New topic
PrintableThe question is: Will the Org suffer the same fate of Housequake?
This subject came up about a year ago. Similar circumstances, where HQ and Prince had a conflict. Everyone was upset the org would get sucked in. My response was: 1. Why would Prince cause problems for a fan site that supports him? Provides PR when he's not popular? Provide consumers such as myself, who purchase DVD's CD's etc.....and contribute to putting $$ in his pocket?? 2. Hell! I'm not attending his concerts if he's behaving this way, and Prince.org is next. Well,Prince.org doesn't function the same way as HQ does, as I've observed. There's edits and snips of material here, that are posted against site rules. Links are removed of bootleg connections. My perspective isn't even ABOUT Prince. It's about an artist's right to control his image under certain circumstances. I haven't heard of any Prince aggressions, since I've been here, about 2 years. Is there something I'm missing????? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
i dont know how i missed this thread, but wow. thanks for pointing it out gemini. I can only speak on US law. I always find the right of publicity an interesting topic!
The US indeed does have some right of publicity laws. However, it is not federal law (nationwide), it is a state by state basis. Some states don't even recognize the right of publicity at all. For example, in Texas the right of publicity law only applies once the celebrity has died. They do not have the right of publicity while they are alive. Other states recognize while the celebrity is alive, but not in death, others recognize both, others don't recognize it at all. In a breach of contract issue, once one party has breached the contract, the contract is then null and void from that point on, meaning the other party no longer has to abide by the contract because they can claim the other breached first. My two fields that I work are intellectual property law and construction law (which is all about contracts). There is no clear cut answer because it all depends on whether the breach was a minor breach, a material breach, or a fundamental breach. A fundamental breach is the worst where say the breach was so great that the other party no longer is required to comply with the contract, i.e. if the issue of taking pictures was considered to be a fundamental breach, they can evict you from the premises, but if it is just a minor breach, then they cannot, they must still perform their end of the contract, which allows you to stay and attend the concert. Also, to have a material or fundamental, you need to have some kind of sustainable damages. contracts are very tricky and you cannot really come up with a "general" answer. one must see the actual contract itself, determine how the contract was entered, etc. when purchasing the ticket did you have to eithe rsign or click your acceptance of the terms? what if you just walked up to the counter and bought a ticket? how do you go about agreeing to the terms? simply buying the ticket does not bind you, you must be aware of the terms and agree to them in some fashion. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Double post....the original took a LONG time going through..... [Edited 10/4/07 23:13pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: i dont know how i missed this thread, but wow. thanks for pointing it out gemini. I can only speak on US law. I always find the right of publicity an interesting topic!
The US indeed does have some right of publicity laws. However, it is not federal law (nationwide), it is a state by state basis. Some states don't even recognize the right of publicity at all. For example, in Texas the right of publicity law only applies once the celebrity has died. They do not have the right of publicity while they are alive. Other states recognize while the celebrity is alive, but not in death, others recognize both, others don't recognize it at all. In a breach of contract issue, once one party has breached the contract, the contract is then null and void from that point on, meaning the other party no longer has to abide by the contract because they can claim the other breached first. My two fields that I work are intellectual property law and construction law (which is all about contracts). There is no clear cut answer because it all depends on whether the breach was a minor breach, a material breach, or a fundamental breach. A fundamental breach is the worst where say the breach was so great that the other party no longer is required to comply with the contract, i.e. if the issue of taking pictures was considered to be a fundamental breach, they can evict you from the premises, but if it is just a minor breach, then they cannot, they must still perform their end of the contract, which allows you to stay and attend the concert. Also, to have a material or fundamental, you need to have some kind of sustainable damages. contracts are very tricky and you cannot really come up with a "general" answer. one must see the actual contract itself, determine how the contract was entered, etc. when purchasing the ticket did you have to eithe rsign or click your acceptance of the terms? what if you just walked up to the counter and bought a ticket? how do you go about agreeing to the terms? simply buying the ticket does not bind you, you must be aware of the terms and agree to them in some fashion. Thanks for this info. I can't recall right now if I had to click any "I agree" button when I bought the tickets, might be... Anyway, what happens when the party breaching the contract makes a benefit from doing so by getting something in their hands they shouldn't own? Like, in this case, getting photos they never were allowed to take? Does the other party have the right to have those items given back or removed?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
On the ticketmaster site (which I'm using as an example) at the bottom of the page is this:
"Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms." When you order a ticket, you go "past the page"..... 
ie:agree to the terms presented, including no photography at the performance. [Edited 10/5/07 13:15pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: On the ticketmaster site (which I'm using as an example) at the bottom of the page is this:
"Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms." When you order a ticket, you go "past the page"..... huh? expand your thoughts here...im not getting the relevance of a policy which forbids the commercial use of ticketmaster's website and this discussion. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: The question is: Will the Org suffer the same fate of Housequake?
This subject came up about a year ago. Similar circumstances, where HQ and Prince had a conflict. Everyone was upset the org would get sucked in. My response was: 1. Why would Prince cause problems for a fan site that supports him? Provides PR when he's not popular? Provide consumers such as myself, who purchase DVD's CD's etc.....and contribute to putting $$ in his pocket?? 2. Hell! I'm not attending his concerts if he's behaving this way, and Prince.org is next. Well,Prince.org doesn't function the same way as HQ does, as I've observed. There's edits and snips of material here, that are posted against site rules. Links are removed of bootleg connections.  Are you implying that HQ allows this? Because as a regular there, I can state that they don't. In fact, I think the HQ moderators are much stricter when it comes to that, OT posts, flaming, etc. They don't put up with much bs and I personally appreciate that. There is a bootleg discussion forum, but links are not allowed; nor are youtube etc. links to Prince performance videos allowed in other forums.
My perspective isn't even ABOUT Prince. It's about an artist's right to control his image under certain circumstances.
I haven't heard of any Prince aggressions, since I've been here, about 2 years. Is there something I'm missing????? I can't speak on behalf of the Org, but yes, I think you are missing two "somethings". 1. Prince has a history/pattern of legally 'harassing' unofficial fan sites, magazines, etc. Just because the Org didn't make it public doesn't mean they didn't receive anything. By the same token, it doesn't mean they did. Only a moderator could answer that. I know in another thread CarrieMPLS said the Org also received a request to take down concert photos & they complied. 2. Just because Prince wants something (e.g. to control his image) does not mean he has the legal right to demand it. Case in point: fan pictures from the O2. Prince does not own the rights to those picture, regardless of the circumstances in which they were taken. . [Edited 10/5/07 7:44am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmancipationLover said: txladykat said: i dont know how i missed this thread, but wow. thanks for pointing it out gemini. I can only speak on US law. I always find the right of publicity an interesting topic!
The US indeed does have some right of publicity laws. However, it is not federal law (nationwide), it is a state by state basis. Some states don't even recognize the right of publicity at all. For example, in Texas the right of publicity law only applies once the celebrity has died. They do not have the right of publicity while they are alive. Other states recognize while the celebrity is alive, but not in death, others recognize both, others don't recognize it at all. In a breach of contract issue, once one party has breached the contract, the contract is then null and void from that point on, meaning the other party no longer has to abide by the contract because they can claim the other breached first. My two fields that I work are intellectual property law and construction law (which is all about contracts). There is no clear cut answer because it all depends on whether the breach was a minor breach, a material breach, or a fundamental breach. A fundamental breach is the worst where say the breach was so great that the other party no longer is required to comply with the contract, i.e. if the issue of taking pictures was considered to be a fundamental breach, they can evict you from the premises, but if it is just a minor breach, then they cannot, they must still perform their end of the contract, which allows you to stay and attend the concert. Also, to have a material or fundamental, you need to have some kind of sustainable damages. contracts are very tricky and you cannot really come up with a "general" answer. one must see the actual contract itself, determine how the contract was entered, etc. when purchasing the ticket did you have to eithe rsign or click your acceptance of the terms? what if you just walked up to the counter and bought a ticket? how do you go about agreeing to the terms? simply buying the ticket does not bind you, you must be aware of the terms and agree to them in some fashion. Thanks for this info. I can't recall right now if I had to click any "I agree" button when I bought the tickets, might be... Anyway, what happens when the party breaching the contract makes a benefit from doing so by getting something in their hands they shouldn't own? Like, in this case, getting photos they never were allowed to take? Does the other party have the right to have those items given back or removed? i really wish i could answer this for you, but there is no clear cut white and black answer. First, I haven't seen the language to even determine if the contract is binding. Second, it also depends on how and where you purchased the ticket. Say I purchased the ticket in New York but New York does not recognize digital signatures on contracts, them I am not legally bound to the contract and they can't confiscate my material. This is merely an example of many. Also, I am not familiar with UK law. I can only comment on US law. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: xplnyrslf said: On the ticketmaster site (which I'm using as an example) at the bottom of the page is this:
"Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms." When you order a ticket, you go "past the page"..... huh? expand your thoughts here...im not getting the relevance of a policy which forbids the commercial use of ticketmaster's website and this discussion. http://www.ticketmaster.com/ Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms (click on bolded part) Ticket Purchase Policy Please review the Purchase Policy, which will govern your order or purchase of any tickets through the Site (click on bolded part) 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. Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: commercial Part of Speech: adjective 1 Definition: business Synonyms: bartering, commissary, economic, exchange, financial, fiscal, for sale, in demand, market, marketable, mercantile, merchandising, monetary, pecuniary, popular, profit-making, profitable, retail, retailing, saleable, sales, supplying, trade, trading, wholesale, wholesaling [Edited 10/5/07 10:21am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Terms of Use for a website is totally different then a Purchase Policy. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: Terms of Use for a website is totally different then a Purchase Policy.
I have a creepy, crawly, sinking feeling, you haven't been reading my links.....which is why I find myself having to repeat something over and over and over again. Click on Ticketmaster, and follow the yellow brick road. The part about NO PHOTOS starts with "terms of use"....  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: sosgemini said: Terms of Use for a website is totally different then a Purchase Policy.
I have a creepy, crawly, sinking feeling, you haven't been reading my links.....which is why I find myself having to repeat something over and over and over again. Click on Ticketmaster, and follow the yellow brick road. The part about NO PHOTOS starts with "terms of use".... No, your repeating yourself because the arguments and statements you make have no relevance to this discussion and its confusing as hell. 
if you go back to the ticketmaster "terms of use" note its also their "help" page with a glossary of various Ticketmaster policies and help answers. * - Privacy Policy * - Privacy Policy FAQ * - Purchase Policy * - Terms of Use * - TicketExchange Selling Policy * - Cookies & Graphics * - Security * - Error Messages * - Enabling Javascript Once again, the terms of use of a website has nothing to do with the purchase policy (which one would need to purchase something in order to be held to such contract). get it? Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: sosgemini said: huh? expand your thoughts here...im not getting the relevance of a policy which forbids the commercial use of ticketmaster's website and this discussion. http://www.ticketmaster.com/ Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms (click on bolded part) Ticket Purchase Policy Please review the Purchase Policy, which will govern your order or purchase of any tickets through the Site (click on bolded part) 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. Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: commercial Part of Speech: adjective 1 Definition: business Synonyms: bartering, commissary, economic, exchange, financial, fiscal, for sale, in demand, market, marketable, mercantile, merchandising, monetary, pecuniary, popular, profit-making, profitable, retail, retailing, saleable, sales, supplying, trade, trading, wholesale, wholesaling [Edited 10/5/07 10:21am] Ticketmaster are just agents - the contract's with AEG. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: xplnyrslf said: I have a creepy, crawly, sinking feeling, you haven't been reading my links.....which is why I find myself having to repeat something over and over and over again. Click on Ticketmaster, and follow the yellow brick road. The part about NO PHOTOS starts with "terms of use".... No, your repeating yourself because the arguments and statements you make have no relevance to this discussion and its confusing as hell.
if you go back to the ticketmaster "terms of use" note its also their "help" page with a glossary of various Ticketmaster policies and help answers. * - Privacy Policy * - Privacy Policy FAQ * - Purchase Policy * - Terms of Use * - TicketExchange Selling Policy * - Cookies & Graphics * - Security * - Error Messages * - Enabling Javascript Once again, the terms of use of a website has nothing to do with the purchase policy (which one would need to purchase something in order to be held to such contract). get it? Since my input has no relevance to the topic, and I'm creating confusion, I'm outta here. I'll trust you, with your infinite wisdom, to keep the matter straight.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Gav said: xplnyrslf said: http://www.ticketmaster.com/ Use of this site is subject to express terms of use, which prohibit commercial use of this site. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms (click on bolded part) Ticket Purchase Policy Please review the Purchase Policy, which will govern your order or purchase of any tickets through the Site (click on bolded part) 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. Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: commercial Part of Speech: adjective 1 Definition: business Synonyms: bartering, commissary, economic, exchange, financial, fiscal, for sale, in demand, market, marketable, mercantile, merchandising, monetary, pecuniary, popular, profit-making, profitable, retail, retailing, saleable, sales, supplying, trade, trading, wholesale, wholesaling [Edited 10/5/07 10:21am] Ticketmaster are just agents - the contract's with AEG. which brings up a great point. does anyone even get to see what they are contracting to? I doubt it. And, if not, it is not legally binding because you can't agree to contract terms you have never seen. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
txladykat said: Gav said: Ticketmaster are just agents - the contract's with AEG. which brings up a great point. does anyone even get to see what they are contracting to? I doubt it. And, if not, it is not legally binding because you can't agree to contract terms you have never seen. its on the ticket though. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: txladykat said: which brings up a great point. does anyone even get to see what they are contracting to? I doubt it. And, if not, it is not legally binding because you can't agree to contract terms you have never seen. its on the ticket though. right, which you dont see until after you have purchased, which means you have entered into the contract before being made aware of terms. there has to be a "meeting of the minds" and both parties have to understand what they are contracting to. This is what is called an unconscionable contract. ELEMENTS OF A VALID CONTRACT: 1. Offer 2. Acceptance 3. Consideration -giving something up & getting something of equal value in return 4. Capacity to Enter into the Contract 5. Intent 6. Legality (cannot be unconscionable) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Housequake always pushed it a bit too far with the video section and then every photo posted had their Housequake logo on it, I never understood how they got away with that..this is why Prince/his lawyers have hounded them for years. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
nevermind [Edited 10/8/07 17:21pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xadnama said: Housequake always pushed it a bit too far with the video section and then every photo posted had their Housequake logo on it, I never understood how they got away with that..this is why Prince/his lawyers have hounded them for years.
So why have the org got the same letter then ? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Gav said: xadnama said: Housequake always pushed it a bit too far with the video section and then every photo posted had their Housequake logo on it, I never understood how they got away with that..this is why Prince/his lawyers have hounded them for years.
So why have the org got the same letter then ? Cos WS is trying to make more money off of P? Or cos P is an asshole? Take your pic. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ThreadBare said: Step back a moment and contemplate the sheer lunacy of it:
Fan sites attacked by the artist they honor. 
The whole thing is just so ridiculous... Prince is an idiot. Great musician. But still an idiot. Prince deserves a kick in the shins, the silly twat. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well I guess we know the answer to this question now. "Remember, one man's filler is another man's killer" -- Haystack | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
