tmo1965 said:

It is if the song is unreleased. Supposedly, Redheaded Stepchild was the song used in the alleged spoof.

tmo1965 said:

Exactly and I don't understand why they conceded though. I can sense that the owner of that site is all upset and probably now collecting thoughts here but I don't think seeking an attorney won't hurt. Now if they were using the gallery as a profit that is another issue...

PurpleCharm said:

I don't know if performing a song before a live televised audience counts as a release or not and I also don't know the details of what happened in this particular case. Generally speaking spoofs are legal.

wonder505 said:

You totally missed my point. Prince doesn't make money here. There is no fee paid to be a member here that goes to Prince's pockets. This is not the NPGMC (which I never joined, in case you were wondering). Ain't no official Prince stuff sold here.


I still don't see where this figures into not spending money on him. I love Prince's music. Can't help it. He is a fascinating person. AND an ungrateful asshole. Is that incorrect? I am not paying for anymore of his music or concert tickets or anything else. You can pay him for shitting on you if you like.



Prince made the decision to dis his fans. That's why I'm mad at Prince. He stopped being as big a jerk for a time and reeled some folks back in (me included) and now he's up to that same old shit he pulled in the 90s. I stopped buying his shit then for some years also. So did a lot of other people apparently and that I think is the reason he took some financial blows then. he lightened up because of money (just my opinion).


Personally, I'd rather buy the music and not the bullshit. So I'll go to 'hustle-man' and get my fix. Prince won't see a dime.





This "prince-world' stuff bothers me. None of us, including you is in "Prince-world". As far as most of the people who knew him "Prince-world" has a population of 1.

It sounds like something special happened here, because other sites have been able to use a lot of copyrighted material without a problem.

If it's a new fanphobic phase from Prince, then it's really too bad he sees things this way but not totally out of character, eh? He has this on again, off again love/hate relationship. The last few lawsuits I remember were about people who went the extra yard - for instance, folks putting mp3s of Celebration recordings on the net and so on.

I'm not worried about the Org though. For a long time, this site has been here for the fans. And it's been cautious. The only reason Prince would want a site like the Org out of the picture is for him to open his own alternative and he seems to have abondoned that with the closing of NPGMC.... well unless something else is now in the works.

Look, this has been going on a very long time now. Why act all surprised and hurt?

Princefams is a great site, and we can all respect that people involved put a huge amount of effort into running it. However, it shouldn't be news to anyone here that (a) you can't go around posting images on your site that are owned by someone else, and (b) Prince, in common with many other public figures and entertainers, wants to control his image as much as possible, and that includes having his legal people threatening fansites that choose to abuse his copyright (no matter their intentions).

Personally I've always thought it was foolish of Prince to go after fansites and fan magazines with such vitriol, but there you have it. Without these fans, Prince's career would arguably have evaporated long ago. As imbecilic and ridiculous as it is though, it is his right to pursue this and the stance regarding Princefams is entirely consistent with his policy towards fansites over the years. There's no point in crying about it. If the fan community had any balls, we would have all shut down ALL fansites in protest the last time his legal folk were shutting down fansites left right and centre. It didn't happen then, and nothing is gonna happen now. So disregard foolish notions of petitions etc, please.

alwayslate said:

First of all, I don't believe Prince is shitting on me. If I did, not only would I stop buying his stuff, but unlike you I would also stop actively participating on his websites. That's just me and that's what I mean by Prince world. Why would I devote any time to a person that I believe is a horrible individual who does not care and treats his fans like shit. I can't even fathom doing that. What you do with your life is up to you, but I can't help but think, do you not having anything better to do but to devote time on a man you claim is abusive to his you?? We all know that in reality a lot of celebrities we know turn out to be not so nice people, but on top of that a musician who also you claim does not care about fans at all? We can agree to disagree on the subject but I will always remain perplexed on this hold Prince has on people who hate him and they believe does not care about them as fans.
[Edited 12/31/06 12:42pm]

Stymie said:

It DOES matter that he's a public figure. He has chosen to make his living in a very particular way. As a result, he has fans. Every time he shoots a music video, he is reaffirming that he's part of that game. His pictures are gonna be on the internet. He may have every legal right to ask that certain things be removed. That doesn't make it a positive thing.

There is no contradiciton between thinking that he's a musical genius, and even liking lots of other things about him (if he weren't a musician, I'd pay to see him do stand-up), but calling him out on his bullshit. I appreciate his art more when I recognize him as a multi-faceted actual human being, and human beings gots ISSUES. Prince? ISSUES. He's a control freak. And sometimes that affects his fans (those people that he courted when he made those music videos). And they have a right to be irritated, and to say so.

I think that to NOT say anything is the epitome of what he claims he doesn't want: super-fammy idol worship.

How sad I'll still visit Princefams though.

minneapolisgenius said:

I checked out your site cafepress, I love the lotus stuff,as I am a avid yoga fan and have been doing yoga for many years. I also was not even aware of prince fam, who knew?

If Prince doesnt care about or want the "promotion" and/or attention he would get
from such sites, again, its his business.

If its because of physical insecurity or
financial reasons ,that would indicate were his head is at.

ufoclub said:

I'm sorry to read this, but I'm not surprised. Prince is a complete and utter idiot. Who the hell does he think has been supporting him since he decided to become a professional prat (since the "Slave"-on-cheek era)?

thedribbler said:

Yes. It is ethical of him to determine how his image is being used.

Is it a gesture of friendship to those who have supported him with time, talent and treasure over the years? No.

namepeace said:

Nicely summed up.

namepeace said:

...when profit is involved...thats the only ground he really has...since he is making a living off of his public persona he really doesnt have much legal control over it (unless someone else is trying to make a profit)...

this is just another example of prince being a bully...nothing more, nothing less.

xplnyrslf said:

ladygirl99 said:

I don't know after reading the comments here! Is there anybody on this board that can really say what's going on with the other sites? Anybody that can inform us on who is forbidding what?

Is the Prince.org already under attack? Did Prince, his management or anybody elese legally threatened the administrators here? Please fill me in on this!

Because otherwise I don't think that dissin' and insulting Prince will benefit this excellent site. As far as I know, Prince has left this site in peace until' now (corect me if I'm wrong)..

I posted this before and I'll do it again: What is not allowed? Which pics? All pics? Discussions on the man and his music?

BTW the law clearly states: "Every person has the exclusive copyright of himself unless he legally permits its use by a third party". Prince CAN forbid a site that "acts in his name". He owns the Prince trademark, the 3121 trademark and the Symbol trademark. So if he wishes, he can force somebody to stop! For example, if I publish a site on Frank Sinatra, the Sinatra family and its legal team can forbid that!

Sorry, guyz/girlz, "Dura Lex Sed Lex" (the Law can be hard but it is THE LAW).

So wait and see!

BTW, a very happy 2007 and may all of your wishes come true!

Imperator said:

Prince.org is NOT under attack. This is about another Prince fansite, princefams.com.

Happy New Year to you and everyone on this site!
[Edited 12/31/06 17:32pm]

He's within his rights legally and ethically to protect his copyright regardless of profit. In fact, from his standpoint its the fan sites that are being unethical by infringing his copyright. The problem lies in a goodwill gesture as Namepeace pointed out. Some of us feel that as a public figure who benefits from free advertisement, that hes being foolish, which I agree with. The law is on his side on this issue ( although there is fair use) but the motivation behind it somewhat mean spirited. Prince doesn't own all the images, so he cant demand that the site take down images that are are in the public domain or copyrighted to others. Also, goodwill works both ways. As long as the site isn't trading on his image and making money, I dont see the problem. Its just a fan site with pictures and a discussion forum and nothing more. There are lots of unauthorised fan sites of stars, and I dont recall other artists kicking up such a fuss over a few pictures. If they were long lens pictures of private situations, like you have in tabloid papers I'd understand but most of them are concert and studio pictures. For someone who sees the Internet as a place where artists benefit from greater autonomy over their music its a shame that he's policing the use of his image like this. Freedom for him but not the fans, lol.

..
[Edited 12/31/06 18:15pm]

LleeLlee said:

but how else do you draw the line between fair use and copyright? once in court wouldn't prince have to prove that he his ability to receive monetary compensation is being damaged?

okay and once again pick on the little guy!

I looked this up:

Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals

You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.

Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.

Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases.

ufoclub said:

see, thats what i thought...and one can't call a concert a "private" affair. unless there are some candid photos taken of prince it doesn't look like he has much ground to complain. furthermore, if prince himself doesn't have the copyright to the pictures, a judge would throw that mother out with a quickness...that is unless prince is able to get the original copyright owners to be a part of the lawsuit...

ufoclub said:

Wait a minute. . .you mean to tell me that paparazzi get "photograpic releases" from their subjects. Or do they fall under "fair use", too?

sosgemini said:

That may very well be true, but when what you sell is yourself, then you have the right to control how you are used, as best you can. As far as the legalities are concerned, you damn well do have some rights to control the use of your likeness. It may be hamhanded of Prince, who's been known historically to demonstrate contempt for those who adore him, to go this route. It may be wrong but it is his right.

wonder505 said:

This discussion is relevant. How will Prince's attorney's actions affect prince.org?
Rather than listen to legit discourse, you question the existence and participation of other members of this site who have differing viewpoints than you have....

If you followed Jim Jones.....you'd have swallowed the Kool aid.

What next? We'll be getting e-mails asking us to remove pictures from our MySpace pages.

I think this is a step to far. Prince needs to remember who it is and has been supporting him for so long! Us. The true fams!

Prince should appreciate the attention we give him. Respect the Fams and the fams will respect you!

Come back to the real world Prince. We miss you!

wonder505 said:

Have you ever visited the princefams gallery? Are you a Prince fan?
If you have never looked at any photos in their gallery or any other gallery then okay I believe he is not taking a dump you specifically.




Why won't you understand that this is NOT his website? Princefams and housequake are NOT his websites. I am not on the "prince street team." I don't go around promoting Prince or recruiting fans or whatever. I am talking on a site to people who already know and like his music. There are puh-lenty of horrible people that made good music (Jimi, Miles just to name a couple). I've already said Prince is interesting but he is a dick and I am not spending any MONEY on him anymore.




You're doing it now.
You ever been to history class? You ever discussed Mussolini? You ever read a book about a murderer? Or listened to anything by the Sex Pistols? What you're saying is completely unrealistic.


How does being interested in a person who is a fascinating bitch and talking about that to other people who think so also mean that I have nothing better to do with my life? I'm going leave your little personal jab at me alone since you have no idea who I am and know nothing about my life. You know what I also find fascinating is fans who are so high on that purple kool-aid that Prince could walk on stage and literally piss on them and they would call it the best performance art they've ever seen.

namepeace said:

i don't think its his right...its pretty obvious that there online sites (unless charging a fee) fall under "fair-use"...i've often wondered if the reason prince's lawyers *dont* go after the org is because they know matt is a lawyer.