Speaking of copyright

[Peter]

I've always wondered: I know that the label fronts the $$$ to make the recording, and then the cost is recovered from CD sales. So in effect, the artist is paying for the recording, the label just fronts the artist the $$$. So why then, does the label own the recording, if the artist paid for it?

[Jim Alfredson]

Because musicians just want to make music and don't read the fine print.

[Brad]

You're assuming that the label recovers its investment. What if it doesn't? Even if it does, I believe (I'm not in the business), isn't that part of the bargain they drive. There's obviously unequal bargaining power so if you want to get in the stores, you need to basically do what they want. I would think that if you become a star, you have more leverage.

[JSngry]

'Cause there's no business like show business!

[Jazzmoose]

'least no business I know...

[GA Russell]

That's why some popular acts sure to sell enough to pay the expenses start their own record companies, like the Rolling Stones.

[patricia]

I've always wondered:  I know that the label fronts the $$$ to make the recording, and then the cost is recovered from CD sales.  So in effect, the artist is paying for the recording, the label just fronts the artist the $$$.  So why then, does the label own the recording, if the artist paid for it?

The record company owns the recording, as well as the distribution rights, if they own the recording and distribution rights, because the artist signs the rights over, as a condition the recording company states in the contract the artist is offered.

More often than not, the artist is so elated to have been offered a contract at all, that they don't read it. After all, what they want to do is make the recording in order to have it sold, they hope world-wide and heard.

For the most part, musicians are not business people, any more than other artists are. As soon as they sign the contract, the terms come into effect, much like any other contract.

Tons of artists from earlier times have fallen victim to predatory "agents" and others who would exploit them. The biographies of not just jazz artists, but artists from every spectrum are rife with horror stories of recording companies, art exhibitors and book publishers who became much more wealthy than the artist did, as a result of the artists' work creating the wealth and the "agent" owning the rights to both the work product and the money it generated, due to the artist's ignorance of legal matters. That's why it's called the music "BUSINESS"

Edited August 11, 2004 by patricia

[medjuck]

Ray Charles got to own his own masters when he went to ABC. There was a reason they called him The Genius. (Of course the music was the main reason.)

[danasgoodstuff]

The other reason 'they all do it' this way is because those who didn't went under, e.g. Artists House. Record companies also screw each other this way, see Atlantic's distribution contract with Stax which (when they finally wrote it down) gave Atlantic ownership of any and all Stax masters on which they exercised their distribution option...

[JohnJ]

That's why some popular acts sure to sell enough to pay the expenses start their own record companies, like the Rolling Stones.

Sinatra formed Reprise Records back in 1960. Are there any earlier examples of artists starting their own labels?