When watching the movie Ray recently, I was struck by a scene where Mr. Charles is negotiating to leave Atlantic Records and join a much larger label, ABC. The versatile musician insists on owning the master versions of his recordings, something we learn not even Frank Sinatra has in his contract. Mr. Charles prevails, and the accomplishment is so significant a disappointed Atlantic executive can’t help but be happy for him.

This obviously is a great example of a free market; Ray Charles knew ABC would go to just about any length to record him, given the way his recent songs had crossed over to and topped the mainstream charts. But it’s also an important case study in intellectual property. Ray Charles knew that a large advance with a luxurious tour would be a fleeting reward for his genius, whereas by owning the masters of his ABC recordings, he could ensure years of cash flow for himself and his estate, and protect the music’s integrity as well. He also could have done what many modern artists do, namely allow ABC to own the recording but ensure in his contract's language that he would see a percentage of revenues from future use of his music. Have you ever stood in a supermarket shopping line and eyed a "Best Of" CD of B.B. King or Wilson Pickett (another former Atlantic artist) for only $5? The compilation can sell for so little because King and Pickett aren’t seeing any money from those compilations. Although it's hard to know what is fact and what is fiction in a biopic, Ray Charles appears to have avoided that fate.

But I’m probably overthinking a great movie, made even greater by the use of Mr. Charles’ actual recordings in the movie. If only the director of Ray had included "One Mint Julep" it would have been perfect.

When watching the movie Ray recently, I was struck by a scene where Mr. Charles is negotiating to leave Atlantic Records and join a much larger label, ABC. The versatile musician insists on owning the master versions of his recordings, something we learn not even Frank Sinatra has in his contract. Mr. Charles prevails, and the accomplishment is so significant a disappointed Atlantic executive can’t help but be happy for him.

This obviously is a great example of a free market; Ray Charles knew ABC would go to just about any length to record him, given the way his recent songs had crossed over to and topped the mainstream charts. But it’s also an important case study in intellectual property. Ray Charles knew that a large advance with a luxurious tour would be a fleeting reward for his genius, whereas by owning the masters of his ABC recordings, he could ensure years of cash flow for himself and his estate, and protect the music’s integrity as well. He also could have done what many modern artists do, namely allow ABC to own the recording but ensure in his contract's language that he would see a percentage of revenues from future use of his music. Have you ever stood in a supermarket shopping line and eyed a "Best Of" CD of B.B. King or Wilson Pickett (another former Atlantic artist) for only $5? The compilation can sell for so little because King and Pickett aren’t seeing any money from those compilations. Although it's hard to know what is fact and what is fiction in a biopic, Ray Charles appears to have avoided that fate.

But I’m probably overthinking a great movie, made even greater by the use of Mr. Charles’ actual recordings in the movie. If only the director of Ray had included "One Mint Julep" it would have been perfect.