ToraToraDreams said:

my understanding is that Prince and/or his company want to protect their music, images etc. and want people to stop using them as is their right under copyright/intellectual property rights etc. - haven't seen any evidence that it goes further than this just people'e interpretation - however i haven't read everything so i'm probably wrong

ritaw said:

Small man syndrome

Markland said:

NO - its just a case of envy on the part of the name-callers. Its what is between your ears that is important and what you choose to do with it that counts. its essentially playground stuff - pathetic.

If Prince is to be successful with his fight with the Internet, he has to take a zero tolerance position, and good luck to him.

As for the web sheriff email….propaganda bollocks !! You selfish, tired, non-fans can’t see shit for the tree’s.

You can’t stand his new music, so finish up with him and let the man move on !!!

I can’t believe most of you turned so quickly and easily !!!!!
[Edited 11/8/07 4:50am]

Can some1 pls xplain 2 me why all of a sudden the Prince fans r 'united', namely the 3 websites...
Why wouldn't u all just state/argue ur cases independantly?

I've been thinking about this whole thing 4 a few days now and still don't know exactly how i feel about it.On the one hand i would b disappointed if the concerned sites changed but on the other i feel a need 2 try 2 understand how Prince feels.He obviously isn't happy and i want 2 understand why.I love Prince unconditionly and find it impossible 2 slag him off.I honestly think that he doesn't have a bad bone in his body and that he feels he has valid reasons 4 wanting 2 take this action.Whatever the outcome, Prince will still b Prince and he will continue 2 produce some of the funkiest,touching,emotional,thought- provoking,intimate and incredible music the world will ever experience!!! 4 this i will b eternally grateful.I LOVE U PRINCE!!!!

i've done a bit of research as to why prince might not want some of his fan's pictures published on the internet.

mind you, i am not an attorney.

that being said, one of the big issues here is TRADEMARK. not just copyright.

the 'prince' symbol is prince's registered TRADEMARK

by law it should never be displayed by anyone but prince, in connection with HIS work.

so, to all of you who think that it is okay for you to use the ORG to post/publish pictures of the prince symbol tattooed on your ass, or on your face, wherever, which you feel are your copyrighted work - wrong.

prince and ONLY prince is entitled to use the trademark. that is the law when it comes to business practices.

and why would prince's attorneys scour the web looking for violations? because that is how a trademark is protected. by giving notice to those who are using it in violation of trademark law, and making sure that only prince is using it.

just an fyi

XxAxX said:

Do a bit more research on the Symbol trademark XxAxX.
You'll find that Prince copied it from a book with old Runic symbols. He only mirrored it. When Prince sued Uptown Publications a decade ago, because according to Prince they had used his Symbol ilegally even tho that was his name at that time and had sent the press, including Uptown publications, the Symbol font on diskette with instructions to use it whenever refering to Prince, Uptown countersued, alledging Prince's trademark on the Symbol was at fault.
Prince then settled the case in 2 seconds, knowing that a challenge to the Symbol would loose him the trademark (because as I said, he simply copied an existing symbol, and yes I'm talking about the Symbol he uses to this day, not the old one).
Prince since then hasn't challenged anyone again over use of the Symbol, and I seriously doubt he would challenge fans over it today as we know we can take this trademark from him would a dispute ever reach the courts.
So I seriously doubt the current alledged infringements are based on this trademark.

You'll find that Prince copied it from a book with old Runic symbols. He only mirrored it.

Symbol font on diskette with instructions to use it whenever refering to Prince

thanks for the input. interesting. if what you say is true, his trademark may fall within the public domain. but, if that were the case then he would never have been able to register it as a trademark to begin with.



i didn't know about that battle. in that case he might have consented to limited permitted usage of the trademark. still, that was then and this is now.

i've done a bit of research as to why prince might not want some of his fan's pictures published on the internet.

mind you, i am not an attorney.

that being said, one of the big issues here is TRADEMARK. not just copyright.

the 'prince' symbol is prince's registered TRADEMARK

by law it should never be displayed by anyone but prince, in connection with HIS work.

so, to all of you who think that it is okay for you to use the ORG to post/publish pictures of the prince symbol tattooed on your ass, or on your face, wherever, which you feel are your copyrighted work - wrong.

prince and ONLY prince is entitled to use the trademark. that is the law when it comes to business practices.

and why would prince's attorneys scour the web looking for violations? because that is how a trademark is protected. by giving notice to those who are using it in violation of trademark law, and making sure that only prince is using it.

just an fyi

First of all, I think this is just ridiculous. So, if he really wants to take it that far, I think we as fans should too. LETS JUST STOP USING HIS NAME!!!!!. Everyone should just refer to him as P-MAN or something like that. Maybe that will give him somethikg to think about.


Just a thought.

If you can show he has registered it as a trademark you are entirely right, only he has the right to use it

Markland said:

IF it is trademark protected - and that's a BIG IF, he only has the right to prohibit the use of it when:

(1) the trademark is being used on competing goods or services or
(2) the consumer would likely be confused by the dual use of the trademark.

So for example, if you would sell a product with the symbol on it, it could probably be prohibited.

However (IF it's trademarked), he can NOT prohibit the fair use of the symbol, for example as a means of identifying him in a written article. If he could do that, as you guys are suggesting here, you couldn't even write an article or a post on the web saying "I was driving my Mercedes today", or "I was listening to 's music" today.

Moreover, since Prince explicitly demanded from everybody; the media, the fans, the record companies to only identify him as , he lost any claim to prohibit people to use that symbol as a way of identifying him.

Read more about the fair use of a trademark here:
http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html
[Edited11/13/07 4:54am]

Tremolina said:

Sorry I was referring to UK law, I should have made that clear, and you are right, it is a BIG if

I have scoured the Patents Office Registry which covers the whole of europe and the only trademark in relation to "prince" I can find is the one owned by the sports company

I cant find the symbol registered either as a trademark

Here in respect of trademarks, we dont have the "fair use" aspect to legislation, if you use it you breach the Trademarks Act 1994

He probably only registered it in the US.



So you can't even type "I was driving my Mercedes today" on the web in the UK?? No way, even UK law provides for that kind of use, becaue the exclusivity of the trademark right doesn't go any further either than in case of when (1) the trademark is being used on competing goods or services or
(2) the consumer would likely be confused by the dual use of the trademark.

That's international trademark standard, arranged in international treaties the UK is a party of.
[Edited 11/13/07 5:33am]

Tremolina said:

Of course you can use a word in conversation

I never said you couldn't

Here trademarks are registered in "classes", for instance class 25 is clothing and covers "clothing, footwear and headgear" other classes cover live performances etc

Where trademark law here does affect fans is fans making their own t shirts for shows

If hypothetically the prince symbol was registered as a trademark here under class 25 and a fan used it on a t shirt for his/her own personal use, that would still be a breach of the Trademarks Act even though there is no commercial transaction involved

And the UK is a signatory to the EU harmonisation treaty on intellectual property, nothing to do with the USA at all

As I said, we dont have a law here allowing fair use

And trademarks in europe are only limited by the classes they are registered under

L4OATheOriginal said:

Prince is a real idiot!

L4OATheOriginal said:

My birthday too.

UK law is quite blunt in relation to the use of trademarks, I actually think there should be examination of a "fair use" clause within the current statutory act

I know there has been a precendent in relation to self made shirts breaching trademark and there may also be copyright implications to

And as outrageous as you might find the claim it breached someones trademark to utilise it for personal I've just asked for a second opinion on the matter

There is a clause in enforcement of trademarks here that basically states that a breach occurs where there is a material loss

The material loss in this instance would be deemed to be a person by making their own shirt should have bought an authentic one

Unlikely ever to be prosecuted, but, nonetheless, a breach of trademark

Under the Trademarks Act 1994 the law is clear in section 10 that breaches occur in the course of business or for profit

However, under the enforcement sections 92 (1) and 92 (2) the proviso exists that a breach occurs under the material loss clause

This is where I feel that UK law needs a "fair use" clause

I do not believe those that drafted the legislation intended for it to be as swinging as it is

As for an international standard, although there are basic agreements on intellectual property, "fair use" doesnt seem to be one of them as far as I can see

As the 1994 act here shows, that has been left to individual countries to legislate on

Even though the initial part of the act states "business" or "trade" the enforcement basically catches all

I honestly think that he doesn't have a bad bone in his body and that he feels he has valid reasons 4 wanting 2 take this action.

XxAxX said:

As you have done your research could you please give me the trademark number for princes symbol?

I have checked the patents office register where all trademarks are actually registered and cannot find any trademarks registered in the name of "prince" "roger nelson" "Paisley Park" or "NPG"

In fact the trademark on t shirts for the word "prince" is owned by a sports company in the USA, therefore every merchandise t shirt sold at the O2 potentially breaches another companies trademark

If you can show he has registered it as a trademark you are entirely right, only he has the right to use it

However, if as I suspect it isnt a registered trademark, and if as someone else here states its an old alchemical symbol, anyone has the right to use it

Copyright lasts for 70 years, if its an old alchemical symbol and it can be proven it is over 70 years old it is fair game for anyone to use

That isn't research, thats a legal fact

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's Copyright and Trademark
. . .

13. The Artist is a world-renowned musical performer and songwriter, formerly known as Prince, but whose business persona is now associated with the copyrighted Symbol. The Artist is the owner of all rights to this Symbol, and has obtained a copyright registration, No. VA 832-222, for the two-dimensional design of to the Symbol as his name continuously for about the past five years, and has sold millions of recordings and has performed before hundreds of thousands of people in his live performances under that Symbol. The Symbol is famous throughout the United States and abroad as representing the Artist.

14. As a result of the unique and distinctive nature of the Symbol, and the extensive display, sales, promotion and use of the symbol by the Artist and PPE, the Symbol has become associated with the Artist and PPE in the minds of the general public. The Symbol, as a mark, is indicative to the trade and to consumers that items bearing the Symbol originate from, or are sponsored or approved by, the Artist and PPE.

Defendants' Infringing Activity and Unauthorized Uses

15. Uptown has recently published, sold and distributed the Publication that violates Plaintiffs' rights.

16. The publication contains (I) unauthorized use of the Artist's and PPE's copyright and trademark, respectively, (ii) unauthorized photographs of the Artist and (iii) unauthorized use of Plaintiffsí names.

17. Defendants sell and distribute the Publication to the general public throughout the united States and abroad, and within this District. Defendants make subscriptions for the Publication available though and internet website, "www.uptown.se".

18. Defendants' activities of publishing, selling and distributing the Publication, and soliciting subscriptions of the Publication on the internet were undertaken with the full knowledge of Plaintiffs and the Symbol, the prior and current extensive use by Plaintiffs of the Symbol and the goodwill associated with such use, and with the intention of trading on such goodwill. Defendants' infringing activities have been without authorization from Plaintiffs.

19. Defendants' use of the Symbol is a clear and continuing infringement of the Artistís and PPE's copyright and trademark rights. Defendants' continued use of the Symbol in the Publication and on the internet, in intentional disregard of the Artist's and PPE's exclusive rights to the Symbol mark, shall continue to be to the detriment of, and will cause irreparable injury to, Plaintiffs.

20. The Publication also constitutes unlawful usage of the Artist's image and likeness. The Publication prominently displays the Artist's name and contain photographs of the Artist that were not and never would have been authorized for publication by the Artist and/ or Plaintiffs. The Publication is disparaging to the Plaintiffs personally and professionally and have caused damage to the Artistís reputation.