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
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contracts, downloads, intellectual property, jolene cherry, judith hill, music, prince
Companies: sony
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nut warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forgot another one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's written so many shitty unreleased songs that I bet 'destroy my CD then pay me, bitch' is probably one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lost me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will you people get it?
LAWS ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When will you people get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone knows Techdirt hates musicians, but this blog is truly pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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-indepe ndent-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-sup porting-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-w hy-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-exp lains-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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol you can't even honestly address what the guy said about you.
Excellent job at proving his point there, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should that read, artists' rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you also leave after the ad blocking debacle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(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.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting, I hadn't heard they flubbed that. No shame though, it is (or at least was) generally a great site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
~~~ C O L L U S I O N ~~~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, "my opinion is not based on evidence, so any amount of contrary evidence you supply will not be effective".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's your circle, trichordist? There's a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]