xplnyrslf said:

well, for starters, i said it was my personal opinion, nothing more. My post was not about housequake at all. My post was about, as I stated, the holier than though statements.

I did not say one way or the other whether HQ had "permission" to do anything. "Permissions" hae not place in this conversation. Once again, this is about my personal feeling and opinion on things. My post was not about housequake. Please read the post in its entirety. Are you referring to the part you bolded, because if you are, you completely misinterpreted. I was saying that I was tired of people saying we shouldn't post a picture of him, and the statements that he owes us anything.

txladykat said:

um...OK.

wonder505 said:

I'm referring to the # of those whose income are dependant on him ,(musicians, twins, lawyers) not the Carmen Electras.....(who currently has a lucrative cosmetic contract)....
[Edited 10/7/07 20:15pm]

xplnyrslf said:

I'm with you on this. Well said. I personally think HQ has a serious superiority complex. The over-moderation over there was unbearable for me - buts that not the issue here. They tried to put themseleves on an equal playing field with the artist they were suppose to support. He's the reason for their exsistance. They should respect his wishes, even those that are not as 'fair' as others. Simple as IMO. When you walk away from an aftershow shaking in euphoria and disbelief at what you just witnessed, THAT is what matters. Not this crap IMO.

I think its cause we had a poll over at HQ asking if he cud take over the internet and most said never! oops i think we shot ourselves in the foot

txladykat said:

We have the The Press Complaints Commission in the UK
Link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
It can be deemed as an invasion of privacy in the UK if you take a picture of a celebrity in a public place and they keep admending the privacy laws to protect people. The code of practice has to be followed or law suits happen and many times have been won by those making the complaint.

You must admit there has been a lot of suspect pictures of Prince posted on the internet ones of Prince when he was a child along with others; personally I think research should have been down to find out who held the copyright for those pictures and seeked permission to post them before posting in the public domain as you never know where they have came from and if they are legit.
Then we had the case Of the person who posted a private collection of clothing that this person stated they legally had in there possession and was offering to sell and give items away. I believe what transpired is a house was sold and the purchaser of the home sold the contents left behind. The original owner of the clothes believed the items where in storage and had not given permission to sell the items then all off a sudden a battle happened online and more Pictures of the clothing along with documents where posted on the internet.
That in my opinion was a invasion of privacy a total disrespect a Low point in this community.

txladykat said:

I agree the majority of people taking pictures did post just to share with the fans in the community then they are others that have respected Prince’s and the AEG wishes and kept the pictures out of the public domain. But then we have some that are just now selling the pictures and video footage they have taken and others taking (thieving) those pictures that the fans posted to only share and now are selling them for financial gain. In my opinion those that are selling the photographs along with DVD’s are the ones that are spoiling it for everyone else.

katt said:

Mayte sold those clothes. The seller got them in a legal way.

katt said:

True! But should one fansite (i.e. Housequake) get the blame for selling that takes place on other websites

katt said:

Katt, I respect your views but I do wish you'd stop making blind assumptions. HQ did contact the copyright owner on those photos and sought permission. A phenomenal amount of work goes on behind the scenes to ascertain copyright on photos and there are many examples where items have been deleted.

katt said:

Again, both parties were contacted during this time and HQ then chose to remove the advertisement from the website. HQ were not involved in the sale in any way and were not mentioned in any court filings. For your information, that situation between Club Returns and Prince was settle out of court.

dothejump said:

I remember reading at the time that Mayte sold the house something to do with an assistant was supposed to put the items in storage but this did not happen.

dothejump I don’t think HQ is getting all the blame I think most websites work behind the scenes to resolve the problems it’s just for some reason the battles HQ seem to be more public.

Gav said:

but why did HQ allow this person to upload legal documents and go on a tirade against Prince on your Site? The thread was eventually deleted but that was after many pages of pretty intense dialog among the community? just trying to understand. i'm sure it is a combination of all these issues, plus how Prince chose to handle things led to this huge problem.
[Edited 10/8/07 7:44am]

wonder505 said:[quote]Gav said:[quote]

sorry double post.
[Edited 10/8/07 7:45am]

wonder505 said:

It's a question of censorship to be honest and a difficult judgement call for the HQ team. Do we censor people's beliefs and news in the Prince-world or do we let things run and only delete if they get out of hand?

I can bet that if we'd have deleted the whole story then people would have cried foul.

Gav said:

Excuse me dear I am not making blind assumptions I was speaking in general for all websites to do, HQ has in the past has done the research at other times they have not.
They have also placed HQ Logo all over copyrighted pictures then proceeded to have a go at people on other websites for posting them also accusing people of cropping pictures when in-fact HQ did not own copyright and had no right to treat people in that way. You may put a lot of effort into research yet sometimes HQ has stepped over the line. Darn two of the mods at the time accused a young lady who was awaiting results to see if she had cancer of thieving pictures and cropping them because she posted them on a website she was even banned from HQ and one of the mod’s publicly tried to humiliate her. I happened to try stick up for the lass and was told by a HQ mod basically if I didn’t like it do not read or post on HQ and that I wasn’t entitled to my opinion.

I did not imply HQ was selling the items either yet the person was offering to give an items away to the fans on HQ if they could find an original picture of the item the person was selling. I have no interest in the outcome of the case I only mentioned I personally thought what happened at that time in this community was a very low point and disrespectfully to Prince. Now if you do not agree with my opinion fine so be it but do not come to me on the pretence that you respect my opinions or others cause this is false because if you did then you wouldn’t be jumping all over us for expressing our opinion.

Oh and the young ladys results came back stating she did not have cancer thank God.

Gav said:

Gav, just a question out of interest and for my personal understanding (I haven't been to HQ for quite a while).

There has been this request from 3121.com:

A Respectful Request
We r respectfully asking fans and fansites 2 abide by the per4mers and the management’s wishes: please do not use cameras of any sort 2 record Prince’s per4mances at the O2. We r respectfully asking the fansites not 2 host any of the photographs obtained in this manner. Thank u 4 ur support.

Has HQ followed this request or not?

katt said:

but that is different. i agreee they shouldn't be sold, but that isn't what we are talking about. we are talking about fans sharing pics with fans for free. i never said people should be able to sell them. i agree that the money to be made should be only by the musician, as it is his work.

katt said:

if that is the case then why is there still such an extensive gallery here? why is there a gallery on princefams?

Have you ever looked at a picture of Prince some place other than on his website? If so, is that considered ok, even though the photos are against his wishes? And if it is ok for you to look at a pic posted of Prince that Prince doesn't approve of, why?

And Gav tell me where HQ is mentioned in my post here is my orginal post:

Katt said:


I do believe you’re the one reading blind assumptions you really should step back and stop jumping 2 conclusions, you also have no right 2 chastise me in public for something I have not said, with an attitude like yours I can see why people backs get raised.

txladykat said:

I would think that only Ben and Prince can answer that. maybe there was an agreement made in private, maybe not, who knows. as far as princefams, i don't go there often but i think they worked out something with WebSherrif.I remember reading a few posts and things appeared friendly, but I didn't read all of the posts.
[Edited 10/8/07 8:50am]

txladykat said:

How would I know that I am not privy to that information, only the websites that have been contacted can explain how this can be, in my opinion it must have something to do with they way they negotiate and come to an agreement.

katt said:

exactly! whether you realize it or not you proved my point.

at any rate...i think this whole discussion has gone as it can go. it has gotten counter productive at this point and everyone is just going in circles.

katt said:

In the thread title

wonder505 said:

I agree only those contacted will know what truly is going on and the agreement they have between each other.

I did visit princefams the other day they where very friendly and the fun bantering going on between Web Sheriff and the members was nice to see, not one bit of venom was spit out, I can only personally conclude there is a mutual respect going on and the negotiations are friendly ones. I truly forgot about the princefams website it seems a fun place to hang out.

txladykat said:

The only point you have proved is that the other places may have been contacted and may have managed to negotiate and may have open a good line of communications between each other and HQ has not.

katt said:

no, that is not proof, but merely your opinion.

Gav said:

The thread title is:

I was not the author of this thread dear.
YOU commented on this MY post:



Then you posted:



Not one time did i mention HQ in my post YOU jumped and YOU then formed the wrong conclusion then went on to place more information into the public domain that possibly they two parties may have not wanted to happen (did u seek permision from both parties 2 do this?), YOU have also not said anything about the HQ logo being on copyrighted photographs and neither attempted to explain why at one time people where berated, attacked, and the attempts to public humiliate people then banned people from the website if they posted those pictures on another website or question why this was happing. YOU made a mistake and now YOUR deliberately being evasive

I sat back and watched this forum grow and grow and read eevery negative and positive opinion about the situation. I am a huge Prince fan. I am a member of Housequake and Prince.org and I am so happy that they exist. I understand that prince wants his privacy and I respect that but I really feel that he is taking this a little 2 far. I can go on Housequake or on prince.org and get more info about Prince than I can get from 3121.com. I feel that he do have a right about the pictures that were taking from his live shows that states on the ticket stubs that no photos or videos please. But as for the pictures taking outside from those venues are up 4 grab. I seen his school pictures and I wonder...Do he own those rights 2? My answer...NO. I respect Housequake 4 giving us info about his shows in London. I can go on 3121 but I won't get the sae feelinglike I get from Housequake or Prince.org. I truly feel that prince wants the control of his fan base like he did when he had NPGMC but it's not there. We can't go there and look at pictures and interact with the site like we use 2 on NPGMC or Housequake or Prince.org. 3121.com sucks! Point blank. Maybe he isn't getting any hits on his website like Housequake or Prince.org and he feels that he is losing his fans. But the action that he is doing is now is making him lose fans...true fans. We all respect prince as a music genius and we want the world...excuse me...PLANET EARTH, 2 feel him and understand what he can do. Prince gave us good music and style and we are paying homage back by sharing with the masses and growing his fan base. There are more members on Housequake and Prince.org than there ever was on 3121 and NPGMC combined. If he feel that nobody should have pictures of him then maybe he should go in2 hiding and stay out the limelight. But if he do that then the world would lose a "Prince". I feel that this isn't a power move but a business move that will put him under. True he makes the music but if it wan't 4 "us", he wouldn't be Prince. some stars feel that it's "we" that owes them and that's not true. It's them that owes us cause we buy their stuff, pay their bills, feed them, dress them etc and all we get is a cd with 10+ songs on them and only like 4. Taking a quote from D.M.S.R "Screw the masses, we only want 2 have some fun". Well Prince, right now, U are the masses and we want 2 have some fun. Until 3121.com show me love like Housequake and prince.org and even NPGMC did or do, then maybe I can feel his pain but until then, Housequake.com and prince.org IS the official Prince websites. Hate me or love me but Prince needs 2 grow up and become a "King" and understand that a true king wants his kingdom 2 grow and have more followers. Don't push us away Prince. Think of is as a power outlet and u are the lamp. U need us 2 let U light the way but there areother lamps out there that better than U and last longer than U but we stopped shopping around cause we think that u can still work. But we have another lamp somewhere that works.

katt said:[quote]

Gav said:

Erm, I got the info from the public domain after I researched the ruling

Some HQ photos were watermarked as one of our members took the time to scan things in and host them and were fed up with them re-appearing on other sites. At no was it done to imply endorsement. At lot of this came up when a photo appeared in the current tour book with a HQ watermark.

That particular photo WAS posted with permission of the owner AND was modified to include the watermark in discussion with him. However the owner of that photograph did not provide permission for it to be used commercially.

As to the argument on HQ, I cannot comment on a particular incident however I don't know if any complaints to Aaron on the subject - what did he say ? One thing I do find strange, as someone who's lost family to cancer and has had two cancer scares themselves, is why you anyone would bring up such a sensitive and personal subject in a dicussion about photos of a musician on a website and how it relates. Personally I feel it would have cheapened the issue somewhat if I'd have used my illness as a defence in an argument.

This whole thread has been about Housequake. It had reasonable cause to believe your post was about Housequake, particularly as you've been so vocal with regards to the teams behaviour in other posts.

I

txladykat said:

I did not say anything about proof and it was obvious by my use of the word may that I was stating my opinion. Your attempt to be pedantic is laughable, especially when you have been told that I am dyslexic and have been explained my words do not come out on screen properly sometimes. And why are you just going on about the photographs when you and Gav have publicly stated that the problems are not solely down to the photographs.

If HQ has resolved the problems that’s brilliant news if not then I hope they find some way to resolve the issues.

katt said:

That mod was me. Now you are bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. Just like the girl on NPGMC did. She was taking all compliments from other people ("Oh, what great pics you have. Where do you find this unique stuff?") I only asked her where she got her pics from. She started the hostility (because she knew that I knew she took them from HQ) and then all of a sudden she starts talking about her illness. Just like I said then: I wish everyone a good health.They should lock me up if I didn't. The illness had nothing to do with the discussion going on.

I'm out of this discussion too. Before you know it HQ and its mods are guilty of poverty in the world.