The MJ Estate are close to a 50% sale of MJs catalog

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I would want to know specifically what this means.

Is copyright on the songs gonna become more stringent? Would the projects become more regular? With a bigger push and marketing?

More advertising?

What would happen to Seminars like Brad Sundberg's?

 

[Prometheus77]

I would want to know specifically what this means.

Is copyright on the songs gonna become more stringent? Would the projects become more regular? With a bigger push and marketing?

More advertising?

What would happen to Seminars like Brad Sundberg's?

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.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

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.

Is this perhaps why Thriller 40 was so half hearted? And the documentary for Thriller is stagnated?

 

[DuranDuran]

How do we know that this is not Sony's attempt at canceling Michael Jackson? Who has possession of Michael Jackson's master tapes?

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.

 

[Prometheus77]

I see, I see. My assumption had been that the estate was going to leave Sony after a while and become something on 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.

Is this perhaps why Thriller 40 was so half hearted? And the documentary for Thriller is stagnated?

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.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Master tapes & publishing are 2 different things anyway.

Exactly. Bob Dylan sold his recorded music rights to Sony. His publishing rights went to Universal.

"Song catalogs are valuable assets, but require extensive management, something that heirs are often unequipped to handle. Additionally, there is a movement in Washington to increase capital gains taxes above their current 20% level."

Bob Dylan sells recorded music catalog to Sony Music Entertainment

Sony Music Entertainment has acquired the entire recorded music catalog of Bob Dylan.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Yeah, I think this deal is fine. I also think MJ fighting for his master's was different to this.

1. MJ was involved. He actively wanted to increase the stake, increase his investment stakes, and actively be involved in the management affairs. I doubt he would care about Branca getting to do the same, even in his name. As long as the deal prospectively took care of his kids, and this one does.

And

2. Times were just different. Back then, artists got barely anything out of music making. Not even songwriting credits. If you were a black artist it was quite a losing game. So that's different too.

Nowadays it's just better to let someone else manage that for you. Corporations have just won in that way.

 

[Bad1978]

Does this deal mean they'll be more releases?

 

[DuranDuran]

2. Times were just different. Back then, artists got barely anything out of music making. Not even songwriting credits. If you were a black artist it was quite a losing game. So that's different too.

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.

 

[ChanceToDance]

Wasn't it Sony that made the Estate release Thriller 40 (according to Korgnex)? Could it be that if they buy the catalog we could have more releases in the future or does the deal not change the way the Estate deals with releases?

 

[spreadtruth]

I listened to an interview with Akon and I don’t think selling is the move not with the meta verse and everything coming up content is everything and owning your stuff is the best way I feel like not giving it to these companies. I worry now that they have 50 % control of the biopic and whatever documentary comes out.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Wasn't it Sony that made the Estate release Thriller 40 (according to Korgnex)? Could it be that if they buy the catalog we could have more releases in the future or does the deal not change the way the Estate deals with releases?

I somehow doubt they'd just give up having say of which content comes out and how.

Pretty sure there's literally no details about the deal atm.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

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.

I think the worst deals were with Sly Stone and Little Richard though.

 

[Richard76]

MJ Estate sells Michael's catalogue... Does it mean they sell the rights on his music? Or they sell Michael's rights on music of OTHER musicians? I just can't understand.

 

[beltrano]

Alors, qui est en possession des enregistrements maîtres ?

mj 100%

 

[Hess]

The timing is a little weird, isn't it?

The biopic is coming - and if it is a succes the catalog will skyrocket and become worth much more. - If the biopic is a flop, the catalog will not be worth less anyway. -

So they should wait till after the biopic and get more money. - Though 800 million dollars is amazing.

I feel quite sure that MJ, was he still alive, would also sell. - The industry is just totally different now compared to 15-20 years ago, and MJ would aknowledge that. - Like many other big artists, as mentioned above, who also sell their catalogs.

Then the money can be invested better. - Maybe realestate.

 

[SmoothCriminal1995]

I hate to feel precious over something I don't own personally, but this feels wrong and against Mike's wishes

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

I really don't see how this is any different or worse than working with Sony at all, period

 

[mjfan_93]

Sorry for the stupid question… but what does this all even mean? Like is the estate still allowed to do their projects? Do they need permission? What does this means for future projects?

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Sony/ATV Music Publishing mostly exists because MJ sold a 50 percent share of ATV to Sony for about $100 million. It's really quite interesting that it's gonna be the other way around now.

 

[Prometheus77]

The timing is a little weird, isn't it?

The biopic is coming - and if it is a succes the catalog will skyrocket and become worth much more. - If the biopic is a flop, the catalog will not be worth less anyway. -

So they should wait till after the biopic and get more money. - Though 800 million dollars is amazing.

I feel quite sure that MJ, was he still alive, would also sell. - The industry is just totally different now compared to 15-20 years ago, and MJ would aknowledge that. - Like many other big artists, as mentioned above, who also sell their catalogs.

Then the money can be invested better. - Maybe realestate.

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.

 

[Prometheus77]

Sorry for the stupid question… but what does this all even mean? Like is the estate still allowed to do their projects? Do they need permission? What does this means for future projects?

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.

 

[Prometheus77]

Sony/ATV Music Publishing mostly exists because MJ sold a 50 percent share of ATV to Sony for about $100 million. It's really quite interesting that it's gonna be the other way around now.

He didn't really sell it though. It was a merger of his and the Sony company.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

I'm still doubting the estate will be giving away their ability to decide what happens and what doesn't.

 

[Prometheus77]

I'm still doubting the estate will be giving away their ability to decide what happens and what doesn't.

They are giving 50 % away. Whatever they do, the partner has to be on board.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Sorry for the stupid question… but what does this all even mean?

Bob Dylan sells his master recordings to Sony Music

The deal covers the rights to all of Dylan's albums, as well as "multiple future new releases".

www.bbc.co.uk

"The deals provide immediate financial security to the artists and their estates, while the new rights-holders hope to profit from streams of classic songs, while building new revenue streams via film and TV licensing, merchandise, cover versions and performance royalties."

Like is the estate still allowed to do their projects?

Yes.

Do they need permission?

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.

What does this means for future projects?

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.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Does this deal mean they'll be more releases?

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.

 

[filmandmusic]

I’m such a simple peasant, I don’t understand anything of this but it’s ok, it is not my business anyway.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I’m such a simple peasant, I don’t understand anything of this

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.

I'm not a business person and this is sort of a Sesame Street version of this kind of thing but you get the gist, yeah?

but it’s ok, it is not my business anyway.

 

[MJbr2]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1623089932687519744