Prince, when he felt like a “slave” for Warner Bros.
As the feud between Taylor Swift and Big Machine label head Scott Borchetta has shown, ownership of an artist’s master recordings is a sensitive issue -- particularly when a catalog is as valuable as Swift’s. But the country-turned-pop superstar is far from the first musician to battle with her (former) label over master rights.
What is a “master,” you ask? A master is the original sound recording of a piece of music (by today’s recording “technology” vernacular, it’s probably the ProTools Session, where the music and vocals were recorded into), as opposed to the composition itself . Whatever entity or person that owns the rights to those masters, has broad power over how that recording is used. Not to be confused with composition rights holder, i. e., the songwriters or a publisher, who has purchased the copyright from them, the master rights holder has the power to grant third-party licenses for that recording, be it television, film, or commercial placements. Proceeds from those licenses are then split between the owner of the master (who pays out a previously agreed-upon percentage of that revenue to the artist) and the composition's copyright holders.
So those a re a few obvious reasons why an artist would want to own their masters, but most are always controlled by the artist's label (in Swift’s case, Big Machine). Even if an artist has initially negotiated ownership of their master, the artist may barter the ownership of the master in exchange for promotion of the record and financial support during the recording process.
Not only does ownership allow the owner to collect on royalties for sales and uses of the master sound recording, but they exercise full control over how and where it is used. As such, labels haven't been known to give those rights up easily.
Ms. Swift found that out the hard way…
After declining to sign a new deal with Big Machine, that she claimed would have awarded her rights back to her masters, one album at a time (she would earn one old album for every new one she released), the singer said Borchetta failed to notify her about the label's pending sale to Ithaca Holdings, whose majority stakeholders include A-list manager and so-called Swift "bully," Scooter Braun.
Had Swift been informed of the sale ahead of time, she indicated that she may have been compelled to make a counter-bid for her masters.
They eventually sold to Ithaca for $300Million!!
Borchetta has disputed Swift's claims, including the proposed contract terms and when she found out about the Ithaca deal.
The history of major artists attempting to regain control of their masters is nothing new, and often comes with a hefty price tag.
Here are a couple examples…
Before Swift, my Minneapolis “Homey,” Prince, was the artist most known for battling with a record label over control of his master recordings. In his case, the label was Warner Bros. Records, which released his first 18 albums, including such monster hits as Purple Rain and 1999. With his frustration over a perceived lack of artistic control mounting, in 1993, he went public with his concerns, by changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol (also known as the "Love Symbol"), in hopes that the change would make the terms of his contract unenforceable. Once it became clear that his ploy wouldn’t work, the singer-songwriter began appearing in public with the word “slave” written on his cheek.
Once his deal with Warner Bros. ended, Prince released his next album, conveniently titled Emancipation, on EMI and his own NPG Records. In subsequent years he would go on to release music on a variety of different labels, from Arista to Columbia to Universal, and he even offered his 1997 Crystal Ball box set directly to fans via phone and internet preorders. After re-signing with Warner in 2014 to release new music, as well as a 30th anniversary edition of Purple Rain, he finally gained the rights to his master recordings released under the label, after a more than two-decade standoff.
Janet Jackson signed HUGE deals with Virgin Records in the 1990’s, and were arguably the shrewdest of that decade in music. The multi-platinum star made headlines with her 1991 contract that was worth a reported $40 million, but then doubled down with her 1996 deal, reportedly valued at $80 million.
That latter deal was not just worth twice as much in advance money, but also awarded her ownership of her masters seven years after the end of the contract, which was fulfilled following the release of her 2006 album, 20 Y.O. Even for an artist of Jackson’s stature, this counted as an exceptionally rare situation.
I could go on, as there are many more examples, of major artists and their wins/losses to attain their masters. Although, in today’s “DIY” music industry, an artist can own their own masters by simple paying a recording studio (out of their own pocket) to record their songs, and asking the studio for copies on the session afterwards, on a USB thumb-drive, or an external drive. (Having the studio sign a “Release of Master Ownership,” might be a good idea, as well….)
So, that’s REALLY all it takes… WHOEVER PAYS FOR THE SONG TO BE RECORDED, OWNS THE MASTER!!
So, in a nutshell, pay for your own SH#T, and own your own SH#T
