Who Owns Britney’s Music?

[mocha latto]

12 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

Zomba, Jive, RCA eventually all merge into Sony but I forget the acquisition order.

The music industry has lots of layers. Even for independent artists. Its like large corporations splitting up into smaller branches, but the people at the top always get the most money. 

It's really the streaming business that gets non superstar artists caught up in it. But the music industry in general is very weird when it comes to ownership.

 

[BlackoutITZ]

10 minutes ago, mocha latto said:

See my response to this comment. If Sony sold her masters to anyone, it would not necessarily have been publicized or disclosed. Hence why we cannot say with certainty who owns the masters to this day.

It would be highly unlikely that Sony would sell her masters to anyone.

[RebellionSparkles]

2 minutes ago, BlackoutITZ said:

It would be highly unlikely that Sony would sell her masters to anyone.

I agree with you on this. I think Sony owns the music and have not sold the masters.

BUT obvs, given that my name is RebellionSparkles, I HAVE to bring up: then why DONT they release Rebellion?

not joking, I’ve looked into a shareholder lawsuit of Sony to make them release Rebellion…there is a TON of precedent for this type of lawsuit. Publicly traded companies are not allowed to “withhold shareholder value”…and this is quintessential withholding value. SONY already paid for the production, and there is a provable market for the song. A person only needs to own 1 share of SONY to bring the suit, but obvs the much more expensive part is legal representation. The legal expense is the only obstacle.

[Ghoulia]

27 minutes ago, mocha latto said:

Holy crap?? Thats like MAJOR! That agent is tied to several things as of most recently. 

It seems like she resigned just to get them back in a way she couldnt be seen? is that too far fetched? 

Not farfetched.  She doesn't want pesky Britney fans bothering her fraud and extortion schemes  managerial prowess.

[Ghoulia]

1 minute ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I agree with you on this. I think Sony owns the music and have not sold the masters.

BUT obvs, given that my name is RebellionSparkles, I HAVE to bring up: then why DONT they release Rebellion?

not joking, I’ve looked into a shareholder lawsuit of Sony to make them release Rebellion…there is a TON of precedent for this type of lawsuit. Publicly traded companies are not allowed to “withhold shareholder value”…and this is quintessential withholding value. SONY already paid for the production, and there is a provable market for the song. A person only needs to own 1 share of SONY to bring the suit, but obvs the much more expensive part is legal representation. The legal expense is the only obstacle.

Ooh I would so be on board for this!  A class action lawsuit brought on by fans/shareholders???

[BlackoutITZ]

5 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I agree with you on this. I think Sony owns the music and have not sold the masters.

BUT obvs, given that my name is RebellionSparkles, I HAVE to bring up: then why DONT they release Rebellion?

not joking, I’ve looked into a shareholder lawsuit of Sony to make them release Rebellion…there is a TON of precedent for this type of lawsuit. Publicly traded companies are not allowed to “withhold shareholder value”…and this is quintessential withholding value. SONY already paid for the production, and there is a provable market for the song. A person only needs to own 1 share of SONY to bring the suit, but obvs the much more expensive part is legal representation. The legal expense is the only obstacle.

I think this comes down to the fact that Rebellion is literally nothing more than an unreleased song by Britney Spears, of which Sony has hundreds, if not thousands, in the vault.

I don't think there is some conspiracy behind why the song hasn't been released, it just hasn't been used for any project that has been officially released. For all we know, maybe Britney herself doesn't want the song to be released, and likely hasn't even thought about the song for a very long time given that it was written and recorded almost twenty years ago. It's just that some fans have latched on to a snippet that was leaked.

I don't understand your point about them being legally obliged to release the song, as they definitely aren't. There's literally no difference between this song and the many other songs that exist and remain unreleased.

[mocha latto]

7 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Ooh I would so be on board for this!  A class action lawsuit brought on by fans/shareholders???

Holy crap Id be so on board. Ive even had a thought about if this was even possible before.

[mocha latto]

5 minutes ago, BlackoutITZ said:

I think this comes down to the fact that Rebellion is literally nothing more than an unreleased song by Britney Spears, of which Sony has hundreds, if not thousands, in the vault.

I don't think there is some conspiracy behind why the song hasn't been released, it just hasn't been used for any project that has been officially released. For all we know, maybe Britney herself doesn't want the song to be released, and likely hasn't even thought about the song for a very long time given that it was written and recorded almost twenty years ago. It's just that some fans have latched on to a snippet that was leaked.

I don't understand your point about them being legally obliged to release the song, as they definitely aren't. There's literally no difference between this song and the many other songs that exist and remain unreleased.

I actually might have found some things on rebellion. Will update in a moment

 

[RebellionSparkles]

16 minutes ago, Ghoulia said:

Ooh I would so be on board for this!  A class action lawsuit brought on by fans/shareholders???

Yeah it doesn’t even have to be class action…it’s an extremely straight forward lawsuit, but it would prob still cost $50k to hire the lawyers to do it.

in reality I’m thinking of leaking the Rebellion info and fanfare to Goldman, who is top SONY analyst…if they write about it then one of the bigger shareholders are guaranteed to take up the lawsuit. BUT I don’t want to do anything that Britney doesn’t want.

but for real…SONY withholding the song is actually illegal given there is PROVEN demand for the song.

[mocha latto]

46 minutes ago, BlackoutITZ said:

I think this comes down to the fact that Rebellion is literally nothing more than an unreleased song by Britney Spears, of which Sony has hundreds, if not thousands, in the vault.

I don't think there is some conspiracy behind why the song hasn't been released, it just hasn't been used for any project that has been officially released. For all we know, maybe Britney herself doesn't want the song to be released, and likely hasn't even thought about the song for a very long time given that it was written and recorded almost twenty years ago. It's just that some fans have latched on to a snippet that was leaked.

I don't understand your point about them being legally obliged to release the song, as they definitely aren't. There's literally no difference between this song and the many other songs that exist and remain unreleased.

DJ Jeff Duran - Song List

DJJEFFDURAN.INFO

---

Song List. DJ Jeff Duran, a DJ from Newport Beach

I think someone else owns rebellion per this link.

There's no publishers, It makes it seem like someone else owns it but then again, that might not be legally possible depending on the details of her contract. There's also a Rebellion Part 2. Im not sure if everyone knew that was a thing already but I could swear that wasn't there yesterday. I also can't find just "Rebellion" on there anymore.

[BlackoutITZ]

19 minutes ago, mocha latto said:

DJ Jeff Duran - Song List

DJJEFFDURAN.INFO

---

Song List. DJ Jeff Duran, a DJ from Newport Beach

I think someone else owns rebellion per this link.

There's no publishers, It makes it seem like someone else owns it but then again, that might not be legally possible depending on the details of her contract. There's also a Rebellion Part 2. Im not sure if everyone knew that was a thing already but I could swear that wasn't there yesterday. I also can't find just "Rebellion" on there anymore.

I think what a lot of people on here aren't understanding (I don't mean that to sound patronising) is that in the music industry, songs are owned in two separate parts. The song itself ie. the lyrics, melody, and composition is owned by the publishing company, and the master recording of the song is owned by the record label.

That link doesn't really show anything other than the credits of the song. Again, I'm not really understanding why there seems to be this idea that Rebellion specifically is any different to any other unreleased Britney song, or why they would have a legal obligation to release it.

[mocha latto]

1 minute ago, BlackoutITZ said:

I think what a lot of people on here aren't understanding (I don't mean that to sound patronising) is that in the music industry, songs are owned in two separate parts. The song itself ie. the lyrics, melody, and composition is owned by the publishing company, and the master recording of the song is owned by the record label.

That link doesn't really show anything other than the credits of the song. Again, I'm not really understanding why there seems to be this idea that Rebellion specifically is any different to any other unreleased Britney song, or why they would have a legal obligation to release it.

I get what you mean, you explained it a lot better than I could. Theres not solid info on it so I think a lot of it is just speculation. Lots of people link it to Original Doll (where it would probably fit) but there's not a whole lot of info out there to make sense of. 

I have my own speculations, but a lot of it is simply that.

 

[mocha latto]

Just now, mocha latto said:

I get what you mean, you explained it a lot better than I could. Theres not solid info on it so I think a lot of it is just speculation. Lots of people link it to Original Doll (where it would probably fit) but there's not a whole lot of info out there to make sense of. 

I have my own speculations, but a lot of it is simply that.

 

I honestly think the lyrics being so applicable to what she had going on sparks a lot of that interest. At times It also seems (again, seems but not actually is)  like Britney is trying to say something through her work. Especially her videos and performances.

[RebellionSparkles]

1 hour ago, mocha latto said:

DJ Jeff Duran - Song List

DJJEFFDURAN.INFO

---

Song List. DJ Jeff Duran, a DJ from Newport Beach

I think someone else owns rebellion per this link.

There's no publishers, It makes it seem like someone else owns it but then again, that might not be legally possible depending on the details of her contract. There's also a Rebellion Part 2. Im not sure if everyone knew that was a thing already but I could swear that wasn't there yesterday. I also can't find just "Rebellion" on there anymore.

I’ve looked into Jeff Duran, evidently he’s a complete fraud who got a credit and didn’t deserve it.

he knows nothing.

[RebellionSparkles]

38 minutes ago, BlackoutITZ said:

The song itself ie. the lyrics, melody, and composition is owned by the publishing company, and the master recording of the song is owned by the record label.

I totally don’t understand this! Can you explain? Who is B’s publishing company? And how can a song be released to YT, Radio, Apple Music, Spotify? Like who presses the button “release the song” So we can buy and stream it?

[mocha latto]

3 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I totally don’t understand this! Can you explain? Who is B’s publishing company? And how can a song be released to YT, Radio, Apple Music, Spotify? Like who presses the button “release the song” So we can buy and stream it?

It can vary depending on the artist but in this case her publisher at this moment would be Sony/RCA. The publisher is the person or persons who published the song. 

To my best understanding, the publisher would be the person who presses the hypothetical button. Usually when a song is released to be streamed the publisher has a deal with the streaming companies (or goes through a third party that sends the music to the streaming company) to release it through them. 

Radio is a bit different though. But thats basically how it works for streaming.

Anyone who can explain it better than me is always welcome.  im great at understanding but horrible at explaining

[RebellionSparkles]

1 minute ago, mocha latto said:

It can vary depending on the artist but in this case her publisher at this moment would be Sony/RCA. The publisher is the person or persons who published the song. 

To my best understanding, the publisher would be the person who presses the hypothetical button. Usually when a song is released to be streamed the publisher has a deal with the streaming companies (or goes through a third party that sends the music to the streaming company) to release it through them. 

Radio is a bit different though. But thats basically how it works for streaming.

Anyone who can explain it better than me is always welcome.  im great at understanding but horrible at explaining

Thank you for the learnings! 

[BlackoutITZ]

41 minutes ago, RebellionSparkles said:

I totally don’t understand this! Can you explain? Who is B’s publishing company? And how can a song be released to YT, Radio, Apple Music, Spotify? Like who presses the button “release the song” So we can buy and stream it?

Britney's publishing company is Universal Music Group (not Sony/RCA like was stated by @mocha latto). She is signed to RCA, a label under Sony Music, which makes her a Sony recording artist but her publishing is owned by Universal.

Her publishing was originally through Zomba, which was bought and sold to Universal in the late 2000's so therefore her publishing was transferred to Universal.

To answer your question about the difference between a publishing company and a record label, and who releases the music, the publishing company are the people who own the composition of a song and handle the royalties. So for example, if you were to cover a Britney Spears song, you would be covering property owned by Universal Music Group. Anyone can cover a song, but if you plan to release it professionally you would need a mechanical rights license from the publishing company. The actual master recording of a song, the work you hear when you listen to Britney Spears on streaming services, on her CD's, or on the radio, is owned by the record label. So while you can cover a song with a mechanical rights license, you cannot use or recreate the master recording which is owned by the record label, which in Britney's case is Sony/RCA.

I hope that clears things up for you. I work in this field so I tend to understand the workings of it more than someone who is going in blind. I hope I explained it well for you.

[mocha latto]

Just now, BlackoutITZ said:

Britney's publishing company is Universal Music Group (not Sony/RCA like was stated by @mocha latto). She is signed to RCA, a label under Sony Music, which makes her a Sony recording artist but her publishing is owned by Universal.

Her publishing was originally through Zomba, which was bought and sold to Universal in the late 2000's so therefore her publishing was transferred to Universal.

To answer your question about the difference between a publishing company and a record label, and who releases the music, the publishing company are the people who own the composition of a song and handle the royalties. So for example, if you were to cover a Britney Spears song, you would be covering property owned by Universal Music Group. Anyone can cover a song, but if you plan to release it professionally you would need a mechanical rights license from the publishing company. The actual master recording of a song, the work you hear when you listen to Britney Spears on streaming services, on her CD's, or on the radio, is owned by the  record label. So while you can cover a song with a mechanical rights license, you cannot use or recreate the master recording which is owned by the record label, which in Britney's case is Sony/RCA.

I hope that clears things up for you

This is the explanation I was looking for, thank you!

[Callie4610]

Why is Michael Kane even her financial manager considering he is close friends with Larry Rudolph and she even said in the court recording, that she didn’t approve of him. So why is he still around now that she’s free and why was he at her wedding of all places?