This is useful info on theories of intellectual properties:

http://www.law.harvard.ed...heory.html

"Is a celebrity's persona a sufficiently important repository of selfhood that other persons ought not be permitted to exploit that persona commercially without permission? Justin Hughes suggests yes, reasoning that "[a]s long as an individual identifies with his personal image, he will have a personality stake in that image." Michael Madow, insisting that the "creative (and autonomous) role of the media and the audience in the meaning-making process" are at least as important as the "personality" of the celebrity, sharply disagrees.[82]

Two related problems underlie these and many other disagreements. First, the conceptions of the self – the images of "personhood" that, through adjustments of intellectual-property doctrine, we are trying to nurture or protect – that underlie most avatars of personality theory are too abstract and thin to provide answers to many specific questions. Either a more fully articulated vision of human nature (that would forthrightly address such grand questions as the importance of creativity to the soul) or a conception of personhood tied more tightly to a particular culture and time seems necessary if we are to provide lawmakers guidance on the kinds of issue that beset them.

Second, no personality theorist has yet dealt adequately with what Margaret Radin once called the problem of fetishism.[83] Which of the many tastes exhibited by current members of American culture should be indulged, and which should not? The quest for individuality? Nationalism? Nostalgia for a real or imagined ethnic or racial identity? The hope that audiences will treat one's creations with respect? The hunger for fifteen minutes (or more) of fame? Yearnings or orientations of all of these sorts are implicated by intellectual-property disputes. Deciding which merit our deference is essential to determining how those disputes should be resolved."

I delved into the bowels of the article.
[Edited 10/1/07 22:15pm]

ufoclub said:

Yeah. Well THIS site has a secret weapon.....we'll send SUPA off to yell the bejesus out of em! (of course, he's no substitute for a good attorney)

xplnyrslf said:

The problem arises when you need an attorney. Prince can afford good ones and pay out legal fees, these websites can't, so they have no strong defense.

superspaceboy said:

They come from his fanbase's reactions to pretty much whatever he does!

ufoclub said:

You're wrong. From the ticketmaster site:

"Our goal at Ticketmaster.com is to make your purchasing experience easy, efficient and equitable, so we can get you on your way to live events as quickly as possible. The following purchase policies are designed to ensure your satisfaction and understanding of the purchase process on Ticketmaster.com. If you have any questions about the information below, please Contact us. This Purchase Policy is subject to, and incorporates by this reference, the Terms of Use. Each ticket that you purchase is a license to attend a particular event, and is subject to the additional terms set forth on that ticket."
Recording, Transmission and Exhibition

"You agree not to record or transmit, or aid in recording or transmitting, any description, account, picture, or reproduction of the event. You grant permission to utilize your image, likeness, actions and statements in any live or recorded audio, video, or photographic display or other transmission, exhibition, publication or reproduction made of, or at, the event (regardless of whether before, during or after play or performance) in any medium or context without further authorization or compensation."

Therefore, anytime you purchase a ticket, you agree to the above terms. I'm sure Prince has this stipulation with all his concerts, not just Ticketmaster.
(I don't believe most people actually read the infomation.)
If photos are taken at a concert, and posted on a website, then legal action can be taken by Prince.

I don't necessarily agree with Prince's actions.
On the other hand, it's important to understand why Housequake is in the position it's in.
Again....who's responsible for the quagmire? Housequake.

but ummm...thats not a law...its just terms of conditions.

xplnyrslf said:

Ticketmaster has their own rules, but they are not the law. Just pretend that I am the owner of ticketmaster and I wrote the above document. Is it the law? No. If you agree to come over to my house but I say the rule is that you must not take a photo, if you take a photo, can you be arrested? No. It's not against the law. Even if it is against my rules.

ufoclub said:

They actually banned Prince himself? Dang, no wonder P was pissed!

I want Aaron & the other MOds & Admin's. over at HQ to write a book on this when it's all over....and make it available to anyone interested for purchase. (presale to all the registered Quakers!)

yea, charge for the book to recoup some monies. I know we all would buy it!!!!!

sosgemini said:

Which were agreed upon, by the purchase. And ignorance of the agreement is never an excuse.

xplnyrslf said:

but that doesn't make it a law.

ufoclub said:

"A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When the ticket was purchased, the individual agreed to the terms.
I believe it's in the civil law category.
It might be hard for Prince to prove "damages".

sosgemini said:

but it would be legally binding in a court, wouldn't it, if you made a purchase based on a set of terms made clear by the vendor? i mean, it's not "illegal" to take a bottle of soda into a movie theater, but that doesn't mean the theater allows you to do it because it's against their rules.

Anxiety said:

ahhh..gotcha..i was getting hung up by the use of the word "law".

sosgemini said:

Binding by law? ie. if you break the contract/agreement you can be taken to court for a summary judgement or trial.
[Edited 10/2/07 18:56pm]

sosgemini said:

i think the law would get involved if you tried to go against the rules of a private establishment and they asked you to either knock it off or leave and you refused their request. then i think it would get law-y.

Anxiety said:

yeah, so doesn't their right only extend to being within the premises...im not sure ticketmaster or the artist can pursue someone after the event. what do you think?

sosgemini said:

But then bootlegging wouldn't be illegal either. What's the difference between taking a photo or recording the show on audio?

EmancipationLover said:

bootlegging is an issue because the work is copy written and you would need permission from the artist to sale the work...but ones image? thats where things get murky.

sosgemini said:

What about bootlegs of Prince playing cover versions not available on any Prince album? Like "Honky tonk woman", for example?

I'll say this the prince:music and more forum is one of the least ones I visit. I enjoy the org, not cause of prince, but because of the different type of people on it.

If P wants to shut the site down fine and dandy as long as a place is created that brings the majority of people over to it.

However I will say this If prince tries to pull this shit, I'll never say I'm a fan again or support him in any way shape or form. I don't suppoprt bullies.

and Ive been buying his stuff since 1980.
[Edited 10/2/07 13:20pm]

sosgemini said:

i think whoever can afford the most expensive legal team will end up having the most accepted logic.

"You agree not to record or transmit, or aid in recording or transmitting, any description, account, picture, or reproduction of the event."

I just don't understand why so many are confused with this concept.
No wonder people are taking pics at concerts all the time with their cell phones.
And it's done secretly, so the guilty parties KNOW they're doing something they shouldn't be doing. And since there seems to be no repercusions, why not?
Hell, one can even post the photo on a website!
Depending on how far Prince takes this, it's still a challenge to prove damages.
With the internet, it's charting new waters.

ufoclub said:

Verbal agreements can be a little ambiguous. Whereas, when purchasing a ticket for a concert, it's in plain and clear writing, which by purchasing the ticket, is agreed upon, along with all the reinforcing signs posted at the venue, banning photos.
I think this is going to be an education all around. IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS!!

sosgemini said:

take a look at Housequake.....

xplnyrslf said:

they shut down on their own accord and are not admitting any wrongdoing. you need to keep in mind that no company policy shall inflict on ones constitutional rights. just because two parties agree to a contract does not make it legally binding. hence the confusion here on this thread and in various other forms across the world.

EmancipationLover said:

to make it a bit more complicated ....

when an artist performs a songs written by another artist at a show, he does not need to pay royalties, when it is released on an album, he does.

A bootleg stays a bootleg, no matter what, but I am not an expert on bootleg laws.

Funny thing about Prince concerts in London, one was asked not to take photos, th econcert was for your memories only.... now when I go to a family bbq, I take photos because these photos will keep the memory alive....

And it is bit strange, Prince hires in professional photographers, videotapers, audiotapers to records as much as possible, for his own memories only, but doe snot allow his fans to do the same.....

sosgemini said:

I'll say!
Have you ever taken out a loan? Purchased a house, or rented an apartment? Hired a contractor?
Despite my posting info on contracts (Wikipedia) you still believe they aren't binding and enforceable? If they're against the law, sure. This situation isn't in that category.

xenophobia2002 said:

I like Housequake. I simply think there were some actions that were bad ideas.....
This site snips info that shouldn't be posted.

xenophobia2002 said:

I think there is a difference: Prince may want to record his stuff for professional purposes, like to check later which arrangement went well, which guitar solo was too short and so on. Not necessarily for personal nostalgia.

We should remember: "Whoever does a show, is the boss." (Klaus Kinski)

On a site note: all these photo-taking cell phone addicts were getting massively on my nerves in London. We know Prince's rules, folks, and if you're trying to take photos 3 m in front of Maceo Parker and two security guys at the aftershow, you're just plain stupid imo. It seems like people are getting unable to simply enjoy something without bringing something digital into play or getting off their seats to get a coke every 10 min. I think that's distracting, I just want to see the show, and not the screensavers of 20 cell phones plus 5 asses of beverage addicts around me during a concert.

Rant over...