GirlBrother said:

You might be onto something there.

BartVanHemelen said:

It looks like Lisa didn't attend Sheila's recent charity bowling event a couple of months ago; even though she was advertised as one of the celebrity guests.

You know... Sheila performing at an anti-gay Christian festival and Prince's comments about gay marriage... I wouldn't be surprised if all their friendships are "strained" at this moment in time.

double post
[Edited 1/10/09 10:16am]

BartVanHemelen said:

Dont call me honey that I am not to you tyvm.

Another you can stop with the personal attacks. The I rule this whatever attitude isn't impressing me one bit. Get angry but the attacks can stop. Move on its just a thread. Geesh
[Edited 1/10/09 3:34am]

well prince did own the family they were just members of his band if he dont want them 2 use the name so be it they cant might have something 2 do with warner u never know dont always jump on prince cuz i dont give a hot damn about paul or susanahh if prince started recording i would care but i havent listening or cared about neither of them since they left the prince fold

Could someone who actually knows provide some context about what "owning" a band name actually means?

For example, we know a "title" cannot be copyrighted which is why there are songs, books, movies etc. with the same name.

We also know there was a band called the "Family" from the 60s or 70s before the Prince side project.

So how exactly does Prince "own" the name? Same with the "The Time"? I mean is it a copyright issue? A business registry issue? I'm looking for the legal context here....I already know that he basically wrote the music and played the albums etc.

kaptainkrunk said:

does your keyboard not have any punctuation keys on it?

kiddo said:

The "shift" key would be particularly useful.

why is this a big deal. we're assuming that prince is mad or piffed about something 20 years ago, but we don't know if things were said recently or something happened recently to create or maintain bad vibes between them, and I also agree, the Family name is a Prince thing and if I were them I would create a fresh start with a new name.

All in all, Family 2.0 is cool and they are still going to get a lot of supporters so whatever.

kiddo said:

if i was in english class i would give a damn about ur comment being that i am not 2 hell wit u if u dont like it pay my cable bill

They should name themselves The artists formerly known as the family boy I'll bet that would piss him off!


[Edited 1/10/09 18:07pm]

Dayclear said:

Dayclear said:

HELL MUTHA FUNKIN' YEAH!!!!! ST. PAUL IF U'RE READING THIS, PUH-LEEEEEZE DO IT!!!

"THE ARTISTS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE FAMILY"!!!!!

It might be kewl if they call themselves "High Fashion" (Formerly The Family.)

In any event Karma will prevail.

kaptainkrunk said:

Well said. Spoken like a true crackhead. Get yo' mama to pay your cable bill AFTER she buy you some schoolin', dig?

kaptainkrunk said:

Let me guess... your age is somewhere between diapers and drivers license, correct?

In case anyone wants to know, Prince took the name "The Family" from Sonny T(hompson)'s band "The Family", which was a band Prince looked up to a lot when he was in high school. Andre Cymone mentioned that this was a band that really influenced him and Prince in his Video Soul interview on BET in 1985. I think I learned that it was Sonny's band from the DMSR book.

kaptainkrunk said:

Do you realise how difficult your post is to read? You're trying to make a point but you can't be bothered to use punctuation. You may as well not contribute at all.

wahclavinet said:

Exactly. Maybe they should have Sonny T in the band. That way they get an excellent bassist/guitarist and get to keep the name!

BartVanHemelen said:

I really think they have a love/hate relationship. I'd consider the fact that they might not be getting along at the moment if it weren't for Prince mentioning them in his recent LA times interview. In the article it says that Wendy and Lisa were a topic of conversation and the way the article reads at least makes it seem as if he was the one that brought up the topic. I don't think he'd do that if they weren't getting along. Of course there's the possibility that he wasn't saying anything nice, but it didn't seem that way in the article.

So nobody has a legal POV about why they can or can't use the name?
BorisfishPaw? L'angeblue?

If P took the name from another band, how can he "own it" Now?? Inquiring minds want to know.

GaryMF said:

I don't have any legal expertise, so I'm only hazarding a guess here. But I think it might be similar to the lawsuit a couple members of Blondie filed when they were not allowed to be part of the band's reunion or the lawsuit that came up over Jefferson Starship (which resulted in them just going by Starship). I don't know if it's just the case of owning the name; I think it's a more complex issue of being responsible for the creative output, look, and concept of the band that had that name. So since Prince wrote the songs, put the band together, directed how they looked, art directed the album, controlled how they toured, etc., they can't go forward with the same concept without him (or his permission).

Again, I could be totally wrong; that's just my (admittedly limited) understanding.

GaryMF said:

Great quesiton
I guess the answer lays with Prince, and since he isnt talking well.... well never know right.

madartista said:

tricky99 said:

Because it's petty.

GaryMF said:

Unfortunately, from a legal perspective, there are a lot of grey areas (under current U.S. laws) when it comes down to a "use of the name" dispute like the one we are discussing here.

That is unless Prince had the foresight to register the name "The Family" as his own. In which case it would be a slam-dunk for Prince, no questions asked.

However - it is doubtful that he did in fact register that name specifically because (as already mentioned) it had formerly been established in the music industry previous to his use of it. In other words, it was risky that he used it in the first place.

As a matter of fact - the prior users of that band name could have easily sued the pants right off him, not only for using it at all, but also for the "damages" he caused by using it. (which may very well be why he stopped working on projects using that name)

Whatever the case, seeing how that name (or some form of it) has already been used at least twice before, specifically as the name of a band, for Wendy (et al) to knowingly use it again, would be to knowingly open themselves up to legal liabilty, from not just one but two prior users of that name. Sound fun?

In one legal case that I recently read about, there was a little known music group called " The Rubberband " which had, even though they were still small-time performers, registered their name with the Feds (USPTO).

When another more well-known group decided to use a very similar name " Booty's Rubber Band ", the original members of The Rubberband objected (in a court of law) to the use of their name and won. The court ruled that the latter use of the name, had effectively wiped-out the reputation of the former - and further ruled that ALL of the profits made by Booty's Rubber Band (under that name) were to be handed over to the rightful owners of the name.

Ironically, Bootsy was still allowed to use the name anyway. Go figure.

A group or band name used for entertainment services is legally known as a Service Mark. However, in some cases it's not necesary to have actually registered the name at all. It may only be necessary to prove that you (or your group) were the originator(s) or founder(s) of that name - *with an associated use. In other words, rights in a group name, a service mark, or a trademark usually derive from priority of use.

This means that typically a prior group, even a small one, can successfully stop a newer (or larger) group from using the same name, *at least in the area of the prior groups reputation.

*Use of a group name as a service mark does not automatically entitle you to use the same name as a trademark for goods.

There have even been cases won by groups who had officially been "broken up" for years, but whom still intended to collect their royalties. (and protect their name for that purpose) So IMO it's never a wise decision to knowingly choose that route.

Bottom line is: exercise a little common sense. (and pick your battles wisely)

schming said:

What's interesting though, aside from the earlier Family group, is that publicly it was Susannah and Paul who were the ones that were "operating" under that name. Prince actually "hid" the fact that he was behind it.

So from a public perspective, it would seem Susannah and Paul should be allowed to continue to try and profit from it.

Same thing with the Time. I never understood how Prince could 'own' the name. Unless it was registered with the USPTO as a service marke with his name next to it. But again I am curious as to how that works.

You're right. If they had a leg to stand on - that would be it - proof that the public did not perceive it as a Prince project. But still - it certainly wouldn't be the path of least resistance. He apparently has made Wendy aware of this already.

And you know, that may be all he needs to do. There is still such a thing as respect. If he asks them not to use it, perhaps they won't out of respect.

But on the other hand, Prince is no dummy when it comes to band politics and the business dealings thereof. Signed contracts (and NDA's) with his bandmates are not uncommon. In other words, public perception or not, there just might be a piece of paper somewhere which states the contrary. Who knows.

I think it's interesting, the way it has unfolded thus far, but I doubt either party wants it to get all that serious, when neither one of them can really lay claim to the originality of the idea/name.

Silly Humans.

What exactly she means by "owns", we can only speculate. But whatever the case, that about sums it up right there.

schming said:

Agreed. This just brought up a question I've always wondered about. If you watch Bands Reunited with Klymaxx they get into who "owns" the name etc.

I just am curious if someone with a legal background could shed light on what it means to "own" a band name.

For example, I am not a lawyer but from what I have read, you copyright a song based on lyrics and melody, not chord progression etc.

So I am just wondering what it means to "own" a name for band.

GaryMF said:

side-note: I loved Bands Reunited! VH1 was on point with programming for a few years there.