Does Morrissey own his own recordings?

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

Just curious if he owns the rights to them, or does he sell off to make the albums?

I don't recall this being discussed before.

 

[Raphael Lambach]

I believe he owns the rights, at least about the words.

 

[Worm]

Just curious if he owns the rights to them, or does he sell off to make the albums?

I don't recall this being discussed before.

I'm not sure but I think they are separate agreements. Morrissey owns his publishing rights, but the label has the right to release the material as they see fit. In the fine print you can see that for, say, "Suedehead", there are separate "ownership" lines, one for Warner/Chappell, and one for EMI. Maybe it's as simple as distinguishing between publishing (Morrissey) and releasing (record label).

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

I'm not sure but I think they are separate agreements. Morrissey owns his publishing rights, but the label has the right to release the material as they see fit. In the fine print you can see that for, say, "Suedehead", there are separate "ownership" lines, one for Warner/Chappell, and one for EMI. Maybe it's as simple as distinguishing between publishing (Morrissey) and releasing (record label).

What would the difference be between publishing and releasing? If a song or album is released, isn't simultaneously being published?

 

[Worm]

What would the difference be between publishing and releasing? If a song or album is released, isn't simultaneously being published?

Yes, it's releasing and publishing, but it's a key legal distinction. The record company is protected inasmuch as it gets to release its product (including future compilations/re-issues etc) while the artist gets to keeps control of how it's used. There are probably detailed guidelines. Example: EMI can re-release "Bona Drag" because it's basically theirs to re-release, but they can't sell off "Will Never Marry" to be used for a laundry detergent commercial. I think this happened with the re-issues of The Smiths (like the infamous "Very Best Of" album). Morrissey and Marr had no say in whether they could re-release the material. But they could have stopped Warners from giving the music to some third party.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm not certain.

 

[The Seeker of Good Songs]

Yes, it's releasing and publishing, but it's a key legal distinction. The record company is protected inasmuch as it gets to release its product (including future compilations/re-issues etc) while the artist gets to keeps control of how it's used. There are probably detailed guidelines. Example: EMI can re-release "Bona Drag" because it's basically theirs to re-release, but they can't sell off "Will Never Marry" to be used for a laundry detergent commercial. I think this happened with the re-issues of The Smiths (like the infamous "Very Best Of" album). Morrissey and Marr had no say in whether they could re-release the material. But they could have stopped Warners from giving the music to some third party.

That's my understanding, anyway. I'm not certain.

 

[Media Whore]

This article goes some way to explaining it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2008/oct/23/behind-the-music-publishing-deal

 

[bored]

What would the difference be between publishing and releasing? If a song or album is released, isn't simultaneously being published?

Publishing rights are how you get paid when songs your wrote are used for commercial use such as being played on the radio.

Record labels often get a portion of the publishing revenue, especially with new artists who don't know any better. These artists often give up to 50% of the publishing money just to get a deal.

Publishing rights often show up in cross collateralization clauses where the record company can take money earned from publishing to pay off debt owed by the artist to the record company.

Record companies like to charge their own artists for everything from studio time, engineering to touring and anything else they can get their greedy hands on. They often entice musicians with big advances to buy new instruments or start living the "rock star" life style but they always get every penny back. It is very common for people to be wildly famous, sell massive amounts of records, fill concert venues around the world and to be no better off than if they had kept their job as an office drone.

The Smiths probably had a pretty good deal with Rough Trade because there was a demand from multiple record companies. I've never heard much about how those contract talks went beyond the fact that they had full creative control. Even with that, Rough Trade was still able to sit on "The Queen is Dead" for months not wanting to release it in 85 though it was complete.

By the time they made it big and the rough trade deal ended and they want to a major label they knew the business and again were in high demand so they probably got a pretty lucrative deal.

Morrissey actually said that one of his issues with shows like American Idol and whatever the UK version is called is that the producers of the show end up giving the contestants horrible contracts and since they are just happy to be one the show they sign away their rights without any knowledge they are doing so.

 

[joe frady]

As a compulsive and inveterate credits scrutineer I always found it pathetically interesting that from 2008 onwards, ie the Decca deal for 'Greatest Hits' and 'Years of Refusal', all Morrissey releases exhibited the smallprint Copyright and Publishing "licensed exclusively to Decca Music Group Ltd, London, England by Morrissey".

This wasn't the case with his pre-2008 records, which were C. and P. Sanctuary, Mercury, EMI, etcetera.

I believe that 'Swords' listed something similar, licensed by Morrissey to Universal I think. Not too sure about 'Southpaw Grammar' (Legacy) and 'Maladjusted' (Expanded), don't have them to hand at the moment to check.
But that would seem quite a significant change to me. Even the EMI tracks on 'Greatest Hits' were listed as licensed by Morrissey to Decca. I'm not an industry bod, so I don't know the legalities of it, but it appears similar to the sort of thing Dame Bowie did in the '90s by reclaiming his catalogue and licensing it out under an exclusive arrangement.
No?