A – Rebecca, I’m afraid the guy in the record company in London is correct. Though simply saying “it doesn’t work that way” is not terribly helpful. It would have been useful if he explained to you why it works this way. To understand why the guy in the record company in London is correct you have to look at how recording contracts operate.
When you sign a recording contract with a recording label you essentially agree to record and submit to them the given number of albums and/or singles specified in the contract. Under the recording agreement the intellectual property rights comprised in the records and the physical recordings contained within the masters will belong to the record label and not the artist. In exchange for this the artist will be paid a royalty based on sales of the recordings.
Ownership of the underlying rights therefore as a matter of contract and principle will reside with the record company. Accordingly, it is not you who is paying for the masters, it is the record company. In the absence of a provision to the contrary within the contract, the masters will therefore belong to and be the property of the recording company. In essence, just because a record label recoups recording costs out of income from the sale of the recordings it does not follow that the artist can infer that he or she is paying such costs.
Not all recording contracts are identical but they generally operate as outlined above. For your information, most recording agreements do contain provisions which in certain circumstances would entitle you to take over the ownership of the masters. An example of this would be where the record company fails to meet its release commitments under the recording contract.
Feilim O’Caoimh