I've just had a long and extensive discussion with a Trading Standards officer regarding the posted Web Sheriff email and the situation as a whole

Firstly, regarding images, email Web Sheriff and ask them who owns the copyright on the images they are objecting to

They then have to prove they own the copyright to each and every image

As they don't own the copyright that isn't going to happen

Unless there is a specific contract between a fan and the artist stating that no photography will take place, the copyright to the photograph belongs to the person who takes it

Simply putting "no photography" on the tickets and on signs does not constitute a contract and is therefore insufficient

I also raised the issue of cameras and camera phones being confiscated at shows and returned at the end of the night

This also appears to be legally dubious

Second, should this go to court, you always have the option of serving a subpoena on the artist to ask him, under oath, to explain exactly how the images have damaged his reputation

I would love to hear that explanation

Thirdly, the claim of copyright on the correspondence from Web Sheriff raised a laugh from Trading Standards

The exact words were "it's a bluff"

The same phrase was used in relation to the request for lawyers details in France, Germany, Holland etc

The simple answer should be "I don't have lawyers in those countries, talk to me"

That's the opinion of a Trading Standards officer with 18 years experience

I have considerable access to Trading Standards officers and other experts in the field of copyright and trademark within the UK and should any of the moderators of this site wish any research undertaken I would be more than happy to assist

It won't cost a penny

One last thing, insist on Web Sheriff having an individual sign emails and letters

Simply signing it "Web Sheriff" is ridiculous, how can a company sign a letter or email?

A company doesn't sign, an individual does, and an individual is liable should the correspondence be found to be factually inaccurate, libellous, or malicious

You should insist on a name and their position within the company

Personal liability cuts both ways

SoulAlive said:

Moderators ! this post is seriously damaging your cause !

If someone took your song rehashed it with defamatory words then splashed it all over the WWW would'nt you be a little bit pissed off ?
[Edited 11/7/07 5:09am]

darrenj said:

why is prince held to a different standard than anyone else?

Because your not fans of anyone else.

unkemptpueblo said:

Because your not fans of anyone else.

I did'nt suggest the post be removed or edited i just stated it was damaging your cause. I would expect this from a non-fan but not from fan !

Needless to say Prince would definatley have grounds to take down this site based on this song and the many other libelous statements on this site over recent days
[Edited 11/7/07 5:42am]

darrenj said:

Really? I'm sure most people here don't have tunnel-vision and are fans of many other people.

Flowerz said:

I can't make my mind up if he is talking about female genitalia or a state in the USA

Listening time: Probably more Prince.

Memorablila (outside of music): I have 100 times more MJ stuff than Prince. I don't even LIKE Madonna anymore yet I have more of hers, albeit chucked in corners and cupboards never to be revisited again. Also a stupid amount of Kylie merchandise from my childhood.

Concerts: OK, I've been to more Prince shows than anyone else by a long way, but that's cos he tours more than the rest.
[Edited 11/7/07 6:12am]

I find no joy in all of this. I have no loyalty to the Org even though I have made many, many friends here. At the end of the day, there is no free speech here either and to ask us to band together under some free speech umbrella is laughable to me.

No free speech?

Funny, I've not had a problem saying anything I liked on here

Lothan said:

No free speech?

Funny, I've not had a problem saying anything I liked on here

And if there was no free speech you wouldn't have been able to make that last statement

If a webmaster used a site called -

Darrenj-has-a-small-cock.com

And used this site to post libelous remarks about me i'd be onto my lawyer quicker than you could say willystretcher !!!!!

He's run out of enemies, apparently. Everything's freakin' battle with this guy, everyone's a threat, going all the way back: Record Company, band members, the press, Warner Bros., his agent, his lawyer, his girfreinds, Paisley Park employees, MTV, YouTube, Controversy, cover versions of his songs, samples, Housequake.com, file sharers, Mayte, Mani, people/movies who curse, record stores, free expression on message boards, movie soundtracks...

Now we've moved on to tattoos, dancing babies and license plates. It's pretty fucking rediculous, it's old and it's tired. I've never seen a guy who wanted to be left alone SOOOO bad do so much to call attention to himslef. It's truly insane, from sequined clothes and ass-revealing pants, stage humping and name changing, Prince's behavior practically screams "Hey! Look at me!", then the guy has the nerve to complain that people talk about him. I guess he did that Super Bowl show so that no one would see it or talk about him.

My wife and I played Prince music at our wedding, where some people gave us cash gifts...hm...wonder if we owe him a cut?

Right now it's fucking EMBARRASSING to be a Prince fan. I suffered through the Lovesexy cover, the butt pants and the name change

If I were to insult, disrespect, Make defamatory statements, consistantly, towards anyone on Prince.org, I would be kicked out.

And may even face criminal charges !!!!!

Free speech has it's limit's


[Edited 11/7/07 7:02am]