Originally Posted by: RazboSee, that's EXACTLY what I was having a problem with. I'm not sure how this works, either, but when an artist dies, any contract with a record company should become null and ownership revert back to the family.

In short, it depends on who owns the recordings. In most cases, it's the record company. As part of most contracts, the records company stipulates that if they pay for the recording, they own the tapes. Sometimes this is forever and others it is for a finite if somewhat long period of time.

Take for instance Slaughter - Stick It To Ya. Before Mark and Dana ever got a contract, they had already produced a first class sounding record. In bringing it to the record company, they exclusively licensed it to the record company for a finite period of time. When that period expires, Slaughter is free to do what they wish with the recordings. The licensing agreement essentially says that the band retains ownership but that the label has a period of time where they are the exclusive label for production and distribution of the recordings.

Versus the most every other band; since the label paid for the recording, they retain ownership. The artist will never have control of the original recordings. The label can re-issue those at will or not do anything at all and that is their prerogative. In doing a re-issue, the artist (or estate) does get paid mechanical royalties and any key performer may (theoretically...) get paid a performance royalty for appearing on the release. Still, the label owns and therefor can release as they wish because that was the terms of the contract.

Obviously the Slaughter way was much smarter but most bands do the second scenario because they are broke and willing to do what it takes to get something out. Mark and Dana, having worked with Vinnie Vincent, knew the ropes of the biz and scraped up what cash they could and knew doing it themselves was a better way.

What does this mean to he thread. In most all instances, the contract is a 'sign your life away' type of deal and the label is just opting on what it contractually is allowed to do.

It may sound like a seedy but in the 'old days' where a label would take chances on bands, they might spend $100,000 on recording something then only sell 5000. While not in exact terms, this happened more often than not. By retaining the ability to own the recordings, there is a chance that the label could recoup that in the future. Even though it seems unfair, the label is taking the financial risk on behalf of the artist and needs some level of control to recoup the investment when opportunities arise.

That does also mean that when they have a 'hot' artist, they clean up.

The artist does retain the right to use their songs as they wish after a much shorter period of time. This is why you will see 're-recorded' versions of songs from the original artist to do re-release 'Best of's'.

So, a little more detail from what I understand as to why things just don't revert to artists and families automatically. Whether right or wrong....