reason. I can totally see her signong a deal with Warner under the lie that she would re-release deluxe versions of her albums with the sole purpose to block them from being released hahahah.

Joke aside, i have a real question for people in the know, when an album is re-released in a remastered version (with extra content or not) is the re-release considered a new release separated from the original album ( meaning the contract for its  original release is also valid for its re-release) or is it the same contract hence same owner and same divides between producers ? (for the first album, Stein made sure Kamins had a really good share even though he only produced one track on it. If there's a new contract could this share be renegociated ?)

Hahaha.

Remastered tracks are considered the same material as the original. They're just a new master made with up-to-date technology and a new collaborator, but a mastering engineer isn't an songwriter or composer. So the album would be a simple re-release.

Only the new content needs additional contract because their rights were not cleared as those demos weren't supposed to be released. So in theory, for a whole album the original shares wouldn't change but the overall revenue would be split including the new ones.