Explain to me in simple terms: How do western artists lose the right to their own masters?

I'd also like to know

The first contract for most new artist is pretty standard in the sense of the label owning the important parts like the songs and name, and the artist be lucky enough to even a get a piece of the pie.

Eventually, the label may end up selling the masters of the discography after they see it won't be worth to keep. In some cases, the artist may get back after a certain amount of time.

Look, MJ owning the Beatles masters.

https://americansongwriter.com…%20outbidding%20McCartney.

It works the same way. Artists signed to labels sign a contract with their companies. Sometimes they don't read the fine print and next thing they know they can't sing one of their most popular songs because their former companies own the rights to it.

Sometimes the songwriters and composers a label uses maintain the rights to their works. In cases like these, the writer/composer could sell the song to someone else despite another artist having previously recorded/popularized it.

Then there's the issue of copyright. Technically everything an artist creates is protected without having to secure a special copyright. This is not the case for covers or songs with samples.

I kinda find stuff like this interesting, not sure what you like to watch on youtube, but these videos helped me understand it a little better but it's still a little confusing to me though tbh

The only kpop releated one I have watched is this one:

But I'm not sure it fits best with your question, if you happen to come across something better I would love to give it a look 😊

Correct if I'm wrong but according to my understanding both Korean an western companies work the same way there is intense where American labels block artists from releasing songs basically the same as Korean companies

Quote from Person01

The first contract for most new artist is pretty standard in the sense of the label owning the important parts like the songs and name, and the artist be lucky enough to even a get a piece of the pie.

Eventually, the label may end up selling the masters of the discography after they see it won't be worth to keep. In some cases, the artist may get back after a certain amount of time.

Look, MJ owning the Beatles masters.

https://americansongwriter.com…%20outbidding%20McCartney.

Display More

Just a tiny correction.

MJ actually owned the publishing rights. Not the masters. Which owning the publishing may even be worse.

The masters is the literal original recording of the song. The publishing is the actual composition (the music and lyrics). Most of the time record companies own the master recordings and publishing companies own the publishing rights (or at least some since a smart songwriter would try to negotiate to keep some of those rights).

Also, most of the time the selling of the actual masters (aka the master recording) is not given to someone random. Rina's masters are owned by her record company (probably because they were the ones to actually pay the producers to produce her music and she probably signed away the rights to any songs she recorded beforehand in her contract), and Matt Healy and the other members of the 1975 are shareholders within that company. So, he did not randomly acquire her masters.

Much like how Scooter Braun was able to own Taylor Swift's masters because he purchased and acquired her former record company. That's why Taylor went and rerecorded her past albums after this, so she could own the new master recordings now that her old ones were sold off (though even still her new versions are considered "covers" of her original version). She was probably able to do this because she most likely owns her publishing rights (which means she owns the rights to the literal music and lyrics despite not owning the master recording).

which is a reminder to even non-artists like ourselves to read the damn contracts...

Quote from selfmate

which is a reminder to even non-artists like ourselves to read the damn contracts...

Even if the artist and their lawyer reads the contract, not much would probably change for some people.

These days, with the inclusion of the internet and the information we now have about the music industry, most artists know that owning their masters is important. But, when you have a broke unknown artist barely making ends meat, and a million dollar record company comes to them and says, "Hey, we will give you all the money and the resources you need to not only make your music, but we will also help promote it and give you an advance to fund your living expenses. We will provide the producers and pay all of the production fees, engineering fees, studio costs, and promotion costs. But, since we will be paying for all of that, we need something in return to make sure we can recoup for all of these expenses..."

What decision would a broke and desperate artist make?

Thankfully though, because the internet exists, being an independent artist is much easier. You don't have to have a record company to create your music, promote yourself, and build your fanbase, and should you still want to sign with a record label eventually, if you have a large enough fanbase, your leverage to negotiate increases.

That's why a lot of artists are waiting and signing with major labels later (if at all) rather than at the beginning when their careers are just gaining traction.

Quote from keyboardwarrior7

Even if the artist and their lawyer reads the contract, not much would probably change for some people.

These days, with the inclusion of the internet and the information we now have about the music industry, most artists know that owning their masters is important. But, when you have a broke unknown artist barely making ends meat, and a million dollar record company comes to them and says, "Hey, we will give you all the money and the resources you need to not only make your music, but we will also help promote it and give you an advance to fund your living expenses. We will provide the producers and pay all of the production fees, engineering fees, studio costs, and promotion costs. But, since we will be paying for all of that, we need something in return to make sure we can recoup for all of these expenses..."

What decision would a broke and desperate artist make?

Thankfully though, because the internet exists, being an independent artist is much easier. You don't have to have a record company to create your music, promote yourself, and build your fanbase, and should you still want to sign with a record label eventually, if you have a large enough fanbase, your leverage to negotiate increases.

That's why a lot of artists are waiting and signing with major labels later (if at all) rather than at the beginning when their careers are just gaining traction.

Display More

whilst I agree with you with regards to the outcome

I guess my point is by reading the contract and if one is wealthy/savvy? enough to get a lawyer to go through the contract with you --> (hopefully) informed consent to said contract

however like you said that doesn't mean it will be a "fair" contract by any means in fact regardless of whether it's western or a kpop contract it's probably 99% guaranteed to be an "unfair" contract but at least if one has read it and informed themselves of the unfairness of it and still choose to sign it then so be it

for a small and broke artist/kpop trainee etc that's the choice one has to make no? get shit on by a company and hopefully hit it big by the time the contract expires so one will have more leverage to negotiate more favourable terms??

Quote from selfmate

whilst I agree with you with regards to the outcome

I guess my point is by reading the contract and if one is wealthy/savvy? enough to get a lawyer to go through the contract with you --> (hopefully) informed consent to said contract

however like you said that doesn't mean it will be a "fair" contract by any means in fact regardless of whether it's western or a kpop contract it's probably 99% guaranteed to be an "unfair" contract but at least if one has read it and informed themselves of the unfairness of it and still choose to sign it then so be it

for a small and broke artist/kpop trainee etc that's the choice one has to make no? get shit on by a company and hopefully hit it big by the time the contract expires so one will have more leverage to negotiate more favourable terms??

Display More

Yes, but I think it's less about "fair" in this sense.

Because a lot of artists become millionaires even though the record companies own their masters unlike KPOP artists.

That means they gave up their masters for the resources provided by the record company (willingly), and they saw financial benefit from it.

I think the idea of fairness only comes into play when an artist sees success (meaning their music is making money), but still ends up broke at the end despite that. If your music is successful then you should see benefit of that, and if you don't, that means something "unfair" is hidden in the contract.

But, that's not something determined exclusively by the record company owning your masters (which is the main discussion of this particular thread), but other additional things.

Quote from keyboardwarrior7

Yes, but I think it's less about "fair" in this sense.

Because a lot of artists become millionaires even though the record companies own their masters unlike KPOP artists.

That means they gave up their masters for the resources provided by the record company (willingly), and they saw financial benefit from it.

I think the idea of fairness only comes into play when an artist sees success (meaning their music is making money), but still ends up broke at the end despite that. If your music is successful then you should see benefit of that, and if you don't, that means something "unfair" is hidden in the contract.

But, that's not something determined exclusively by the record company owning your masters (which is the main discussion of this particular thread), but other additional things.

Display More

which is why I'm always an advocate of transparency

(which I suspect was one of the reasons why CBX took action against SM in the first place)

transparency in terms of incoming revenue and outgoing expenses whether that be monthly or quarterly etc etc

that way an artist knows what they are selling and ultimately receiving in terms of profits

and obviously just because someone's music is successful doesn't mean it's profitable

Quote from selfmate

which is why I'm always an advocate of transparency

(which I suspect was one of the reasons why CBX took action against SM in the first place)

transparency in terms of incoming revenue and outgoing expenses whether that be monthly or quarterly etc etc

that way an artist knows what they are selling and ultimately receiving in terms of profits

and obviously just because someone's music is successful doesn't mean it's profitable

Display More

For the statement I bolded, true, but for the sake of this argument, what I mean when I use the term successful is "profitable". Otherwise, in the eyes of the record company, that song is not successful if it is not generating profit.

Quote from keyboardwarrior7

For the statement I bolded, true, but for the sake of this argument, what I mean when I use the term successful is "profitable". Otherwise, in the eyes of the record company, that song is not successful if it is not generating profit.

gotcha and I'll add that even if a song is successful (profitable) for the record company doesn't mean it's profitable for the artist...

so many times due to creative accounting artists get hard done by and the company not disclosing the books

Quote from selfmate

gotcha and I'll add that even if a song is successful (profitable) for the record company doesn't mean it's profitable for the artist...

so many times due to creative accounting artists get hard done by and the company not disclosing the books

And the fact it was not profitable for the artist is a good indication of an "unfair" contract.