Well, if the estate allowed the seminars so far, whoever buys those 50 % probably could put their foot down and petition to make that stop. Sony is on anyone's ass with copyright anyway. Had several MJ clips I posted on IG blocked because of claims from Sony. As for the rest, I don't think all that much will change, at least for the public.
I see, I see. My assumption had been that the estate was going to leave Sony after a while and become something of an independent but I suppose that's not viable at all these days. In this case the projects would definitely hew further in the mainstream casual market.
Why would they do that? You do know that R. Kelly (also on Sony) was convicted and is still played on the radio, his CDs are still in print, and people watch his videos on Youtube. Mike was never legally proven guilty of anything, only in the court of public opinion. Master tapes & publishing are 2 different things anyway.
Well, I guess, it absolutely could happen that the estate only cashes in, reaping the rewards and lets Sony deal with all the business opportunities.
Exactly. Bob Dylan sold his recorded music rights to Sony. His publishing rights went to Universal.
That's because record contracts were never pro-artist, they were always pro-label. That's how Toni Braxton & TLC could sell multi-platinum and still be in the hole and owe their label money. When the sales of physical CDs, records, & tapes dropped, the labels came up with 360 deals where they would get some of the artists touring & merchandise money. It had nothing to do with an artist being black, the majority of artists got ripped off, no matter what their race was. Bad label deals are how The Beatles & other songwriters lost their publishing in the first place that Mike could buy in the ATV catalog. Even the artists who became millionaires made a small percentage in comparison to their labels, and in some cases their managers. The recording business is no different than any other business, the people at the top make the big money, and the people at the bottom make minimum wage or something.
Well, yes, the deals were bad for many.
mj 100%
Yes. The timing is a bit strange. But maybe that is a selling point. Whoever wants to buy it, probably will want to cash in on that post biopic money that is expected to be made with the release of that movie. Maybe that is the incentive to pay 800 mio. now, which, if you think about it, is insane. Sony/ATV went for 750 mio., but that one includes the Beatles and basically any other artist signed to Sony, but half of Michael's own song eclipses that. Years ago numbers for Michael's catalog being mentioned were at around 200 mio. To get 800 mio. for only 50 % is an amazing deal.
What it means is that they will get a 50 % partner and yes, the partner most likely will have to sign off on what they are doing. But really, Sony is the partner anyway. They can't release music on another label. Whatever they do with the music, Sony has a stake in it anyway. So I don't think all that much changes.
He didn't really sell it though. It was a merger of his and the Sony company.
They are giving 50 % away. Whatever they do, the partner has to be on board.
Yes.
The permission thing will work both ways. If MJE retains 50% control then they can grant or withhold their permission for a song to be used in a particular tv commercial, for example, or to be included in a tv series or a film. Whoever ends up buying Michael's song rights can also grant or withhold permission. They'll be working together to maximise profits which is what MJE is doing already.
There doesn't have to be a massive change, I don't think. Everyone involved wants to make money. The partners will have to agree on the details of a particular project, I assume.
Not sure. These mega deals are all about the *existing* catalogue of songs which are proven hits and guaranteed money-spinners. It's all about placing these songs in tv ads, tv series, films, developing merchandise, that type of thing. That might mean lots of new releases, I'm not too sure about that. I'm not a business expert, lol. But most of the attention seems to be always on the existing songs bc they were already big hits back in the day, maybe they still get radio airplay, maybe they already have great streaming figures so the investors know they can keep on making more money.
Yeah, you do, lol. In the US on a big lump sum of money a musician pays 20% tax. On their annual royalties they pay 37% tax. Big incentive right there. Annual royalties are unpredictable. Also, let's say your musician has many different business deals all over the place. Licenses for their image to be used, for merchandise to be created, whatever. When they die their kids and various heirs have all got to somehow manage all these different business deals not to mention they probably end up fighting each other for a bigger slice of the pie. A big lump sum now can be really easily divided up.
