Stymie said:

wait a minute..is that even fair? folks are obviously upset and are responding to a public action that the man made...

and your bolded statement is correct...you don't have to like a person if you like the music...so whats wrong with folks calling things as they see it? prince is a loser to them...and sometimes he makes me think of him the same way.

and i would never do this type of thing to my friends, clients or associates...so no, im not holding him up to a standard that i don't myself. but theres a difference, this guy is a musician...and he releases products for me to consume...its not an intimate relationship. and if i wanna diss the man for being a jackass...

well, why not?

sosgemini said:

It's a public action? Where are the details? Hmm.....not made public?

People ae rushing to judgment. None of us know what went down with the Princefams thing. Or those who do know are not telling us.

I guess I don't give enough of a damn to let this bother me...or maybe it's just that I've known for years how Prince feels about his image being used without his permission.

wlcm2thdwn said:

Well, I saw Prince day before yesterday and no one at 3121 was booing.

You have to realize that no one outside of Princeworld knows or gives a damn about what happened on Princefams. And out of those in Princeworld that do know, out of thousands upon thousands of us, only about 200 people cared enough to sign the owner's petition.

So, for those screaming solidarity, why haven't you guys signed?

And oh yeah, it doesn't take balls to say bad things about someone on the internet anonymously.

Stymie said:

oh, i know how he has been too...and felt he was an arse then and i feel he is an arse now...

nothings changed...same as it ever was.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Have you seen some of the artwork on bootlegs? I'm sure that's one big problem with him, they've gotten really good and that can confuse folks who don't know what they're really getting.

This is all so silly that people get so upset over this crap. We obviously don't know the whole story, but people always want to jump to the conclusion that Prince is such a bad person. So what about all the other people who send cease & desist letters to get pictures removed, are they all evil too?

Stymie said:

People seem to think Prince's only fans are all on the internet and visiting a few sites. I happen to know a lot of people who consider themselves huge fans who have NEVER visited one Prince website.

Stymie said:

You're contradicting yourself. We're to "piss or get off the pot" and yet "you do not have to like a person personally because you dig their music."

And I'm sayin', exactly. I don't know him well enough to dislike him, but some of his behavior is obnoxious. And I still love his music. What's the problem with that? I don't get it.

Let's be realistic. Prince has always been a control freak, now that is on the real. We may not like all of his egomaniac ways, but yet, we continue to buy the music, see the shows, and are devoted fans. We do not have to like the man, but what actually drew us to him? We cannot say it was all just music, but something else. What drew us to the man called Prince is his ego, his controlling nature, and eccentricities. Prince may have been a wash-up in the 90's and early 00's; however, Prince has proven to the world his mojo is still working. It is unfair to assume he is a wash-up because he does not want a fan site using his picture. But as Billy Sparks said in Purple Rain: Business is Business, and you ain't too far gone to see that yet" The fan sites are geared towards the fan, but must walk a thin line to adhere to the people we idolize.

alwayslate said:

I dunno about all that. the Musicology tour was the highest grossing of that year if I'm not mistaken, and I KNOW all them folks weren't just diehards.

ufoclub said:

Hmmm. So what leagal leg is Prince standing on here?

sosgemini said:

We're "uniting"

ok folx, its not Prince per se' it is his law team, they are the one "protecting thier client" Nelson isnt the one saying " Go after them" personally i dont even know if he knows half of what is going on. so before you jump on his ass about it, think of it as the law team doing it. they dont have to ask prince to do something they are basically doing what they were retained to do. shitty as it is, but what is 100 lawyers at the bottm of the ocean?.... a good start

IAintTheOne said:

yes, but in all fairness I'm sure they are acting based on what he told them to look for.

LeGrindLady said:

You are so right! It's all about control, too masny people taking this personally!

herb4 said:

well, actually it depends on the state it arises in. Most states agree with this idea. A celebrity's picture can be used for "newsworthy" events, but cannot be used for "advertising" or "financial gain". Say, for example, princefams was using Prince's photo to bolster enrollment for a fee, that is a violation, but if they were using his picture to report a "newsworthy event" that is not a violation, dependent on the state they reside in.

Today, privacy and publicity rights are based on state common and statutory law. Because these rights are relatively new and different legislatures and courts decide how they apply, there are variations in the interpretation and application of these rights.

Minnesota and Virginia appear to be the only states which have rejected right to privacy involving giving unreasonable publicity to an individual’’s private life.

Assuming that the individual is not violating anyone's copyrights, there are four circumstances in which the use of photographs, films and/or videos is permitted.

First, the use of photographs, films and videos of buildings or other structures taken from public streets and similar non-restricted areas in which individuals are not recognizable does not violate anyone's privacy or publicity rights. This obviously doesn't apply here.

Second, only individuals who are recognizable in a photograph or video have any claim for misappropriation of likeness or identity. Therefore, morphing pictures and videos so individuals are not recognizable eliminates any privacy and publicity right claims. So basically you can morph his picture and use it if he is not recognizable, LOL.

Third, photographs, videos, and films taken of participants and spectators in connection with a newsworthy event may be used in photo essays and documentaries of the event. Here is what is relevant, is the photo submission just a newsworthy event? In Cheatham v. Paisano Publications, supra, the Plaintiff was a jean "designer" who wore one of her own "designs" to a Kentucky bikers' convention. She had cut out the bottom of a pair of jeans and replaced it with fishnet fabric. A magazine published a photo essay of the event which included pictures of her wearing her special outfit. She sued the magazine and claimed that it misappropriated her identity. In dismissing her claim, the Court held that the photo essay was a report of a newsworthy event. Obviously, copying a performer's entire performance goes beyond the allowed reporting of a newsworthy event and constitutes a violation of the performer's right of publicity.

Finally, use of names, pictures and identities in connection with the production of biographies of newsworthy individuals is permissibleIn Harris Matthews v. Random House, 15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994), the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, applying Texas law, held that a book detailing the author’’s and her ex-husband’’s experiences as undercover agents did not violate the privacy or publicity rights of her ex-husband. Information concerning their activities and convictions were the subject of news reports. Thus, it was a matter of public record and considered newsworthy events. See, also, Mickey Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 18 Cal. Rptr. 2D 790 (Cal. App. 1993), in which Mickey Dora, a surfing legend, appeared in a video documentary entitled "The Legends of Malibu." The Court held that the use of Dora’’s picture was newsworthy.

Parodies are entitled to a substantial degree of First Amendment protection. However, this protection must be balanced against intellectual property rights. See, for example, the Supreme Court’s application of the Doctrine of Fair Use in the copyright law context in Luther R. Campbell, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164 (1994). In Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’’n, 838 F. Supp. 1501 (N.D. Okla. 1993), the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment claiming that it was not a violation of the publicity rights of well-known baseball players to produce and distribute cards with caricatures and names similar to those baseball players and containing text on the back that ridicules the players. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals balanced the publicity rights of the baseball players against the Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to use parody to criticize activities of public figures. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to produce and distribute the cards. So if you want to make parody cards of Prince, you are well within your right.

However, once again, we have the fine line. Remember the Rosa Parks case? First amendment protection and the right of publicity recently clashed in a case involving the music industry. In Parks v. LaFace Records, 76 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 1999), Rosa Parks sued the Defendants to prevent the use of her name as the title of a rap song written, performed, marketed and distributed by the Defendants. Ms. Parks objected to the use of her name due to the content of the song. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that "because the title ‘‘Rosa Parks’’ is not ‘‘wholly unrelated’’ to Defendants’’ song, and because the title is the name of an expressive work and not a disguised commercial for a product" the right of publicity did not exist.

However, it is not permissible to distribute multiple copies of a work, say a digital image, over a computer network; that would be a violation of one's copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies of phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Title 17, U. S. Code, Section 107).

It should be noted that "fair use" and "public domain" are not equivalent terms. As pointed out by a number of authors, "fair use" refers to the use of (a portion of) a copyrighted work that falls within the guidelines in Section 107. "Public domain" refers to works that cannot be copyrighted, such as those produced by the federal government or those whose copyright has expired or has been abrogated by the owner. Works that are in the public domain are not subject to the exclusive rights in Section 106, nor does their use have to meet the fair use guidelines or have the permission of a copyright owner.

remember the video section of the NPG music club? why wouldn't prince want to have the right to be the only one who could post his own videos on his own website? makes sense to me

pkidwell said:

I think this was more stirred up by the request to take down still photos.

txladykat said:

and please folks re-read what ufoclub just posted...this has nothing to do with video or bootlegs. prince.fams.com originally had video's on their site and removed them at the request of prince's lawyers. this is all about photos that prince doesn't even have copyright over...

Come to think of it, that site should have been closed down simply for having "fam" in it

sosgemini said:

If he doesn't have copyright over the pictures, how can he have so much power to close the site down?

txladykat said:

Kind of reminds me of that case where Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas took Hello magazine to court over publication of unauthorised photos of their wedding, claiming the pics 'harmed' them by ruining that day for them!(somehow). They won, but were only rewarded £15,000 in damages - it was estimated they spent £3 million on legal fees. Catherine famously said that a million was not much money to her!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

(t)he(y) didn't...princefam.com took the pictures down out of fear of a lawsuit.

[b][i][u]I THINK HE SHOULD BE GLAD PEOPLE HAVE SITES FOR HIM & THE BAND! I THINK IT IS RUDE TO THE FANS TO ACT LIKE A BITCH! IF IT WEREN'T FOR US STICKING BY HIM, HE WOULDN'T BE WHERE HE IS TODAY. TALENT IS GREAT, BUT WE ARE THE ONES BUYING THE STUFF!

FanSynceEyeWuz9 said:

Prince got to where he is before the days of the internet. Would it be impossible to stay popular if all the fansites turned against him or were shut down? Hmmmm, half the time people are bitching and moaning and saying his recent work isn't good enough anyway... still doesn't stop him being popular though... the internet is a useful tool for sure, but he doesn't need sites.

Like how you try to emphasize your post by not only writing in capitals but also unsuccessfully attempting to make it bold, italicised AND underlined!
[Edited 1/3/07 11:08am]
[Edited 1/3/07 11:09am]

txladykat said:

I'm going to cite this as:

ladykat, tx, Something In The Case Law(Does Not Compute): Prince's Crusade Against The Internet, 7 Prince.Org 1999 (2007).

Well done.

sosgemini said:

absolutely! this does not apply to videos, music, etc, only the use of one's photographic image.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

people have as much power as you are willing to give them

namepeace said:

txladykat said:

Precisely!