Prince has every legal right to tell websites to remove copyrighted pictures, videos, and music clips. We can protest all we want, but he's completely within his legal rights. [Note: A limited amount of copyrighted material could arguably be used under the Fair Use doctrine, but the user would have to show that the doctrine clearly applies, which can be difficult.]

However, Prince's absurd request to "remove all images of the singer, his lyrics and anything linked to Prince's likeness," has less legal grounding. Things such as people's Prince tatoos or Prince-inspired license plates and, for example, pics you took at a concert, really shouldn't be in any sort of legal jeopardy. I'm guessing that Prince realizes that it is time consuming for websites to sift through all images, etc. and make a determination of what it legal and what isn't. A blanket prohibition is probably intended to scare websites, hoping that they will remove everything "just to be safe."

Finally, his defamation claims (which popped up yesterday before the thread was removed) are ill-conceived and have little, if any, grounding in the law. Why can the Daily Show perform pointed criticism of celebrities and political figures? Becase the first amendment allows it. People have the right to comment and make their opinions known, and it is an expected part of being a celebrity or other visible figure that such criticism will be aimed at the famous individual.

I agree...HIS copyrighted pics should be removed, but there aren't that many of those. Videos, are they copyrighted by him or WB's? I would think WB's for the official stuff. Home video's of live concerts or bootleggers videos are not copyrighted. The internet is free game and he's taken on more than he can chew.

coltrane3 said:

Prince doesn't own the majority of pictures of him.

It's sad for Prince to get so crazy about something so trivial. He's truly pathetic. Web Sheriff, and his lawyers, are worse. It's not worth it to support a man like that.