https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/cele...BingNewsSearch
Printable View
The story made several rounds today but this is the first with a $ amount, which seems low-ish but Tina has just a few song-writing credits.
Here's NY Daily News' report -
https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny...cdq-story.html
As big of a Tina Turner fan as I am, $50 million seems like a stretch. She hasn’t written or cowritten that many of her songs and according to Wikipedia, Ike Turner retained the rights to the compositions they wrote together. It also seems that few of the songs for which she is credited as being the sole writer would really have a long “shelf life“ as far as other people recording them. Who knows, but I just find that number a little hard to swallow. It’s just a little hard to believe that songs like “Kay Got Laid [[Joe Got Paid)” and “Moving Into Hip Style [[A Trip Child)” would be licensed for commercials or become part of the Great American Songbook!
Anyway, here’s a link to the Wikipedia summary of her compositions both with and without Ike.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...by_Tina_Turner
I would agree re compositions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
But I'm assuming this deal also includes the rights to her solo albums beginning with PRIVATE DANCER [maybe even ROUGH and LOVE EXPLOSION] as well as the tv specials and/or home videos done for each tour since its release. They recently released a cd/lp/dvd collection for FOREIGN AFFAIR. There could be plans to do similar releases for the others.
Well, that would certainly make a huge difference. I hadn’t thought of that. I guess I’d be surprised to know that she owns the rights to that material in terms of the finished product. But good for her if she does.Quote:
Originally Posted by reese
Last month, I read an article on Candi Staton that mentioned the the 1976 Copyright Act. It stipulates that after a period of 35 years, artists can reclaim the copyrights to their own work for recordings made after 1978. I believe that is how Anita Baker recently got back her masters. Tina's most profitable recordings fall in basically the same time period so maybe she did the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
It does appear that it is indeed her artists/performers rights which she sold which would include royalties, production or co-production rights, and such, even including her image and likeness [[!), to BMG, and the number seems to be actually now estimated to be about $68 million. So, yes, it would be all the rights she owned as the performer and/or production rights to the material and as Reese pointed out, may or may not include her own songwriting credits which would certainly be a fraction of that number.
I don’t think these are rights which would’ve reverted back to her as a performer after a certain number of years, I believe these would be the rights she had as a performer of the material by contract. Or certainly as a producer or coproducer, which I think she often was in more recent decades. At the time of her big comeback, she was in pretty dire straits so probably didn’t have too favorable of Contractual terms, but likely since then she wielded a much greater amount of leverage and power. As always in such deals, it sounds like a huge amount of money, but perhaps in a few years as with the Beatles, Beach Boys, or Dylan catalogs, it may end up looking like a bargain.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc...icle/100519866
My guess is that the profitability of each of these artist-rights purchases would/will be a bit different for each of the purchasers. To whit: Dylan's profitability would mainly come from the use of his songs first and from the use of his performances of those songs secondly. PERHAPS there could be economic viability from the use of earlier images of Dylan for edgier image-seeking advertisers. On the other hand the image of Tina would most likely come first with her songwriting perhaps last. After all, the artists have sought to sell their entire non-physical asset catalogue for the inherent goodwill value of the asset and as it does in cases of financial accounting goodwill is a somewhat abstract term. On one hand I find it a tad ... unseemly ... that many of my favorite performers have gone this route, but then the thought of the hot-mess non-estates of Marvin-Aretha-James etc have probably led other artists to do a one-and-done commitment.
I guess Elvis Presley is the classic example of the singer whose recordings, image, likeness and all have been parlayed into a hugely successful business venture. No matter what you may think of Priscilla Presley, she seems to have taken care with Elvis‘s image and he still retains the patina of a huge popstar so many years after his death. That is, I am assuming she still is in control of that.
I don’t know if other singers or performers have fared that well. I’ve often wondered what Fred Astaire would think of his old film clips being used to sell vacuum cleaners!
The sale of Tina‘s image/likeness is the most surprising to me because literally she would retain virtually no control over what anybody wanted to slap her face on, whether it’s a poster, a lunch box, or an amusement park ride!
... and yet, along with Tina the 'image' is pretty much always a component of these sales. I don't know if there are any clauses such as the Astaire w/ Hoover, but I suppose these are issues that remain to be seen. If there's a 'Proud Mary' theme park ride, or a 'What's Love ...' condom, well ... I guess that's the gamble the artists are taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth
You may have latched onto something brilliant!Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony
I'm not sure if the artists have any input once the deal is signed. But I would hope that they may have some sort of say in the type of projects their likeness is attached to. I wouldn't mind say, a Tina IMAX attraction at Disney World. But the "What's Love..." condom, nah! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony
... and I also add that for major ad campaigns, the 50-100 million acquired to obtain artist's catalogues is nothing unusual, so for a business interest owning, in this case, Tina's catalog usage from one major campaign could even out the financial statements, after which the more usual situation of songs being used in movies, tv, etc become sheer profit. I'm still waiting for James Brown's Ants In My Pants insect repellent and Wicked Brand Let It Go colonoscopy prep fluid.
@Peace,
I don’t know what you do for a living, but unless you’re in merchandising and product placement tie-ins, you have definitely missed your calling!
Except “Let it Go” was from “Frozen,” not “Wicked!” Now I shudder [[pun intended) to wonder what you’ll come up with for that one!
Thank you, Kenneth. As you have ascertained, I have gifts that I simply must share.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenneth