New topic
PrintableXxAxX said: Markland said: 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. 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. Thanks for that There is no such thing as a copyright register within the UK with any legal standing I can't comment on the legal system in the USA as I am not that familiar with the law there There have been attempts by companies to set up copyright registers but they have no legal status under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the primary statutory act for copyright in the UK If, as a previous poster stated, the symbol is, in fact, an old alchemical symbol and has a history going back further than 70 years, it would be pretty hard to claim copyright on something over which you have had no artistic input Once again there is no proof of any trademark As for "The Publication is disparaging to the Plaintiffs personally and professionally and have caused damage to the Artistís reputation", I stated in a post earlier the artist could be forced into the witness box with a subpoena and made to explain exactly how the photographs taken by fans, to which they own the copyright, had damaged his reputation Whats he going to say? "They didn't get my good side"? Thanks for the info, what was the upshot of that case anyway? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
looks like this page got stuck | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Raze said: christracy1 said: 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 something to think about.
Just a thought. Good. From now on, I'll only refer to him as "Prints" I Think I will use that as well. Lets hope no one copyrights that. LOL "Prints" Talk about biting the hands that feed him. WOW. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well as he doesn't own the trademark to the word "prince" in the UK or europe you can call him what you like
I think a few people have thought of some names already judging by the posts on this issue | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Markland said: Thanks for that
There is no such thing as a copyright register within the UK with any legal standing I can't comment on the legal system in the USA as I am not that familiar with the law there There have been attempts by companies to set up copyright registers but they have no legal status under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the primary statutory act for copyright in the UK If, as a previous poster stated, the symbol is, in fact, an old alchemical symbol and has a history going back further than 70 years, it would be pretty hard to claim copyright on something over which you have had no artistic input Once again there is no proof of any trademark As for "The Publication is disparaging to the Plaintiffs personally and professionally and have caused damage to the Artistís reputation", I stated in a post earlier the artist could be forced into the witness box with a subpoena and made to explain exactly how the photographs taken by fans, to which they own the copyright, had damaged his reputation Whats he going to say? "They didn't get my good side"? Thanks for the info, what was the upshot of that case anyway? check out the link provided by m3taverse. i think that uptown has answered your question on that site. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
L4OATheOriginal said: SHANNA said: My birthday too.  happy belated Thank you, L4OA.  And, from me to you too. 
And, many happy returns.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
XxAxX said: check out the link provided by m3taverse. i think that uptown has answered your question on that site.
I couldn't see the result just that badly spelled complaint document I also noticed, unlike the copyright part, they offered no evidence of trademark registration [Edited 11/14/07 12:24pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |