TOB said:

Thank you for confirming what I already knew. Prince and Vanity/Denise had a wonderful bond!!!

mediumdry said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

You can't be serious. That might have been true before his passing, but Prince is finally being recognized as the singular musical force of nature that he is. And I don't see that ending any time soon.

.

Unfortunately, it is what I see. Maybe this is in the Netherlands, not outside of it, I don't know. People still talk about David Bowie. Hell, they even mourn Johan Cruijf (Football player, actual football) regularly. But about Prince they are quiet. People like the Beatles, Bob Dylan, various blues legends and jazz people like Miles Davis get mentioned a lot in influences. Even the Beach Boys! Michael Jackson gets mentioned over and over as the greatest entertainer ever.

.

Prince? It has died down. It seems everyone has moved on. The main TV entertainment/news program here has done tribute shows to many people that died. Prince? He got 10 minutes the evening he died and they got the news, with an insulting spoken word "tribute" by a rapper/tv personality, who had to look up information about Prince on wikipedia as he didn't know much about him. After that? hardly anything.

.

He is being mentioned as a sidenote. A wonderful anomaly. But more as curiousity than the main musical influence he might be. It makes me angry, although I might get to the resignation stage of grieve soon...

.

I just hope everything will get released. And I mean all of it. Rehearsals, versions, video, whatever there is, I hope it gets released. So that everyone can choose the parts they like. And soon, while there is still enough interest to make it commercially viable.

.

As much as I feel his music should be in the public domain now that he died (why should others make money of it?), that's not going to happen. So they should do it while they can still make money. Meaning, start this year, with some kind of big box of goodies before christmas and something that will sell (current tour? purple rain expanded remaster?) this summer.

In regards to your position about his music being a part of the public domain right now: If you know and understand anything about Copyright Law depending on the state, in this case Minnesota, his music will not be a part of the public domain for a long time. In California, where I live, a musician's work is not going to be a part of the public domain for 70 years, after a person has passed away. In the case of Michael Jackson, since he passed away on June 25, 2009, it will be approximately sixty three years until his music is a part of the public domain; until that time, other musicians who would like to sample his music in their work will have to contact the estate to do so.

laurarichardson said:

mediumdry said:

Of course, an easy way out is to just make all of the vault public domain, as it should be anyway. There is no longer a reason to give Prince an incentive to create more, as he is dead and cannot create anymore. Copyrights are there to create an incentive to artists to create, so they should be, at most, until death. Unfortunately, we do not live in that world.

--- Are you smoking crack?? Who puts copyrighted material in the public domain!! [...] I do not even have time to bother with rest of the foolishness in your post.

.

Anyone who considers music art more than industry. Copyrights are a necessary evil, but they need to be overhauled in a major way. The way the law now deals with imaginary property is grotesque.

.

I understand there are other opinions on this, but the ideas in the heads of people (and Prince) about how much money should be paid to performers and be paid for media are firmly in the range of what happened in the second half of the 20th century.

.

Mass production, global culture and organised government/nation states as a combination made the short period of millionair (and some approaching billionair) artists (not to speak of industry bigwigs) possible. But the situation has changed a lot.

.

Used to be artists were "sponsored" by rich people, kings and the like. Others were traveling bards and the like. Anything they played and was heard by other could be played by those others afterwards. This is how culture and ideas work, they disseminate.

.

Book printing made writing down ideas and spreading them much more possible. Music notation was created and used to play music from composers where there was popularity.. Copying of books (before printing done by monks mostly) got much faster. And people got a book and started making copies, especially after movable type was introduced. This bothered book makers and artists and eventually lead to copyrights, where the government promised to enforce a monopoly for a short time to creators in order for them to be able to profit from their work, before it would become public domain and would benefit the culture, by being able to be copied, remixed, reworked and given a new lease on live in popular culture.

.

Copyright laws were local things and wildly different in different places. International treaties have made them a much more global thing, although there are still some differences. Currently, in many places, copyright is for the duration of life plus 70 years, which is simply insane. It leads to surreal court cases on what constitutes authorship related to Anne Frank's diary and when "Happy Birthday" was first published.

.

I understand the business reasons behind artists signing away their masters and publishing. (they are an asset that may or may not pay out over time, as opposed to a direct payout) However, why should Michael Jackson benefit from Sly Stone's or The Beatles catalogue? From their art?

.

The means of production are democratized now (downloads), so the enforcement possibility through controlling the means of production doesn't work anymore like it did until in the late 70's (where the DIY culture of Punk started eroding it) and into the late 90's for the more general public. For music especially, the cost of producing studio quality work has dropped to be within reach of almost anyone that wants it.

.

The weird blip in artists fortunes from the 30s/40s to the beginning of this century is, in my opinion, something that won't last. There are so many problems with the system from so many sides... peer-to-peer, the ability for anyone to remix, cut and sample, the increasingly bizarre copyrights and ways of rightsholders to try and stop people from enjoying culture and art in the name of industry/money and the end of the necessity to go through a few gatekeepers (the record labels) to create a good "product", it's all leading to a need to re-evaluate what we are doing.

.

I am firmly in the camp that feels a major rehaul is necessary and the pendulum should swing back to art and culture. The maker culture, copyleft, open source software are all examples of people simply bypassing the current legal framework and I applaud that.

.

The fact that copyrights exist to incentivize artists to produce more but are not doing to by their length and the fact that if an artist dies, the copyright still exists, even though the basis for it no longer exists are, to me, indications that things are not well in the world.

.

Sure, consider it foolish, or on crack. I understand there are other viewpoints, certainly with some merit (if you make copyright end at death, that makes it interesting for people to kill artists, for instance, not a good thing), but I feel that culture and art should be considered more important. Music is, to me, not just product.

.

Feel free to point out the foolishness of the rest of my post(s), a good, informed debate can only improve our thinking, afaic.

journalism16 said:

In regards to your position about his music being a part of the public domain right now: If you know and understand anything about Copyright Law depending on the state, in this case Minnesota, his music will not be a part of the public domain for a long time. In California, where I live, a musician's work is not going to be a part of the public domain for 70 years, after a person has passed away. In the case of Michael Jackson, since he passed away on June 25, 2009, it will be approximately sixty three years until his music is a part of the public domain; until that time, other musicians who would like to sample his music in their work will have to contact the estate to do so.

.

The law(s) you refer to are simply the maximum time possible before the music will be in the public domain. There are no laws that forbid the rights holder from releasing the music in the public domain. There are many different licenses possible.

.

And yes, I feel that copyright laws should be reformed on a global basis and a lot of treaties should be changed internationally.

.

Currently, that's not realistically happening any time soon. But as long as we live in (somewhat) democratic countries, one can dream.

[Edited 7/29/16 5:14am]

mediumdry said:

journalism16 said:

In regards to your position about his music being a part of the public domain right now: If you know and understand anything about Copyright Law depending on the state, in this case Minnesota, his music will not be a part of the public domain for a long time. In California, where I live, a musician's work is not going to be a part of the public domain for 70 years, after a person has passed away. In the case of Michael Jackson, since he passed away on June 25, 2009, it will be approximately sixty three years until his music is a part of the public domain; until that time, other musicians who would like to sample his music in their work will have to contact the estate to do so.

.

The law(s) you refer to are simply the maximum time possible before the music will be in the public domain. There are no laws that forbid the rights holder from releasing the music in the public domain. There are many different licenses possible.

.

And yes, I feel that copyright laws should be reformed on a global basis and a lot of treaties should be changed internationally.

.

Currently, that's not realistically happening any time soon. But as long as we live in (somewhat) democratic countries, one can dream.

[Edited 7/29/16 5:14am]

"There are no laws that forbid the rights holder from releasing the music in the public domain."

Why would a copyright holder do this? In the case of Prince his estate has a hugh tax bill coming. The music is the best means to pay that bill. If his music went into the public domain we would be hearing some idiot rapper remixing and rapping over it. Does anyone think the original music would be kept in tact? Let his family benefit from the music until it does go into the public domain.

luvgirl said:

Wow thank you TOB. I'm smiling from ear to ear right now with this new info. I've always felt that Prince and Denise had such a special romantic connection. They were a one of a kind couple. I have always admired your sister. She is my inspiration and what I aspire to achieve in my faith in Christ one day. She was on fire for the Lord! I remember when I first found out a few years ago that she became a born again Christain, how proud I was of her! You and your family are in my prayers, especially for healing and guidance in your decisions. Thank you so much for sharing this. [Edited 7/25/16 20:54pm]

Me too

I loved Vanity but Denise really has been such an inspiration even in death and I too always felt Prince and Vanity /Denise never ended and I believe they are together today in the afterlife.

mediumdry said:

laurarichardson said:

mediumdry said: --- Are you smoking crack?? Who puts copyrighted material in the public domain!! [...] I do not even have time to bother with rest of the foolishness in your post.

.

Anyone who considers music art more than industry. Copyrights are a necessary evil, but they need to be overhauled in a major way. The way the law now deals with imaginary property is grotesque.

.

I understand there are other opinions on this, but the ideas in the heads of people (and Prince) about how much money should be paid to performers and be paid for media are firmly in the range of what happened in the second half of the 20th century.

.

Mass production, global culture and organised government/nation states as a combination made the short period of millionair (and some approaching billionair) artists (not to speak of industry bigwigs) possible. But the situation has changed a lot.

.

Used to be artists were "sponsored" by rich people, kings and the like. Others were traveling bards and the like. Anything they played and was heard by other could be played by those others afterwards. This is how culture and ideas work, they disseminate.

.

Book printing made writing down ideas and spreading them much more possible. Music notation was created and used to play music from composers where there was popularity.. Copying of books (before printing done by monks mostly) got much faster. And people got a book and started making copies, especially after movable type was introduced. This bothered book makers and artists and eventually lead to copyrights, where the government promised to enforce a monopoly for a short time to creators in order for them to be able to profit from their work, before it would become public domain and would benefit the culture, by being able to be copied, remixed, reworked and given a new lease on live in popular culture.

.

Copyright laws were local things and wildly different in different places. International treaties have made them a much more global thing, although there are still some differences. Currently, in many places, copyright is for the duration of life plus 70 years, which is simply insane. It leads to surreal court cases on what constitutes authorship related to Anne Frank's diary and when "Happy Birthday" was first published.

.

I understand the business reasons behind artists signing away their masters and publishing. (they are an asset that may or may not pay out over time, as opposed to a direct payout) However, why should Michael Jackson benefit from Sly Stone's or The Beatles catalogue? From their art?

.

The means of production are democratized now (downloads), so the enforcement possibility through controlling the means of production doesn't work anymore like it did until in the late 70's (where the DIY culture of Punk started eroding it) and into the late 90's for the more general public. For music especially, the cost of producing studio quality work has dropped to be within reach of almost anyone that wants it.

.

The weird blip in artists fortunes from the 30s/40s to the beginning of this century is, in my opinion, something that won't last. There are so many problems with the system from so many sides... peer-to-peer, the ability for anyone to remix, cut and sample, the increasingly bizarre copyrights and ways of rightsholders to try and stop people from enjoying culture and art in the name of industry/money and the end of the necessity to go through a few gatekeepers (the record labels) to create a good "product", it's all leading to a need to re-evaluate what we are doing.

.

I am firmly in the camp that feels a major rehaul is necessary and the pendulum should swing back to art and culture. The maker culture, copyleft, open source software are all examples of people simply bypassing the current legal framework and I applaud that.

.

The fact that copyrights exist to incentivize artists to produce more but are not doing to by their length and the fact that if an artist dies, the copyright still exists, even though the basis for it no longer exists are, to me, indications that things are not well in the world.

.

Sure, consider it foolish, or on crack. I understand there are other viewpoints, certainly with some merit (if you make copyright end at death, that makes it interesting for people to kill artists, for instance, not a good thing), but I feel that culture and art should be considered more important. Music is, to me, not just product.

.

Feel free to point out the foolishness of the rest of my post(s), a good, informed debate can only improve our thinking, afaic.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html

The only reason you think copyrighted works should be dumped into the public domain is so no one has to pay the copyright owner anything. It is all about getting something for free or reusing someone eles's work because you cannot come up with anything original of your own.

"

e fact that copyrights exist to incentivize artists to produce more but are not doing to by their length and the fact that if an artist dies, the copyright still exists, even though the basis for it no longer exists are, to me, indications that things are not well in the world."

Things are bad in this world and the bad has nothing to do with copyrights.

If I as an artist want to leave my copyrigthed work to my cats that is my choice it is my work.

Rather for the cats to get the money then some no-talent that is using or misusing my work and my cat or family is not getting any of the proceeds from the no-talent's appropriation of my work.

laurarichardson said:

"There are no laws that forbid the rights holder from releasing the music in the public domain."

Why would a copyright holder do this? In the case of Prince his estate has a hugh tax bill coming. The music is the best means to pay that bill. If his music went into the public domain we would be hearing some idiot rapper remixing and rapping over it. Does anyone think the original music would be kept in tact? Let his family benefit from the music until it does go into the public domain.

.

Why would anyone give money to a charity? They don't benefit from it... Music is not something that has only monetary value. And some idiot rappers are quite good. Even Prince himself sampled stuff and re-used things. Like the James Brown sample in Get Off, the Fishbone sample in Billy Jack Bitch and many others.

.

The way the law is currently, it is not even possible to release an album like Paul's Boutique anymore because of the costs of the licenses. Is that an idiot rapper album? Critics seems to disagree with that. Fact is, current copyright laws go against free artistic expression.

.

laurarichardson said:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html

The only reason you think copyrighted works should be dumped into the public domain is so no one has to pay the copyright owner anything. It is all about getting something for free or reusing someone eles's work because you cannot come up with anything original of your own.

"

e fact that copyrights exist to incentivize artists to produce more but are not doing to by their length and the fact that if an artist dies, the copyright still exists, even though the basis for it no longer exists are, to me, indications that things are not well in the world."

Things are bad in this world and the bad has nothing to do with copyrights.

If I as an artist want to leave my copyrigthed work to my cats that is my choice it is my work.

Rather for the cats to get the money then some no-talent that is using or misusing my work and my cat or family is not getting any of the proceeds from the no-talent's appropriation of my work.

.

Nice of you to tell me why I want something or what I think. You are getting it wrong though. By having copyrights in their current form, it stops artists from creating new art, based on previous art. It still allows, fortunately, to use, within reason, chord progressions and sounds. Recent court cases against Led Zeppelin (fortunately that was thrown out) and Robin Thicke (that was inexplicably won) show that the situation is getting more ridiculous.

.

By the way, I do realize as well, that you can still create something based on other works, you just can't sell it. The point is, art is cultural as well as a product. The law, as is (and as you seem to do), focuses on the product part of it. I feel that the balance between the cultural and the product side of things is currently not in a healthy place. You (and Prince, when he was alive) feel differently, it seems. You don't seem to acknowledge though that there is merit on the cultural side of things.

.

I do wonder though, if Prince ever paid for samples he used in his many albums. Specifically the opening of the Lovesexy album, the "bizarre" from the Mother's of Invention that he used in multiple tracks and so on. I'd ask Bart, but I'm not sure if he'd know.

.

Suffice it to say, sampling and re-using doesn't mean you are a no-talent hack that is just spongeing of other peoples creativity. Prince did it, and I wouldn't call him a no-talent hack. Not every sampling person makes Can't Touch This or Ice Ice Baby, you know.

GirlBrother said:

wonder505 said:

Im talking about the exes. Just humanizing the situation and putting myself in Prince's place. I dont mind Sheila too much as shes been his friend for 30 years and was contunuosly touring and always highlighted songs she did with Prince. Im not sure how I feel about Susannah's tshirt. Is this going to charity?

I don't believe either is donating to charity. That's only half the issue though. I get that Susannah isn't mega-rich. I understand she needs to make money. This just seems too soon though. Sheila?... I don't know what to think. She is a star. She'll have money. She's toured with a Beatle, not just Prince. Does she need to use his name to sweeten the pill of her holiday packages? It's just icky to me.

Before Prince died, Susannah shared the story of how the song Starfish & Coffee began. 99% of it was a real story from her & Wendy's life of an autistic girl. She is co-writer and I have no issue with her making a T -shirt of of it.

But after she shared her story, someone else tried to capitalize on it and that is where she stepped in a did her own. So I have no issue with it. I would rather buy a Starfish & Coffee Tshirt from her than someone else.

Van Jones has been Princing things a lot too though...

OldFriends4Sale said:

GirlBrother said:

wonder505 said: I don't believe either is donating to charity. That's only half the issue though. I get that Susannah isn't mega-rich. I understand she needs to make money. This just seems too soon though. Sheila?... I don't know what to think. She is a star. She'll have money. She's toured with a Beatle, not just Prince. Does she need to use his name to sweeten the pill of her holiday packages? It's just icky to me.

Before Prince died, Susannah shared the story of how the song Starfish & Coffee began. 99% of it was a real story from her & Wendy's life of an autistic girl. She is co-writer and I have no issue with her making a T -shirt of of it.

But after she shared her story, someone else tried to capitalize on it and that is where she stepped in a did her own. So I have no issue with it. I would rather buy a Starfish & Coffee Tshirt from her than someone else.

Actually, the person making the shirts started putting them out years ago. They have another one that reads "Snare Drum Pounds on the 2 and 4".

(There is usually no copyright infringment if you use only a few words from a song.)

These T-shirts just jumped in sales after Prince died and that is when she saw the shirt and decided to make them herself.

She later posted that some money from sales would go to charities for autisim.

The charity angle makes me for more inclined to by one. Otherwise, it does just seem opportunistic.

TOB said:

GeniusLuv said:

WOW! This thread is mind blowing. I was such a fan of Denise's and of course Prince as well. If brother TOB, your still around, reading this, God bless you and your family. All the peace and love to you getting through this diffficult time dealing with your huge loss. I feel (in my heart) that her and Prince are now 2gether again..eternally, something i gathered by Denise's interviews that she wanted, to finally be reunited with Prince again.

.

It always seemed to me (and from what she said in her magazine interviews and book) Prince was truly the only man she ever really loved and maybe this was Gods way of reconciling them. I guess i'd just love to think that they had some kind of contact up until the time she died as well..again, just my gut feeling

God bless. xx

I had always assumed they were not in contact and had never bothered to ask, until...

"Name Dropping" is an art form, for those that actually need to. Both Denise and DeBorah didn't need to and often spoke to me as they would speak to each other, both assumed I knew certain things and had been informed because of my close relationship with the other.

A "name" dropped by these two was solely for context and continuity for the story they were telling.

One day Denise talked me into going out to lunch and during a conversation she mentioned something that made me respond with, "U 2 R still talking?"

I could tell that my question caught her off guard, but she knew it was relevant to what she had just said, and she reluctantly said “Yes.”

I recently found a second handwritten letter that I have reason to believe to be from Prince, which appears to be a proposal/offer for them to have an understanding that would make it okay for them to be able to think about the other in a special way.

Intimate, is the only description that actually fits, but it also was a bit lyrical.

Someday I’ll post it word for word or post a pic of it as I did the other he sent her while she was in the hospital.

Does anyone still have a copy of the pic of the note mentioned? Thanks

simm0061 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Before Prince died, Susannah shared the story of how the song Starfish & Coffee began. 99% of it was a real story from her & Wendy's life of an autistic girl. She is co-writer and I have no issue with her making a T -shirt of of it.

But after she shared her story, someone else tried to capitalize on it and that is where she stepped in a did her own. So I have no issue with it. I would rather buy a Starfish & Coffee Tshirt from her than someone else.

Actually, the person making the shirts started putting them out years ago. They have another one that reads "Snare Drum Pounds on the 2 and 4".

(There is usually no copyright infringment if you use only a few words from a song.)

These T-shirts just jumped in sales after Prince died and that is when she saw the shirt and decided to make them herself.

She later posted that some money from sales would go to charities for autisim.

The charity angle makes me for more inclined to by one. Otherwise, it does just seem opportunistic.

I don't think it's easy to subscribe 'opportunistic' to a lot of this stuff...
Especially since anyone from the 1980s and then the wives did something or said something they were being accused of stuff.

Life is short, get the messages that point 2 paisley park/uptown/erotic city out there.

mediumdry said:

laurarichardson said:

"There are no laws that forbid the rights holder from releasing the music in the public domain."

Why would a copyright holder do this? In the case of Prince his estate has a hugh tax bill coming. The music is the best means to pay that bill. If his music went into the public domain we would be hearing some idiot rapper remixing and rapping over it. Does anyone think the original music would be kept in tact? Let his family benefit from the music until it does go into the public domain.

.

Why would anyone give money to a charity? They don't benefit from it... Music is not something that has only monetary value. And some idiot rappers are quite good. Even Prince himself sampled stuff and re-used things. Like the James Brown sample in Get Off, the Fishbone sample in Billy Jack Bitch and many others.

.

The way the law is currently, it is not even possible to release an album like Paul's Boutique anymore because of the costs of the licenses. Is that an idiot rapper album? Critics seems to disagree with that. Fact is, current copyright laws go against free artistic expression.

.

laurarichardson said:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/PublicDomain.html

The only reason you think copyrighted works should be dumped into the public domain is so no one has to pay the copyright owner anything. It is all about getting something for free or reusing someone eles's work because you cannot come up with anything original of your own.

"

e fact that copyrights exist to incentivize artists to produce more but are not doing to by their length and the fact that if an artist dies, the copyright still exists, even though the basis for it no longer exists are, to me, indications that things are not well in the world."

Things are bad in this world and the bad has nothing to do with copyrights.

If I as an artist want to leave my copyrigthed work to my cats that is my choice it is my work.

Rather for the cats to get the money then some no-talent that is using or misusing my work and my cat or family is not getting any of the proceeds from the no-talent's appropriation of my work.

.

Nice of you to tell me why I want something or what I think. You are getting it wrong though. By having copyrights in their current form, it stops artists from creating new art, based on previous art. It still allows, fortunately, to use, within reason, chord progressions and sounds. Recent court cases against Led Zeppelin (fortunately that was thrown out) and Robin Thicke (that was inexplicably won) show that the situation is getting more ridiculous.

.

By the way, I do realize as well, that you can still create something based on other works, you just can't sell it. The point is, art is cultural as well as a product. The law, as is (and as you seem to do), focuses on the product part of it. I feel that the balance between the cultural and the product side of things is currently not in a healthy place. You (and Prince, when he was alive) feel differently, it seems. You don't seem to acknowledge though that there is merit on the cultural side of things.

.

I do wonder though, if Prince ever paid for samples he used in his many albums. Specifically the opening of the Lovesexy album, the "bizarre" from the Mother's of Invention that he used in multiple tracks and so on. I'd ask Bart, but I'm not sure if he'd know.

.

Suffice it to say, sampling and re-using doesn't mean you are a no-talent hack that is just spongeing of other peoples creativity. Prince did it, and I wouldn't call him a no-talent hack. Not every sampling person makes Can't Touch This or Ice Ice Baby, you know.

"By having copyrights in their current form, it stops artists from creating new art, based on previous art."

In my opinion and the law as well this is utter crap. If an artist wants to create something then go and create something orignal. Legally you can actually use a certain portion of someone else's work. A certain amount of notes or chords can be used without copyright infringement so that kind of kills your argugment.

Nothing is stopping artist from sampling just do not build your entire carreer off it.

I am pretty sure Prince paid for his samples or used just enough so he did not have to pay. I do not recall Prince recording an entire album of materail sampling whole songs from other artist as many rappers have done and will continue to do so.

I draw and paint and I can tell you if someone copied something I did and then had the gall to try and sell it as their own work. All hell would break loose. It is the lowest thing you can do as a creative person.

If you cannot come up with anything origianl ever you are not being creative. In fact you may not even be a creative person at all. I actually think the music industry is now filled with people who really have no interest in being creative and really do not care about music.

They really just want to be famous without having the talent or putting in the work.

-----------

"By having copyrights in their current form, it stops artists from creating new art, based on previous art."

In my opinion and the law as well this is utter crap. If an artist wants to create something then go and create something original. Legally you can actually use a certain portion of someone else's work. A certain amount of notes or chords can be used without copyright infringement so that kind of kills your argument.

Nothing is stopping artist from sampling just do not build your entire career off it.

I am pretty sure Prince paid for his samples or used just enough so he did not have to pay. I do not recall Prince recording an entire album of material sampling whole songs from other artist as many rappers have done and will continue to do so.

I draw and paint and I can tell you if someone copied something I did and then had the gall to try and sell it as their own work. All hell would break loose. It is the lowest thing you can do as a creative person.

If you cannot come up with anything original ever you are not being creative. In fact you may not even be a creative person at all. I actually think the music industry is now filled with people who really have no interest in being creative and really do not care about music.

They really just want to be famous without having the talent or putting in the work.

simm0061 said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Before Prince died, Susannah shared the story of how the song Starfish & Coffee began. 99% of it was a real story from her & Wendy's life of an autistic girl. She is co-writer and I have no issue with her making a T -shirt of of it.

But after she shared her story, someone else tried to capitalize on it and that is where she stepped in a did her own. So I have no issue with it. I would rather buy a Starfish & Coffee Tshirt from her than someone else.

Actually, the person making the shirts started putting them out years ago. They have another one that reads "Snare Drum Pounds on the 2 and 4".

(There is usually no copyright infringment if you use only a few words from a song.)

These T-shirts just jumped in sales after Prince died and that is when she saw the shirt and decided to make them herself.

She later posted that some money from sales would go to charities for autisim.

The charity angle makes me for more inclined to by one. Otherwise, it does just seem opportunistic.

Susannah just posted on FB (It was a rather odd and evasive msg) to clarify that no proceeds will go to charity for the shirt sales. So, there's that.

No letter yet?

morningsong said:

No letter yet?

Not yet but I am waiting

simm0061 said:

She is not donating to charity. She made that clear on her facebook

paulludvig said:

simm0061 said:

Actually, the person making the shirts started putting them out years ago. They have another one that reads "Snare Drum Pounds on the 2 and 4".

(There is usually no copyright infringment if you use only a few words from a song.)

These T-shirts just jumped in sales after Prince died and that is when she saw the shirt and decided to make them herself.

She later posted that some money from sales would go to charities for autisim.

The charity angle makes me for more inclined to by one. Otherwise, it does just seem opportunistic.

She is not donating to charity. She made that clear on her facebook

Yes. I made that correction in an above post after I saw her FB posting.

Vashtix said:

morningsong said:

No letter yet?

Not yet but I am waiting

I wonder if someone stepped in and bought what he had? We'll see nothing.

morningsong said:

Vashtix said:

Not yet but I am waiting

I wonder if someone stepped in and bought what he had? We'll see nothing.

I was thinking that too

I really hope he did not do that

I would like to see some Prince and Vanity things; not popular by some but I really believe they were special to one another. I would like some pics, notes, they shared over the years

Vashtix said:

morningsong said:

I wonder if someone stepped in and bought what he had? We'll see nothing.

I was thinking that too

I really hope he did not do that

I would like to see some Prince and Vanity things; not popular by some but I really believe they were special to one another. I would like some pics, notes, they shared over the years

I think it would be kind of nice to see, maybe. I know it's personal, maybe just a tiny glimpse.

morningsong said:

Vashtix said:

I was thinking that too

I really hope he did not do that

I would like to see some Prince and Vanity things; not popular by some but I really believe they were special to one another. I would like some pics, notes, they shared over the years

I think it would be kind of nice to see, maybe. I know it's personal, maybe just a tiny glimpse.

I agree and pics would be nice too