OldFriends4Sale said:

Mumio said:

Well, the child he had with M1 made him a dad.

It's one thing for Mayte to talk about it but for her to talk about 'Prince as a dad' when what where does she fit into this, seeing for the longest this was not talked about between 'the parents'...

This chick here is reaching...

Agreed. She may have had some discussions with him or Mayte about the pregnancy - although I don't see Prince having those kinds of personal conversations with her - or witnessed him setting up the "nest" at PP - ie: the playroom - however, I don't see her having enough involvement in their daily life to discuss details. Also, it's not appropriate to place herself in that conversation.

minnesoundlvr said:

Genesia said:

Ummm...because we don't live under communism?

For heaven's sake, she is IN the photograph. Does she have any rights under the law? Perhaps an org member/lawyer could shed some light. After all, Parke was paid to be Prince's photographer. He has his book and other ways to monetize the photos, like exhibits, etc. I'm just saying that it would not have killed him to just let this thing go about this ONE photo. Surely, he has THOUSANDS of Prince photos which are a veritable lifelong treasure trove. Apparently Prince was generous enough to allow him to have ownership of his photos, so maybe he could be a bit more generous in this instance. Whatever little money Kim might make from that photo will not affect him AT ALL.

The problem Steve has with Kim is, that she promised him not to sell it and then she did. He explained in his FB post that, if she had asked, he could've arranged something, but she didn't. She just does whatever the hell she wants and then tries to make up an excuse by saying: "This was a gross misunderstanding."

She can go suck it, I'm done with her, I didn't care about the book, that was fine with me, but the things she pulls now?

minnesoundlvr said:

Genesia said:

Ummm...because we don't live under communism?

For heaven's sake, she is IN the photograph. Does she have any rights under the law? Perhaps an org member/lawyer could shed some light. After all, Parke was paid to be Prince's photographer. He has his book and other ways to monetize the photos, like exhibits, etc. I'm just saying that it would not have killed him to just let this thing go about this ONE photo. Surely, he has THOUSANDS of Prince photos which are a veritable lifelong treasure trove. Apparently Prince was generous enough to allow him to have ownership of his photos, so maybe he could be a bit more generous in this instance. Whatever little money Kim might make from that photo will not affect him AT ALL.

Do you work for free? Why is it you expect him to work for free? He did the work to obtain those photos he owns them. Why should he give Kim something for free, when she is making money on it?

SoulAlive said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

I just looked at the auction site and wondered how one comes to possess

7 pairs of P sox and some hankies?

Did she do his laundry?

Well....another thought is - depending on how tight she was with Mayte, she may have been given the socks and hankies by her, seeing as it appears (based on pics of Mayte's attempt to auction off his clothes prior to his death) that Mayte left with a bunch of his personal items - outfits, earring cuffs, jewelry, etc. So, she may have said, eh, I've got enough good stuff...you can have these Total speculation on my part, but sadly a feasable explanation

minnesoundlvr said:

Genesia said:

Ummm...because we don't live under communism?

For heaven's sake, she is IN the photograph. Does she have any rights under the law? Perhaps an org member/lawyer could shed some light. After all, Parke was paid to be Prince's photographer. He has his book and other ways to monetize the photos, like exhibits, etc. I'm just saying that it would not have killed him to just let this thing go about this ONE photo. Surely, he has THOUSANDS of Prince photos which are a veritable lifelong treasure trove. Apparently Prince was generous enough to allow him to have ownership of his photos, so maybe he could be a bit more generous in this instance. Whatever little money Kim might make from that photo will not affect him AT ALL.

From my understanding there was some kind of communication between Park & Kim, but Kim continued to do something with the photos after the communication. Also she credited herself as 'copyright' I believe when it should have been Steve Parke

violetcrush said:

SoulAlive said:

Well....another thought is - depending on how tight she was with Mayte, she may have been given the socks and hankies by her, seeing as it appears (based on pics of Mayte's attempt to auction off his clothes prior to his death) that Mayte left with a bunch of his personal items - outfits, earring cuffs, jewelry, etc. So, she may have said, eh, I've got enough good stuff...you can have these Total speculation on my part, but sadly a feasable explanation

Underpants.

onlyforaminute said:

violetcrush said:

Well....another thought is - depending on how tight she was with Mayte, she may have been given the socks and hankies by her, seeing as it appears (based on pics of Mayte's attempt to auction off his clothes prior to his death) that Mayte left with a bunch of his personal items - outfits, earring cuffs, jewelry, etc. So, she may have said, eh, I've got enough good stuff...you can have these Total speculation on my part, but sadly a feasable explanation

Underpants.

Yeah, that was terrible on her part. I get the spiteful feelings, but she really made some poor choices back then. Tommy Lee (really??), Hollywood Ex's, the auction, mocking Prince, etc. Bad form all around....

OldFriends4Sale said:

minnesoundlvr said:

For heaven's sake, she is IN the photograph. Does she have any rights under the law? Perhaps an org member/lawyer could shed some light. After all, Parke was paid to be Prince's photographer. He has his book and other ways to monetize the photos, like exhibits, etc. I'm just saying that it would not have killed him to just let this thing go about this ONE photo. Surely, he has THOUSANDS of Prince photos which are a veritable lifelong treasure trove. Apparently Prince was generous enough to allow him to have ownership of his photos, so maybe he could be a bit more generous in this instance. Whatever little money Kim might make from that photo will not affect him AT ALL.

From my understanding there was some kind of communication between Park & Kim, but Kim continued to do something with the photos after the communication. Also she credited herself as 'copyright' I believe when it should have been Steve Parke

If the "copyright" information is true, she is wrong for that. Did you read that somewhere? If so, do you have a link?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Kim's behavior is shady.

The End.

it always comes down to the same thing..what Would Prince say or feel about this....kind of like what would Jesus do...

PennyPurple said:

minnesoundlvr said:

For heaven's sake, she is IN the photograph. Does she have any rights under the law? Perhaps an org member/lawyer could shed some light. After all, Parke was paid to be Prince's photographer. He has his book and other ways to monetize the photos, like exhibits, etc. I'm just saying that it would not have killed him to just let this thing go about this ONE photo. Surely, he has THOUSANDS of Prince photos which are a veritable lifelong treasure trove. Apparently Prince was generous enough to allow him to have ownership of his photos, so maybe he could be a bit more generous in this instance. Whatever little money Kim might make from that photo will not affect him AT ALL.

Do you work for free? Why is it you expect him to work for free? He did the work to obtain those photos he owns them. Why should he give Kim something for free, when she is making money on it?

I reject the "work for free" analogy. From my perspective, Kim's use of that one photo does not cost him a dime. In fact, as I said earlier, it might even help to sell books.

minnesoundlvr said:

PennyPurple said:

Do you work for free? Why is it you expect him to work for free? He did the work to obtain those photos he owns them. Why should he give Kim something for free, when she is making money on it?

I reject the "work for free" analogy. From my perspective, Kim's use of that one photo does not cost him a dime. In fact, as I said earlier, it might even help to sell books.

Might not cost him a dime, but she is making $$ doing it on his dime.

PennyPurple said:

minnesoundlvr said:

I reject the "work for free" analogy. From my perspective, Kim's use of that one photo does not cost him a dime. In fact, as I said earlier, it might even help to sell books.

Might not cost him a dime, but she is making $$ doing it on his dime.

And, HE is making money from HER image in that photo with Prince. That's why I think he should have let this go. But, we don't need to agree on this point.

violetcrush said:

onlyforaminute said:

Underpants.

Yeah, that was terrible on her part. I get the spiteful feelings, but she really made some poor choices back then. Tommy Lee (really??), Hollywood Ex's, the auction, mocking Prince, etc. Bad form all around....

She had a lot of stuff if I remember, they sit on the same board and are probably friendly if not friends. Not a stretch.

minnesoundlvr said:

PennyPurple said:

Might not cost him a dime, but she is making $$ doing it on his dime.

And, HE is making money from HER image in that photo with Prince. That's why I think he should have let this go. But, we don't need to agree on this point.

No one is buy that image because of Kim's inclusion.

minnesoundlvr said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

From my understanding there was some kind of communication between Park & Kim, but Kim continued to do something with the photos after the communication. Also she credited herself as 'copyright' I believe when it should have been Steve Parke

If the "copyright" information is true, she is wrong for that. Did you read that somewhere? If so, do you have a link?

It is true, because they are Steve Parkes

I was on a Vanity fan page and someone had pictures of Prince with his mother, and Vanity and they wrote across the photo their name as copywrite. Of course none of the photos were theirs. This is the same thing Kim was doing.

OldFriends4Sale said:

minnesoundlvr said:

If the "copyright" information is true, she is wrong for that. Did you read that somewhere? If so, do you have a link?

It is true, because they are Steve Parkes

I was on a Vanity fan page and someone had pictures of Prince with his mother, and Vanity and they wrote across the photo their name as copywrite. Of course none of the photos were theirs. This is the same thing Kim was doing.

If you have a photo where Kim actually did this on Parke's photo, please share. Otherwise, your claim is just hearsay.

minnesoundlvr said:

It's not OK to steal someone else's work and make it your own and then sell it as your own. Why anybody is making excuses for that, is beyond me. ?

That's like stealing a Prince song and making it your own. ? Prince wouldn't stand for it, and neither would the Estate. Heck youtube videos that people have of him can't even be posted...Heck they even sued over that little kid singing and dancing to a Prince song, didn't they?

minnesoundlvr said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

It is true, because they are Steve Parkes

I was on a Vanity fan page and someone had pictures of Prince with his mother, and Vanity and they wrote across the photo their name as copywrite. Of course none of the photos were theirs. This is the same thing Kim was doing.

If you have a photo where Kim actually did this on Parke's photo, please share. Otherwise, your claim is just hearsay.

,,,

[Edited 2/1/19 17:11pm]

I can see why she wants to use this rare photo of her plaiting Prince's hair, just as Parke has used it to promote his book. I hope they can reach agreeable terms.

minnesoundlvr said:

I can see why she wants to use this rare photo of her plaiting Prince's hair, just as Parke has used it to promote his book. I hope they can reach agreeable terms.

It's all on Steve's terms, not 'their' terms.

PennyPurple said:

minnesoundlvr said:

I can see why she wants to use this rare photo of her plaiting Prince's hair, just as Parke has used it to promote his book. I hope they can reach agreeable terms.

It's all on Steve's terms, not 'their' terms.

It takes two people to reach an agreement.

minnesoundlvr said:

PennyPurple said:

It's all on Steve's terms, not 'their' terms.

It takes two people to reach an agreement.

Well, I guess it's fair to say that Kim fucked up. I don't see an agreement happening here, since she lied to him and sold his picture without his permission.

[Edited 2/1/19 17:40pm]

minnesoundlvr said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Well, I guess it's fair to say that Kim fucked up. I don't see an agreement happening here, since she lied to him and sold his picture without his permission.

[Edited 2/1/19 17:40pm]

Yeah, they don't need to reach an agreement, since it's only Steve's.

minnesoundlvr said:

Kim using the photo is like me taking copies of a painting and signing it and selling it. I'd have to pay for license to do that. That's what copyright laws are for. Steve let her use the photo for her book only (agreement) and she went beyond that. As mentioned before, she was asked to stop, gave assurances that she did, and then continued to sell the photo. Three strikes.

.

Apparently even Mayte chimed in on auctioning his hair on Steve's page. He recently did a photo shoot of her for some magazine. It'll be interesting to see if they mend fences before her book comes out.....if it ever does.

minnesoundlvr said:

I can see why she wants to use this rare photo of her plaiting Prince's hair, just as Parke has used it to promote his book. I hope they can reach agreeable terms.

Is Kim your Auntie?