Prince Gives Away Someone Else's Artistic Efforts, Gets Sued
from the BUT...-will-he-learn-anything-from-this-experience? dept
If there’s one thing Prince has made clear over the years, it’s this: don’t mess with Prince’s intellectual property.
This holds true even if:
- it’s only links to bootleg concert recordings.
- it’s only a 6-second Vine captured at a Prince concert
- it’s Prince’s cover of someone else’s song he’s now claiming to “own”
- it’s only your toddler dancing to a Prince song for all of 29 recorded seconds
- it’s just a cover version of a Prince song, which as Prince so wisely noted, completely destroys the original and removes it from everyone’s consciousness/internet FOREVER
- it’s a puppet likeness of him
- it’s any photo of him or his album covers
Don’t mess with the Prince of IP unless you’re an intellectual property lawyer or have several on retainer. This is what Prince has taught us. Now, he’s teaching us to do as he says, not as he does.
Prince handed out someone else’s music for free, which would normally be considered copyright infringement. But the lawsuit against him, brought by the manager of the artist whose music was given away, doesn’t make that assertion. Instead, it alleges intentional interference with a pre-existing contract — namely the one signed by the plaintiff (talent scout Jolene Cherry) and Prince’s partner in free album giveaways, Judith Hill.
According to the complaint filed in L.A. Superior Court on Friday, Hill signed an exclusive recording agreement with a joint venture between Sony and The Cherry Party after appearing on The Voice in 2013. Cherry, a talent scout who takes credit for discovering Lady Gaga, says her relationship with Sony was later restructured and that The Cherry Party became a successor-in-interest to rights under the recording agreement.
Hill signed a contract with Cherry, then asked if she could make an album with Prince. Cherry rejected the request and followed up with a warning to Hill that working with Prince would violate their contract — a warning Hill ignored. Prince and Hill collaborated on an album and proceeded to give it all away.
Included in this gratis album are songs allegedly written by Hill’s co-writers and previously recorded for The Cherry Group. The lawsuit claims Prince’s actions have basically made Hill’s Cherry Group/Sony Records debut album all but unreleasable. Despite Hill’s willing participation in both the recording and the free giveaway, she is not named as a co-defendant.
In very closely related news, Hill is currently suing Cherry for allegedly botching a contract with Sony Records, as well as for harming the singer’s reputation by altering a previously-recorded track to make it sound like a love song to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. (That last half of the previous sentence is most assuredly not made up.)
Underneath everything else, there’s the simple fact that Prince’s IP-protectionism is apparently applied on a case-by-case basis. If it’s even tangentially related to him, it’s off limits. If it’s someone else’s (Hill’s co-writers, Cherry Party), it can be given away freely. If nothing else, this situation will hopefully result in “purple with hypocrisy” joining “green with envy” in the annals of American idioms.
Filed Under: contracts, downloads, intellectual property, jolene cherry, judith hill, music, prince
Companies: sony
Comments on “Prince Gives Away Someone Else's Artistic Efforts, Gets Sued”
Ah, the music biz. Why are musicians lining up to get in?
Re: Re:
Cause the music biz is really going to town on trying to obscure the fact that there are plenty of ways to get your music out through the internet alone. They also make of point of harassing anyone that uses such ways if they can get away with it.
Old pop-stars… are really useful for providing more good reasons for limited copyright duration.
Nut warning
There’s a through line here: Cherry Party plus Raspberry Beret equals a bunch of fruitcakes. May contain nuts.
Purple with Hypocrisy doesn’t have the same ring to it as Prince with Hypocrisy.
You forgot another one...
He won’t give Weird Al permission to make a parody of any of prince’s songs.
Prince has protected his music so well that every time one of his songs plays on the radio I immediately change the station so as to not infringe his work.
I also do not stream or buy any of his songs or albums so as to make sure I do not infringe his work.
I go to great lengths to avoid any of his work at all out of respect so that I shall never infringe upon it.
If he were to hand one of these albums out to me for free, I would destroy it to ensure that I could not infringe upon his work.
Re: Re:
The only time Prince is even on my radar is when he’s mentioned here on TechDirt, and even then I feel I must be infringing something.
Re: Re:
destroying prince’s work is ALSO infringement.
He’s written so many shitty unreleased songs that I bet ‘destroy my CD then pay me, bitch’ is probably one of them.
You lost me
wait… who’s on first?
When will you people get it?
When will you people get it?
LAWS ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE!!
Re: When will you people get it?
Well at least Prince has a huge ego.
The only reason Prince is being sued is because he has money. He wasn’t the one that gave away the music.
Everyone knows Techdirt hates musicians, but this blog is truly pathetic.
Re: Re:
“techdirt hates musicians”
[citation needed]
Re: Re:
AC just hates it when a copyright maximalist gets caught breaking the law.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it’s time to stop using the term ‘copyright maximalist’ and give them their proper term ‘Enemy of humanity’.
RIAA/MPAA don’t give two shits if people’s lives are ruined or people die as long as the cash comes rolling in.
I should start taking bets on just how many people have been murdered on the direct orders of the mafiAA
Re: Re:
“The only reason Prince is being sued is because he has money.”
So he’s not being sued for breaking the law? Are you suggesting that he would still be getting sued had he not broken the law? Or are you suggesting that infringement is not against the law?
I thought you’re all for the poor poor artist. Now you seem to be in favor of prince who’s taking advantage of the poor poor desperate starving artist because prince is … rich?
Re: Re:
Everyone knows Techdirt hates musicians, but this blog is truly pathetic.
That’s right. We hate musicians so much we point out ways they can make more money… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011/future-music-business-models-those-who-are-already-there.shtml
We hate it when musicians make money… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120601/01173819160/amanda-palmer-raises-12-million-kickstarter-crowd-goes-wild.shtml
We hate it when we find out indie musicians are adapting and doing great… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130529/15560423243/massive-growth-independent-musicians-singers-over-past-decade.shtml
We hate it when musicians find awesome new ways to make money from fans… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130510/00083123031/cool-new-platform-supporting-artists-patreon-jack-conte.shtml
We hate it when we see musicians succeed… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130401/03115322523/macklemore-explains-why-not-being-label-helped-him-succeed.shtml
We hate it when musicians become super popular… oh wait…
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130324/01115322434/musician-alex-day-explains-how-he-beat-justin-timberlake-charts-basically-just-via-youtube.shtml
There’s many more like that. So, you can claim we “hate musicians” all you want, but the truth is the exact opposite. We are super happy to see musicians be successful and we spend a shit ton of time trying to help more be successful. We just think that your preferred method of threatening and insulting your fans is not a wise way to do that.
Re: Re: Re:
Fuck off, Masnick. You lying slimeball- for YEARS you’ve done nothing but complain when artist’s rights are enforced and protected.
Go die in a fire.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, what a well though out and presented counter argument, you’ve certainly convinced me with that brilliant presentation of logic there, let me tell you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fuck off, Masnick.
Telling me to fuck off on my own site is an interesting strategy. For what it’s worth, you’re absolutely welcome here on my site. I just wish you would debate with facts rather than emotional diatribes. Your choice, though.
You lying slimeball-
Can you point to a particular “lie” that you think I’ve told? If I got something incorrect, I’m more than happy to post a followup.
for YEARS you’ve done nothing but complain when artist’s rights are enforced and protected.
Nothing? At this point, I have to assume that you chose to ignore all of the links above. Look, you can disagree with my stance on why I think it’s counterproductive for artists to treat their fans badly. And it’s pretty clear that you do disagree with that stance. You think that calling your biggest fans criminals is a good strategy. Fair enough. But it’s a big stretch to go from that to arguing that I “hate” musicians, given how often we celebrate musician success stories.
Go die in a fire.
I hope you have a great weekend. Maybe chill out a little. You sound a bit angry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Look, you can disagree with my stance on why I think it’s counterproductive for artists to treat their fans badly.
lol you can’t even honestly address what the guy said about you.
Excellent job at proving his point there, Mike.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
lol you can’t even honestly address what the guy said about you.
What did I not address? I’m guessing you think it’s this phrase: “you’ve done nothing but complain when artist’s rights are enforced and protected.” And my response was: “I think it’s counterproductive for artists to treat their fans badly.”
I think that’s addressing his comment, but to be more explicit since you seem to think I’m somehow being dishonest: I think that in many, many cases it is counterproductive for copyright holders to enforce their copyright, because, in doing so, it often treats their best fans badly. And I think that’s a mistake in the long term that harms the artist much more than letting their copyrights be infringed. You, quite clearly, disagree.
However, if you were being honest, you would need to admit that arguing that enforcing copyrights harms the artist does not mean the same thing as hating artists — and, in fact, probably means the exact opposite.
Where we do disagree, quite clearly, is on whether or not enforcement harms the artist. You think it does not. I think that, in many cases, it does. And the reason is because the punishment that is given turns off many fans and forecloses many more opportunities to build a larger fanbase and to open up new ways in which those artists can make money.
It is possible to disagree, and to do so in a manner that does not involve misleading statements and insults, but I have yet to see you do that. Perhaps you’ll start now?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Trolls.
Ignore them and they scream, “Why don’t you have opinions?”
Answer them and they scream, “Why don’t you have opinions?”
When the whole blog is nothing but opinion.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“you’ve done nothing but complain when artist’s rights are enforced and protected.”
Should that read, artists’ rights?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Mike, you DO realize this guy is trolling btw?
He’ll say X against you to see if that makes anyone angry, then quickly switch to say the opposite to see who ELSE gets angry….
Its become widespread not just on forums but also in online games like world of warcraft.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Which is, what? To go and die in a fire? That’s what you consider debate and insight?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Wow. I think this fellow was dropped on his head as a child.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I researched Techdirt thoroughly before I subscribed via RSS to it (emigrant from Ars Technica here). The only thing that ever gave me pause was Mr. Masnick’s background which showed a heavy emphasis in marketing. Even then, I could find nothing amiss. Since I’ve been here the only other thing that caught my eye was an odd willingness to mention StumbleUpon. If you can provide evidence that something is legitimately wrong I’m willing to listen, but so far you just sound like a goddamned troll.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I researched Techdirt thoroughly before I subscribed via RSS to it (emigrant from Ars Technica here).
Did you also leave after the ad blocking debacle?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, I’m ashamed to say it took their transparently corrupt and extremely improper handling of the so-called “gamergate” movement before I finally found the impetus to leave, though I do know of the incident which you reference. When I finally learned of it (I was much less thorough in checking up on my news sources back then) I became distinctly uneasy about just who I was getting my news from.
(For the record, I do not count myself as a member of the GG’ers, but I was still appalled at what Kyle Orland had done in his capacity as a journalist.)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No, I’m ashamed to say it took their transparently corrupt and extremely improper handling of the so-called “gamergate” movement before I finally found the impetus to leave,
Interesting, I hadn’t heard they flubbed that. No shame though, it is (or at least was) generally a great site.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I would say establishing a secret mailing list only known to select associates with the goal of colluding to push a predefined narrative in the industry you report on definitely counts as a “flub”, yes. And that’s exactly what Kyle Orland did. Of course, the inevitable then happened; they became successful enough to start adding people based on how much they trusted them (ironic, no?), and inevitably they misjudged certain “applicants”, leading to one blowing the whistle on the entire sorry affair. They’d already worked up to blacklisting journalists they’d felt would never be cooperative before the whole thing saw the light of day, unfortunately. Yes, before you ask, that did lead to several people loosing their jobs over being blacklisted. As far as I know, the only thing Mr. Orland has ever said on the matter (other than conveniently abstaining from GG articles, more on that in a minute) is that he “regrets nothing”. The real kicker for me is that during all of this, when GG articles would come up Ars would inevitably give them to the only woman permanently on staff who could take them at the time, Casey Johnston. And inevitably, the only goddamn thing you’d seem to read for the whole article was the poor helpless women being persecuted by the scary internet nerds. Never anything about what would prompt them to become so vindictive, nor conveniently a thing about why the the Culture Editor is covering a Gaming matter (arguments can be made both ways, but the fact is GG for all their other horseshit identifies as a movement about gaming; it is not Ars’ job as supposed journalists to make a contrary judgement call purely because they do not agree, that gets dangerously close to becoming involved in their own story and is a major journalistic no-no). I suppose Ars thought they were being liberal and forward-thinking by pulling a stunt like that, but to me it just came off as blatant pandering- “Oooohhh……It’s an article about women! And they’re being harassed by scary anonymous men! Better get a woman to cover this so we don’t get accused of sexism plus our actual gaming editor is kneedeep in the shitstorm anyway shhhhhh!”.
…Sorry if that came off as a bit of a rant. For the record, I don’t think either “side” in this stupid fiasco has a pot to piss in, but it still irritates me to no end- GG for fighting a battle they already effectively lost over a decade ago and Ars for pulling stunts like that and still expecting to be taken with an ounce of credulity.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Gators in the wild!
Immediately followed by a wall of text that confuses an email list with some sort of secret cabal of journalists out to bring gaming to its knees, “One man at a time!”
Mention of !Collusion! Check.
“Blacklisting.” Check.
Wild assertions without a shred of evidence to back it up? Check. But I will ask, who lost their job because of an email list?
Accusation that a woman only gets work because she’s a woman? Check.
Hand waving harassment of women on the internet? Check.
“For all their horseshit?” The only thing GamerGate is about is harassing women in the industry. They literally accomplished nothing else.
Lack of understanding what journalism is? Check.
Paranoid conspiracy theories? Check.
Because they couldn’t possibly have chosen a woman because she’s a good writer, presents facts, and may have a relevant perspective on the matter being reported?
And a delusional belief that there are “sides” in an internet harassment campaign, rather than trolls waging an imagined battle against… everyone who isn’t them? That’s BINGO!
Man, no mention of ethics! So close. And you managed not to mention a single LW. Gold star. A for effort.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
By the way, Techdirt has “Insider Chat” don’t you know? And I’m willing to bet the writers email each other for advice on how to approach different subjects.
~~~ C O L L U S I O N ~~~
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Hi Casey. You aren’t helping your agenda in the slightest. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’ve been reading a blog that you clearly hate for years? Maybe you need a mirror.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when are artists going to see a cut of the money harvested from HADOPI?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…for YEARS you’ve done nothing but complain when artist’s rights are enforced and protected.
When you mean “artist’s rights”, what you’re actually referring to is the rights taken from the artists by studios/labels/publishers and then exploited for maximum profits, using means that often directly harm both artists and the public in general. And you’re surprised when people complain?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He probably has also failed to notice that when Techdirt is critical of the enforcement of copyright, that criticism is because copyright is being used to empower a small part of society at the expense of the legitimate rights of the rest of society.
Re: Re:
Whined the spambot.
Wait, PRINCE is still alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xmAC9Qu908
Having read the various articles it’s clear that there’s something going on here, but it doesn’t seem quite as clearcut as it first seems that Prince is the responsible party.
Hill was signed to Cherry (the agent). Hill claims she asked Cherry for permission to work with Prince, and was refused.
Hill then claims that subsequently Cherry repudiated her contract by saying she was having nothing more to do with the music business. Cherry had first tried to release a purported (love?)song by Hill to Korea, presumably to tie in with “The Interview” leak. Hill states she never gave her agreement to that and that it damaged her reputation.
Hill treated Cherry’s repudiation as the end of her contract with Cherry and then went on to make the album with Prince, which was then released as a free download.
Cherry then re-appears on the scene, claiming that Hill had breached her contract with her (the contract Hill alleges Cherry repudiated.)
The only real allegation of wrongdoing I see that involves Prince is Cherry alleging that Prince persuaded Hill to work with him in breach of her contract (the tortious interference). Serious if true, but there’s a very real dispute as to events. Prince is certainly jealous of his rights, and is happy to use litigation in enforcing them, making him quite disliked by many. However, I don’t really see him (knowingly) getting involved in such a dispute.
This seems little more than a spat between an artist and her agent, with one alleging there is an existing contract and the other saying there was a contract but it was later repudiated by the agent (and further, that the agent damaged her reputation by releasing a song that the agent changed without her permission).
However, as one of the parties involved (Prince) has money, I can see this one running on for quite a while
Let me get this straight..
What exactly makes him “Prince” anyway and not just another prince? I’d like to know that before I don’t go out and buy any of his music again. But, I might be picking up some more Morris Day. “Somebody get him a mirror!”
Link whatever you like, the previous anon is spot on with “techdirt hates musicians”. Every time I come here (i admit not too often) it is the same, just the name of the musician changes. Is Prince still alive blabla. Mike shows the target and hyenas attack. You can claim you love musicians, but at least in my circles the reputation of this blog is just that, a weird clique hating musicians&loving google, shouting down everybody with a different POV as tech-hating luddites.
Re: Re:
Link whatever you like,
In other words, “my opinion is not based on evidence, so any amount of contrary evidence you supply will not be effective”.
Re: Re:
Loving people don’t sue people over blurry footage lasting less than a minute where a song can be barely heard over the audio track.
What’s your circle, trichordist? There’s a surprise.
Re: Re:
This blog constantly praises musicians (and all content creators) when they get things right and offer their work in a way that doesn’t attack, vilify, discourage, or inconvenience fans of that work, as it considers such actions bad for business and bad for the arts in general.