“Industry Rule #4080: Record company people are shady” How is it rappers dont own their publishing from the jump???

[geechiedan]

MC Lyte Says She Only Earned A ‘Slight’ Amount From Her Publishing Royalties, Commends Today’s Artists For Being Transparent About Their Music Deals​

Lyte’s earnings from her music would ultimately come from touring, which led to her next major purchase.


“When I started touring is when I started making money, and then I got a house, and then without budgeting or anything by the time I furnished the house, I had nothing to cover my windows with, and so I had to put sheets up in the window and have my manager stop by and be OK with that scene,” she explained on The Breakfast Club. “And it wasn’t until I went out on the road the next time that I could finish the house.”
She added, “There’s so much more money being made in this business, and I can only hope that the youngins are doing the right thing with it because there are ebbs and flows.”
The MC is speaking from experience when mentioning the highs and lows of the industry. Despite selling more than 1 million records, she admits to not receiving enough compensation from publishing royalties.

She recalls receiving a “slight” amount “but nothing like you know I should have. I mean this is a treacherous game,” according to the podcast.

MC Lyte continued, “What’s interesting is on the internet now in every nook and cranny you can see truth being told. You got some people that are just like ‘Look this is how the record deal works,’ which I think is really admirable of those people to kind of speak their truth.”

Later in her career Lyte would reclaim more ownership in her artistry. As AFROTECH™ previously reported, she has full ownership of her catalog and was able to maintain it in the aftermath of a divorce, court documents from January 2023 reveal.


This was made possible through a prenup, which also permitted the artist to maintain “other creative property, including royalties in connection to her creative works.”

She had not obtained ownership of her stage name until 2021.

MSN

If songwriting is the key... How is that songwriters in other genres are multimillionaires and rappers most of whom automatically write their own material...arent?

 

[geechiedan]

A Tribe Called Quest’s Q-Tip memorably sounded his warning about the perils of the music business almost thirty years ago; a cautioning that was well-reflected over the following years as news of multi-Platinum artists going bankrupt and global superstars changing their name a symbol to get out of their recording contracts became part of pop culture lore.

Stories of the entertainment industry have always been Little Red Riding Hood analogies: the young, vulnerable and overeager artists are seduced by the generous offerings of label execs dressed as friends and/or benevolent family figures. A look through any number of major music biopics (Straight Outta Compton, Why Do Fools Fall In Love, The New Edition Story), as well as VH1’s defunct Behind the Music and TVOne’s Unsung, will reveal stories of convoluted management deals and missing money, but also those of perfectly legal label and production contracts that didn’t match verbal promises. It’s why Ice Cube left N.W.A, why New Edition was only making dollars each at the end of their first tour, even according to some, possibly why Sam Cooke was murdered.

Last week, a conversation about fairness and ethics in record deals surfaced when first singer Kelis, then rapper Mase, called out what they consider injustices in their old contracts. In a Jan. 30 interview with The Guardian, Kelis said she was “blatantly lied to and tricked” by “the Neptunes and their management and their lawyers and all that stuff” when she signed her initial deal. The “Milkshake” singer says she was told “[we] were going to split the whole thing 33/33/33.” When she realized she wasn’t making any money off of her albums, only her touring, she says she questioned her deal. “Their argument is: ‘Well, you signed it.’ I’m like: ‘Yeah, I signed what I was told, and I was too young and too stupid to double-check it.’”

Kelis’ comments were followed a couple of days later by a post from Mase, once Bad Boy’s marquee artist and the new Starsky to Diddy’s Hutch following Biggie Smalls’ death in 1996, in response to an impassioned speech Combs delivered at Clive Davis’ pre-Grammy gala. While receiving the Icon Award, the entertainment mogul put the Grammy organization — a cosponsor of the event — on notice regarding their appreciation, respect and acknowledgement of Black artists, arguing “We need the artists to take back control, we need transparency, we need diversity.”

Diddy issued an edict on behalf of the Black music community for the Grammys to “get it right,” saying, “I’m here for the artists.” Combs also added that while his goal used to be simply making hit records, “Now it’s to ensure that the culture moves forward.” The magnanimous speech left Diddy, who now often uses the nickname “Brother Love,” open to criticism, as Bad Boy Entertainment has a trail of unhappy, messy or downright tragic artist relationships and breakups in its historic wake.

Industry Rule No. 4080: Are Bad Record Deals Unethical, Or Just Part of the Game?

Last week, a conversation about fairness and ethics in record deals surfaced when first singer Kelis, then rapper Mase, called out what they consider injustices in their old contracts.

www.billboard.com

 

[nawlinsn931]

Take hints from Prince

 

[Rythm]

Best thing you can do as a new artist is come to the table with a large following or at least a studio quality finished project. Without a proven track record or a large following, artists have no leverage against record labels. Also, labels are fronting the production costs so they want to recoup that cost asap. A 360 deal is the worst deal you can ever sign but a new artist will sign it and regret it

 

[DJCandle]

Record labels have the one thing every artist NEEDS to blow and become successful..

Reach.

Without the industries reach, you’re basically a nobody making music.

This is why deals are made with the devil.

 

[tallblacknyc]

Record labels have the one thing every artist NEEDS to blow and become successful..

Reach.

Without the industries reach, you’re basically a nobody making music.

This is why deals are made with the devil.

It’s probably more about money than anything.. these artist have none so they can’t afford studio time, beats, features, tours, etc.. there are several artist who had bread whether legal or illegal who didn’t sign shitty deals or who just had distribution deals.. modern day times there’s huge opportunities thanks to the internet and all the possible consumers that can pretty much cut the middleman out aka the record label and you can do direct to consumer bizz

 

[geechiedan]

Best thing you can do as a new artist is come to the table with a large following or at least a studio quality finished project. Without a proven track record or a large following, artists have no leverage against record labels. Also, labels are fronting the production costs so they want to recoup that cost asap. A 360 deal is the worst deal you can ever sign but a new artist will sign it and regret it

you say that as if they have a choice..

but so far no one has explained or can explain how a person who writes their own song doesn't own their publishing? I would think the ONE leverage the artist does have is creating their own song??

 

[Rythm]

you say that as if they have a choice..

but so far no one has explained or can explain how a person who writes their own song doesn't own their publishing? I would think the ONE leverage the artist does have is creating their own song??

If you sign over your publishing rights, you no longer own them for the period of that contract. The choice is to negotiate a better contract from the jump if you can. A lot of artists don't even utilize an attorney, just be signing shit

 

[ViCiouS]

you say that as if they have a choice..

but so far no one has explained or can explain how a person who writes their own song doesn't own their publishing? I would think the ONE leverage the artist does have is creating their own song??

the business model is different now - so my answer deals with older deals


artists without guidance from the experienced or good representation chose to sell their pub early or even sign it away as part of their recording deal

educated artists form a publishing company before signing a recording contract

but most artists are ignorant of the business and/or they end up locked into a production deal before signing a record deal

this happens across all genres - but historically artists in other genres typically get their coat pulled along with getting access to more revenue streams with their first 2 projects and tour -

then with leverage and $$ they are usually able to renegotiate their contracts to increase profit share and buy back their pub

but rappers typically have had less revenues because of samples and past restrictions on live shows

 

[godofwine]

If you sign over your publishing rights, you no longer own them for the period of that contract. The choice is to negotiate a better contract from the jump if you can. A lot of artists don't even utilize an attorney, just be signing shit

Most artists use the same attorney as the record label. They don't know any better. They're young, thirsty and desperate to make it out of whatever situation they're trying to make it out of.

It's not until much later when they realize they fucked up

 

[godofwine]

And, look, I was seventeen when I signed my first contract
And about eighteen and a half when I signed my worst contract; we hurt from that
And till this day they still distributin' our first tape
Before Comin' Out Hard, now can you feel it?
Be humble and patient with whatever you should choose
'Cause to get to where I am right now, I done paid my dues

 

[A to Dah K]

you say that as if they have a choice..

but so far no one has explained or can explain how a person who writes their own song doesn't own their publishing? I would think the ONE leverage the artist does have is creating their own song??

It’s been explained a million times. The artist wants a record deal, they company is fronting all the upfront cost of studio,marketing,radio station payola,etc and giving the opportunity. Artist will sign over the publishing for those things.

What if your shit don’t even blow up, who takes the L then?

 

[moblack]

It’s been explained a million times. The artist wants a record deal, they company is fronting all the upfront cost of studio,marketing,radio station payola,etc and giving the opportunity. Artist will sign over the publishing for those things.

What if your shit don’t even blow up, who takes the L then?

They can't seem to get that. People don't realize the record company is basically a bank lending you a loan. They holding all the debt. An artist gotta pay shit back. Weird pay can't seem to get that.

 

[A to Dah K]

They can't seem to get that. People don't realize the record company is basically a bank lending you a loan. They holding all the debt. An artist gotta pay shit back. Weird pay can't seem to get that.

To me the issue is people sign over too much publishing, 50/50 or even 60/40 in favor of which ever side on the publishing ,for an allotted time is a fair deal

 

[ThisLuv]

Record labels have the one thing every artist NEEDS to blow and become successful..

Reach.

Without the industries reach, you’re basically a nobody making music.

This is why deals are made with the devil.

Yeah and it’s messed up smh

 

[Al Smith]

This book has been around since 1996.. yet mofos refuse to read..

Everything You'd Better Know About the Record Industry Hardcover – January 1, 1996​

Amazon.com

 

[A to Dah K]

This book has been around since 1996.. yet mofos refuse to read..

Everything You'd Better Know About the Record Industry Hardcover – January 1, 1996​

Amazon.com

Probably wont help with These new record deals. They gatekeepers have probably reworked the whole game being that its all digital now and record sales are so low

 

[Al Smith]

I remember when you could do a poor man's copyright by mailing a copy of your just recorded works to yourself and don't open the package... it still holds up in court.. Well since it's digital, email a copy of the works from one email to another and archive.. Let the court's settle it as possession is 9/10ths of the law and the email will have a digital time stamp of possession before it can before it can go to ASCAP/BMI.. In a court of law, documentation is everything.. Record companies rely on you not fully understanding the terms of the contract, but yet you can play dirty just as well..

 

[moblack]

Probably wont help with These new record deals. They gatekeepers have probably reworked the whole game being that its all digital now and record sales are so low

Yep 360 deals, streaming, movies, clothing lines, etc the game has changed big time since 96. Heck artists don't even do interviews with magazines like they did back in 96. Lets not even get into YouTube, IG, Tik Tok, Twitch

 

[geechiedan]

It’s been explained a million times. The artist wants a record deal, they company is fronting all the upfront cost of studio,marketing,radio station payola,etc and giving the opportunity. Artist will sign over the publishing for those things.

What if your shit don’t even blow up, who takes the L then?

what your advocating is basically a pimp move...

Its a a completely lopsided trade off...thats essentially the label;s risk of ONE LOSS vs the artist giving up all rights IN PERPITUITY...

A record label contract in perpetuity, also known as a perpetual grant, gives a record label the right to release, own, and profit from a song or project indefinitely, or until the copyright expires. In exchange, the artist receives royalties from the commercialization of the rights

1 loss vs FOREVER PAYMENTS and you believe thats fair???

 

[Flawless]

Because the company is the one putting up the money and taking all the risk.

 

[geechiedan]

Because the company is the one putting up the money and taking all the risk.

A musician grants a record label the rights to their music 'in perpetuity'. This means the label can continue to sell and distribute their music forever.

 

[Flawless]

A musician grants a record label the rights to their music 'in perpetuity'. This means the label can continue to sell and distribute their music forever.

The label can also invest millions on the artist and they flop and never recoup that money. It's up to the artist to negotiate them getting their masters at some time in the future.

 

[A to Dah K]

what your advocating is basically a pimp move...

Its a a completely lopsided trade off...thats essentially the label;s risk of ONE LOSS vs the artist giving up all rights IN PERPITUITY...

A record label contract in perpetuity, also known as a perpetual grant, gives a record label the right to release, own, and profit from a song or project indefinitely, or until the copyright expires. In exchange, the artist receives royalties from the commercialization of the rights

1 loss vs FOREVER PAYMENTS and you believe thats fair???

You said all of that to say????
Life ain’t fair

 

[geechiedan]

@Flawless @A to Dah K

This is how the entertainment industry works in a nutshell....

 

[TENT]

Niggas in the comments working a 9-5 and criticizing entrepreneurs from signing bad contracts.
How much money do you generate for your company vs your salary?
Compare that to the amount MC Lyte generated for the record company!!!
You will see that YOU signed the worse deal.

 

[geechiedan]

The label can also invest millions on the artist and they flop and never recoup that money. It's up to the artist to negotiate them getting their masters at some time in the future.

that sometime in the future can be like 30 years. Even then MAYBE????

As VICE has previously reported, artists who release music through a record label typically sign away the rights to their masters—their actual sound recordings—and give those rights to a label. Most label contracts, and especially older ones, stipulate that the label owns those master rights forever. But under an obscure provision of U.S. copyright law, artists do have a chance to get them back.


That provision, Section 203 of the Copyright Act, is what Baker seems to be referencing in her tweet. It dictates that 35 years after an author signs away the rights to a copyrighted work, they can file a request to legally reclaim them. For musicians like Baker, that means that roughly 35 years after a record comes out, they can take back ownership of it.

Unfortunately for Baker, most of her music hasn’t been out long enough for her to use Section 203 to reclaim it. Six of her seven albums came out less than 35 years ago.

That said, Baker’s first album, The Songstress, came out 37 years ago; she should be able file a claim for the master rights to it right now. And she should be able to do the same with her second album, Rapture, once it turns 35 next year.


Even still, Section 203 contains an exception that could make things difficult for her. It doesn’t apply to music created under “work-for-hire” contracts, which were ubiquitous back when Baker signed record deals with Beverly Glen (which released The Songstress) and Elektra (which released Rapture) in the 1980s. These contracts essentially state that artists are de-facto employees of a label, whose music becomes company property the second it’s recorded. In recent years, labels have argued in court that because they have always held the rights to that music, they are under no obligation to give those rights back to an artist who never owned them.

Maybe that won’t be a problem for Baker. Without having seen her contracts, it’s impossible to know for sure that they include work-for-hire language—and even if they do, she may be able to find a legal workaround. Either way, Baker needs to act fast: Once a recording becomes eligible under Section 203, artists have five years to file a request to reclaim it. On top of that, they have to file the request two years before the date they want to reclaim their rights. That means that, at best, Baker wouldn’t own the rights to The Songstress and Rapture until 2023 and 2024, respectively. Even in that scenario, she’d only be reclaiming the rights to 16 out of the 64 studio recordings she made during her career.

Ownership has become a dominant topic of conversation in the music industry lately, thanks in part to Taylor Swift’s quest to re-record her masters, Kanye West’s crusade against what he calls “slave contracts,” and the multi-million dollar sums private equity firms are paying for artists’ back catalogs.



I know your arguing a counterpoint but honestly whose side are you on????