• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Harvard JSEL

The Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (“JSEL”) provides the academic community, the sports and entertainment industries, and the legal profession with scholarly analysis and research related to the legal aspects of the sports and entertainment world.

  • About Us
    • Our Journal
    • Masthead
    • Constitution
    • Contact
  • Print Edition
    • Current Edition
    • Previous Editions
    • Submissions
  • Online Content
    • Highlights
    • Commentary
    • Event Coverage
    • Career Spotlights
    • Sponsor Articles
  • Special Issues
    • Special Issue 2020: Name, Image, and Likeness
    • Special Issue 2021: NCAA v. Alston
  • Events
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Tidal Claims Exclusive Streaming Rights to Prince Catalogue

JSEL · November 22, 2016 · Leave a Comment

prince_at_coachella

On Nov. 2 Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) won the bidding war to become “worldwide publishing administrator” for the entire Prince catalogue. Unfortunately, for streaming purposes, it may have to license those publishing rights exclusively to Tidal. According to Billboard, on Nov. 11, Jay Z’s entertainment company, Roc Nation, filed paperwork in a Minnesota district court claiming Tidal has exclusive streaming distribution rights to Prince’s catalogue, granted by pre-existing contracts between the streaming service and the late pop star.

Prince stated in Sept. 2015, “TIDAL have honored us with a non-restrictive arrangement that once again allows us to continue making art in the fashion,” and the new paperwork details of the “arrangement.” First, in July 2015, Prince and Roc Nation entered into a 5-year agreement wherein Prince granted worldwide streaming rights to Tidal for three forthcoming albums, and agreed not to grant exclusive rights to his music to any other digital streaming service. Second, in August 2015, Tidal, NPG Records, and NPG Music publishing (Prince’s publishing house) entered into an exclusive worldwide distribution deal, granting Tidal the right to “exclusively stream [Prince’s] entire catalogue of music, with limited exceptions.” The term of this later agreement was three-years or until “full recoupment of the advance.” Roc Nation claims this second agreement, in particular, is still intact because it has neither been the expiration of three years, nor, allegedly, has the advance been fully recouped.

Roc Nation claims this is the fourth time this year it has asserted its rights to the catalogue, and is asking the court to allow its claim of exclusive streaming rights to stand. It also implies questionable behavior by the Special Administrator for Prince’s estate, claiming he “refused to offer any information” on his business dealings, including the UMPG negotiations. A favorable ruling for Roc Nation would validate the terms of the 2015 contracts, and could prevent UMPG from licensing Prince’s music to competing services like Apple Music and Spotify.

Jennifer Marr is an Online Highlight Editor for the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law and a current second year student at Harvard Law School (Class of 2018).

Filed Under: Highlight Tagged With: Highlight, licensing, music

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Information
jsel@mail.harvard.edu
Copyright © 2024 Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law