Question on Contracts

[Chizip]

I'm not trying to stir up shit here, I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about this stuff.

One of the theories floating around is that U2 is releasing this best of to get out of their contract with Island so they can then move to Mercury. But the contract with Island was for 3 best of's, couldn't they still have signed a contract with Mercury for future original material releases? Or is it not possible to have contracts with 2 labels at the same time?

Like, couldn't they have honored their Island contract by releasing a best of 2000-2010 in say 2012, while having released 1 or 2 albums of new material with Mercury before that? Or does a Best Of contract with Island bind you into releasing all new material with them until the Best Of contract is fulfilled? That seems like it would be a little ridiculous.

 

[redkat]

I'm taking contract law right now. You can have a contract say almost anything. As long as all parties agree.

I doubt one label would release them to sign another contract until the first is fulfilled but anything is possible.



disclaimer, I've only had one class

 

[Lila64]

I doubt one label would release them to sign another contract until the first is fulfilled but anything is possible.

I believe that is correct. You have to fulfill your obligation/contract before you can sign another (or release material on another). I believe that was a problem in the past for other artists (Prince?)

 

[Axver]

Let's say U2 did retain the contract with Island and released a Best Of 2000-2010 in 2012, but also signed with Mercury and released two albums with Mercury between 2006 and 2010. Wouldn't they then run into a problem in that they would have to get Mercury to release their songs to Island if they want the Best Of to cover all four albums rather than just ATYCLB and HTDAAB?

 

[Lila64]

They couldn't release material on one label, and fill the contractual obligation to Island 6 years from now. That just doesn't make sense, legally.

 

[Chizip]

So what we are saying is if you sign a contract to release 3 Greatest Hits album with a record company, that forces you to release all of your new material on that same label until the Greatest Hits contract is over?

That doesn't seem right either.

Let's say you had 1 Greatest Hits album left in the contract with Island, but you wanted to release a new album before that, but you have no contract for this new album. You can't release the new album on another label? If it had to be with Island couldn't they royally screw you on the deal since they know you can't go anywhere else?

 

[redkat]

No it could be stipulated that island best of's will only include songs recorded while with island. They could have stipulated to anything who knows.

and in that last circumstance I think you'd wait to release a new album so that island wouldn't own it. wouldn't you?

 

[Lila64]

So what we are saying is if you sign a contract to release 3 Greatest Hits album with a record company, that forces you to release all of your new material on that same label until the Greatest Hits contract is over?

That doesn't seem right either.

Let's say you had 1 Greatest Hits album left in the contract with Island, but you wanted to release a new album before that, but you have no contract for this new album. You can't release the new album on another label? If it had to be with Island couldn't they royally screw you on the deal since they know you can't go anywhere else?

Yes, they could royally screw you, I do believe.

Didn't this happen to someone... was it George Michael? I can't recall.... You have to fulfill your contractual obligations - I don't believe you can be on two labels simultaneously, but wtf do I know

 

[Utoo]

So what we are saying is if you sign a contract to release 3 Greatest Hits album with a record company, that forces you to release all of your new material on that same label until the Greatest Hits contract is over?

That doesn't seem right either.

Let's say you had 1 Greatest Hits album left in the contract with Island, but you wanted to release a new album before that, but you have no contract for this new album. You can't release the new album on another label? If it had to be with Island couldn't they royally screw you on the deal since they know you can't go anywhere else?

That's why instead of dealing with all of that mess, you release a simple best of like u218 quickly and get the contract over with. That's much easier than having to think about future complications involved in having contracts at two labels----i.e., the 2000-2010 point that Axver raised.


One odd thing, though---weren't there reports that U218 is coming out under the Mercury label? I stopped reading the 20-page Best Of thread around that point. If it is under Mercury, then it either means that they do still have one left at Island like you suggest, or that they were able to cancel it altogether. I dunno.

 

[Chizip]

To me it just seems like if you sign a contract for 3 Greatest Hits albums, then thats all you owe them, 3 Greatest Hits albums. That shouldn't bind you into releasing any and all new material on the same label.

If you went to a different label for say a contract of 6 cds of new and original material, and made a stipulation in that contract that songs from those cds could be used as part of the final Greatest Hits album on the other label, then that would be alright.

I don't know, it just seems to me that a Greatest Hits contract only entitles the label to Greatest Hits, and not any and all new material.

 

[Lila64]

if all parties legally agree, I suppose so

<listening to Bass Trap

 

[Niceman]

Perhaps they began work on the 3rd best-of, planning to fulfill the contract, but somehow were able to end the contract before the album was completed, then they were able to give the release to Mercury instead????

 

[Utoo]

To me it just seems like if you sign a contract for 3 Greatest Hits albums, then thats all you owe them, 3 Greatest Hits albums. That shouldn't bind you into releasing any and all new material on the same label.

If you went to a different label for say a contract of 6 cds of new and original material, and made a stipulation in that contract that songs from those cds could be used as part of the final Greatest Hits album on the other label, then that would be alright.

I don't know, it just seems to me that a Greatest Hits contract only entitles the label to Greatest Hits, and not any and all new material.

Maybe it has to do with the way that the contract was set up. I don't think there was a contract specifically for Best Ofs----weren't the best ofs part of the general contract that also included a certain number of studio albums? If so, they'd have to put out the 3rd best of in order to fulfill a general recording contract, as opposed to a contract specifically for Best Ofs. That might throw a kink in any plans of jumping ship before the 3rd best of is put out.

 

[Convoy]

To me it just seems like if you sign a contract for 3 Greatest Hits albums, then thats all you owe them, 3 Greatest Hits albums. That shouldn't bind you into releasing any and all new material on the same label.

If you went to a different label for say a contract of 6 cds of new and original material, and made a stipulation in that contract that songs from those cds could be used as part of the final Greatest Hits album on the other label, then that would be alright.

I don't know, it just seems to me that a Greatest Hits contract only entitles the label to Greatest Hits, and not any and all new material.

I'm pretty sure that its not just for best ofs but say 6 albums and 3 best of's. And in U2's I think they finished the agreement for original material but still owed them a best of.

 

[Axver]

One odd thing, though---weren't there reports that U218 is coming out under the Mercury label? I stopped reading the 20-page Best Of thread around that point. If it is under Mercury, then it either means that they do still have one left at Island like you suggest, or that they were able to cancel it altogether. I dunno.

No, some people speculated the reason the Greatest Hits was coming out was to give Mercury something new to release before a proper album, but that was false: U218 is on Island.

Also, I'm pretty sure U2's Best Of contract and contract for proper albums were two separate deals.

 

[Greenlight]

I used to have to draft and review contracts for a job I had ages ago. My memory is like a sieve but I'm guessing that for U2 to have switched labels from Island to Mercury before their contract with Island was up, then their original contract with Island would have had to be novated (formally transferred) to Mercury with all the same terms and obligations they may have had passing as well. This would mean that if they were required to put out a third best of album under the Island contract this would then be transferred as a requirement under the new label with Mercury which seems to be what's happening now. As the two labels are sister companies under Universal it may have been easier to sort out the legal transfer than it would have been otherwise. Could be completely wrong though..

 

[U2girl]

Separate deal for the 3 Best of's and "regular" U2 albums.

I think U2 is fnishing off their Best of deal from Island with U2:18. They probably signed/will sign a new album/s deal with Mercury.

 

[PookaMacP]

Just to add to this debate, when I got my CD copy of the Saints Are Coming yesterday (charts start on a Friday in Ireland so we get everything a bit earlier than elsewhere), the following labels were on it: Island, Reprise, AND Mercury Group. So take from that what you will.

 

[Popmartijn]

I still go for my analysis I posted here: http://forum.interference.com/t166420.html

 

[Utoo]

No, some people speculated the reason the Greatest Hits was coming out was to give Mercury something new to release before a proper album, but that was false: U218 is on Island.

Also, I'm pretty sure U2's Best Of contract and contract for proper albums were two separate deals.

Gotcha and gotcha.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'm not trying to stir up shit here, I'm honestly curious because I don't know much about this stuff.

One of the theories floating around is that U2 is releasing this best of to get out of their contract with Island so they can then move to Mercury. But the contract with Island was for 3 best of's, couldn't they still have signed a contract with Mercury for future original material releases? Or is it not possible to have contracts with 2 labels at the same time?

Like, couldn't they have honored their Island contract by releasing a best of 2000-2010 in say 2012, while having released 1 or 2 albums of new material with Mercury before that? Or does a Best Of contract with Island bind you into releasing all new material with them until the Best Of contract is fulfilled? That seems like it would be a little ridiculous.

Island own the rights to release this 3rd Best Of, I think they are the ones who brought this release about. U2 probably have the rights to pick the tracklisting, singles and artwork etc. but if a big cash cow like U2 were leaving my label, I might not pay respect to their wishes of a timetable and just release it when I needed a big sales jump. In other words, I think Island wanted to strike while the iron was still hot and U2 had no choice other than to do it. Besides, it's probably a nice way to sever ties and be done with them.

Presumably, seeing the switch to Mercury reported, Island no longer owns the distribution rights to future material. So, conceivably U2 could have made 10 more studio albums before this 3rd Best Of ever came out, but what sense would that have made for Island? They only own the rights to HTDAAB on back, that material will never be more popular than it is right now. They already have the other two compilations as well.

I really, really think that this was Island's desperation for $$$.
U2, as soon as they made the decision to leave Island, were probably ambivolent about it, seeing that Island wouldn't have the distribution rights to future material, then a Best of 2000-2010 is out of the questionm the only viable option was the career-spanning release. Be done with it, is probably what U2 was thinking, whether they signed off on it or not.

I think U2's design initially was for a proper 3rd Best Of, a compilation that wasn't redundant covering eras that had already been covered but they both had an obligation to fulfill and couldn't control the timetable. I can tell you, that whatever sweet deal they got or will get with Mercury, they will more or less call every shot on the table....you'd think.

 

[Balfron]

It all depends on the exact words of the contract with Island. I presume these contracts are exclusive, so maybe U2 had to fulfil it before they moved on.

 

[Greenlight]

No, some people speculated the reason the Greatest Hits was coming out was to give Mercury something new to release before a proper album, but that was false: U218 is on Island.
.

But the likes of Amazon are still stating that U218 is being released in the UK on the Mercury Label. http://www.amazon.co.uk/U218-Singles-Special-U2/dp/B000JJSRUC