Kanye West's recording contract says that he can never retire

Kanye West has found himself in a legal battle with his recording company, explaining that his “illegal” contract stipulates he can never retire.

Earlier this year, Kanye West filed a lawsuit against EMI and Roc-A-Fella Records, with initial reports claiming that the artist was seeking rights to his previous works, along with an undisclosed amount of money.

Soon after, it came to light that what Kanye was actually seeking was freedom from his recording contract with EMI. In details obtained by TMZ, Kanye explained that his contract was “servitude”, and that he wished “to be set free from its bonds.”

According to court documents, Kanye’s main point of contention was that the contract signed with EMI was effectively open-ended, meaning that he could effectively be forever bound to this contract until he delivered a previously-agreed upon amount of music.

While Kanye claimed that personal services contracts are prohibited from lasting longer than seven years in California, he was asking for a judge to retroactively sever his contract as of 2010, which marks the seven-year point of his deal with EMI.

Check out Kanye West’s ‘Bound 2’:

However, The Hollywood Reporter has uncovered further details about Kanye West’s contract, and the lawsuit that he is pursuing.

According to the wording on what Kanye calls the “lopsided” contract he signed back in 2003, he is required to “remain actively involved in writing, recording and producing Compositions and Major Label Albums, as Your principle occupation.”

“At no time during the Term will you seek to retire as a songwriter, recording artist or producer or take any extended hiatus during which you are not actively pursuing Your musical career in the same basic manner as You have pursued such career to date.”

While the contract itself does note that it isn’t so draconian as to not allow Kanye West to take vacation time, the artist claims that after years of “labouring” under this agreement, he wishes for it to be terminated, citing the seven-year rule as the basis for his complaint.

“It makes no difference under section 2855 whether the contract is otherwise fair, or whether the employer has fulfilled its end of the bargain,” Kanye’s lawsuit claims. “It matters only whether the services began more than seven years ago.”

“There can be no dispute that this happened here. The seven-year period ended under this contract on October 1, 2010. For more than eight years thereafter — more than double the maximum seven-year period California law allows — EMI has enforced rights in violation of California law, depriving Mr. West of the ‘breathing period’ that California law mandates.”

As The Hollywood Reporter also notes, the likes of Olivia Newton-John and Thirty Seconds To Mars have also previously sought legal action over contracts which had gone on longer than seven years.

Kanye West’s lawsuit also sees him seeking ownership of any music released past October of 2010, meaning that he would become the sole owner of tracks released on albums such as My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, Yeezus, The Life Of Pablo, and Ye.

While it remains to be seen how this legal battle will end up for Kanye, there is every chance that this contractual dispute could be the reason why his forthcoming album, Yandhi, is yet to be released, despite initially being slated for a September release.