Anita Baker Asks Fans Not To Buy Or Stream Her Music As She Battles For Her Masters.....

Simply_Black

International
International Member
https://news.yahoo.com/anita-baker-asks-fans-not-225500806.html





The soul music icon says she is legally entitled to her master recordings, referencing Prince in her tweets

On the eve of Grammy Sunday, Anita Baker has asked fans not to buy or stream her music. The Detroit-based icon posted on Twitter last week that she’d outlived all of her recording contracts and that the right to her masters should legally revert to her. Baker is referencing copyright reversion, which allows musicians to retain their copyrights after 35 years.

However, the law doesn’t mean that that reversion is immediate, or automatic, according to the Future of Music Coalition, a music education and advocacy group. Per their website, there are steps a musician must take to regain their copyrights under the law.

Anita Baker, 63, says that the time is up and that until she can regain those copyrights, she wants her fans to avoid her music, which includes seven studio albums and one live album. They include classic releases like The Songtress, Rapture, Compositions, and the hits “Sweet Love” “Caught Up in The Rapture” and “Giving You The Best That I Got,” all of which Baker co-wrote.

When fans questioned the directive, Baker schooled a few on the finances of the music business. In the 90s, the late artist Prince, one of the most prolific musicians of his era, publicly fought his record label, Warner Bros., for the rights to his master recordings.

In most record deals, master recordings are not owned by the artists outright. Although artists make the music, in the complex financing of the music industry, artists are advanced money to record and promote their albums. This is basically a loan they pay back through record sales. However, royalties continue to be paid out long after artists are commercially viable and that is the essence of why artists try to negotiate their contracts to get the rights to these earnings before the copyright law is up.
 
She should have had it in her contract to retain her masters in the first place. Usually, that means less money to the artist upfront but, well you see.

And I hope she retained her royalties because if she wrote or co-wrote they should be coming in constantly.
 
I actually got to see her live it was retirement concert alicia keys came at the end it was smooth she sung her hits out i believe it was on valentines day it was lit she was pretty amazing live vocally I enjoyed the hell out of her music she deserve her masters
 
DAVE CHAPPELLE: don't watch my show until they pay me what they owe me!
BGOL RESPONSE: I hope he wins/will do/fuck HBO!

ANITA BAKER: Don't buy my music until my masters are returned to me!
BGOL RESPONSE: She should have had it in her contract to retain her masters in the first place.

:hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:
 
Last edited:
oh snap please elaborate
Can't find any news articles on it, but there is a reference to it on her Wikipedia page:


Baker returned to the studio in 2000. In May 2001, she filed a lawsuit against Zomba Recording and its Dreamhire division for alleged damage to her recordings by a hired 24-track tape machine.

someone on this forum seems to recall the lawsuit as I remember it:


I know she was going through various legal proceedings related to her divorce and non-payment claims relating to services provided for home upgrades. She released the fantastic one-off single "Lately" from her album "21st Century Love" and performed another great track called, "Sweet Dreams" on morning TV. Then I read that her album was again delayed and read a rumour she was suing someone because she finished her album and discovered the recordings were flawed due to the faulty recording equipment that she was provided. Not sure if that is true? I also noticed she is no longer listed as an artist on Bluenote's website

Cannot deny her talent as a vocalist, songwriter and all around artist. It's too bad that these recent issues have kept her from releasing new music. She seems to be quite active on Twitter though. Maybe she's decided to take an indefinite break


I believe her 2004 album is the album that had that material on it. I remember my girl had bought it and we were debating if the album's technical standards were as good as her previous (we were both thinking about the lawsuit).

I can't remember if here unfinished work from her last attempt to record had anything to do with bad production as well.

Sorry for being so vague, but it's been years since those stories were published.
 
for fake...if he was anita baker's man
he'd take her for her masters, hit it once & shake her hand
on some ole thank ya maam then ghost her
she could mind the toaster if she sign the poster
 
The masters are not hers. The label put the millions up and paid for everything.
You need to read the article:

Baker is referencing copyright reversion, which allows musicians to retain their copyrights after 35 years.

However, the law doesn’t mean that that reversion is immediate, or automatic, according to the Future of Music Coalition, a music education and advocacy group. Per their website, there are steps a musician must take to regain their copyrights under the law.
 
She should have had it in her contract to retain her masters in the first place. Usually, that means less money to the artist upfront but, well you see.

And I hope she retained her royalties because if she wrote or co-wrote they should be coming in constantly.

When you're just starting out demanding masters ownership is not that easy. They know struggling artists when confronted with a "take it or leave it" contract are not in a position to say go fuck yourself. Hell, even Ray Charles didn't get to own his masters until recording companies realized he was a proven hit machine and a guaranteed money maker and they wouldn't make a dime unless they contractually caved. :hmm:
 
You need to read the article:

Baker is referencing copyright reversion, which allows musicians to retain their copyrights after 35 years.

However, the law doesn’t mean that that reversion is immediate, or automatic, according to the Future of Music Coalition, a music education and advocacy group. Per their website, there are steps a musician must take to regain their copyrights under the law.
I understand that part you posted. I was saying that record labels are not in the wrong when they are then ones who put the money up.

Artist need to have a performance clause their contract that increase their earnings as their hits gain value
 
When you're just starting out demanding masters ownership is not that easy. They know struggling artists when confronted with a "take it or leave it" contract are not in a position to say go fuck yourself. Hell, even Ray Charles didn't get to own his masters until recording companies realized he was a proven hit machine and a guaranteed money maker and they wouldn't make a dime unless they contractually caved. :hmm:
If you not putting the money up, which can be millions. You have zero negotiating power unless you are an established artist like you stated.

Record companies lose Alot of money on artist that flop
 
People misunderstand what owning the masters means. You can own thems shits all day, but can you exploit them? Can you get them in movies/shows/broadcast? That’s where the inside game is. If Sony music owns the masters to a song and they have a new movie coming out that needs music they are gonna go with their own catalog or someone affiliated with their catalog.
You can own the masters to the song you just sung in the shower, but ain’t nobody coming to see you Otis.
 
When will music artists learn? I see this so many times.
Fight for your publishing and your masters. It's worth more than any advance they can ever give u.
You can't negotiate without leverage. When these artists are just getting started, no one knows where their careers are going. So, the label takes a chance and invests money into the artist. They deserve the masters as its their investment.

In Anita's defense. She recognized this. Patiently waited for the expiration dates. And should be rewarded with receiving her masters.
 
When you're just starting out demanding masters ownership is not that easy. They know struggling artists when confronted with a "take it or leave it" contract are not in a position to say go fuck yourself. Hell, even Ray Charles didn't get to own his masters until recording companies realized he was a proven hit machine and a guaranteed money maker and they wouldn't make a dime unless they contractually caved. :hmm:

The Genius is not a good example for many reasons. However, it indeed WAS a common practice for executives to lie, manipulate, coerce, and strongarm artists into giving up the two real moneymakers: royalties and masters.
That was not the case when Baker started though. There had been plenty of lawsuits and artists were aware of the business side of things a whole lot more and also had the option of going to other distributers, because there were also plenty of indie studios and labels.
Anyway, a lot of artists would get their masters with their second or reworked contract after the hit. Baker is a smart woman and she knows the business. For her to figure she would just outlive the statute doesn't even sound right. When she was riding high she should have gotten her masters. I'll bet she either took the money or her manager (who I believe she was involved with) convinced her to take the money.
 
I understand that part you posted. I was saying that record labels are not in the wrong when they are then ones who put the money up.

Artist need to have a performance clause their contract that increase their earnings as their hits gain value
Don't disagree with that part. However, the law does allow for her to get her masters after a certain period of time. She is not wrong for wanting to get them back.
 
You can't negotiate without leverage. When these artists are just getting started, no one knows where their careers are going. So, the label takes a chance and invests money into the artist. They deserve the masters as its their investment.

In Anita's defense. She recognized this. Patiently waited for the expiration dates. And should be rewarded with receiving her masters.
21 Savage aint the smartest of niggas.....but he damn sho recognized this from the very beginning and made sure not to sell his masters and ownership rights to the label.
I know there are a lot of independent rappers who choose to stay independent because of this (Gucci Mane for a long time). And props to those that were able to get back their masters like Jay, Rihanna, Chance the Rapper, Ciara.....all props to em.
 
Back
Top