LittleRedCorvette said:

So that begs the Q....

1. How exactly does Prince own a picture of someones tatoo?

2. Why didn't he just ask?

3. Why did he have to use the strong arm approach?

LittleRedCorvette said:

If you stick around this forum, you'll get more flames.

For me, it brings back bad memories of that L4OA time period, with the madness over that site and who controlled it, why it existed, and how the Prince fan community got ripped apart... mainly because of the way Paisley Park went about setting up that site and communicating with the fans. Nobody, but a select few, knew if the letters from Paisley Park were legitimate or just created by a bunch of overzealous fans, It's not surprising that logo is up on 3121, because one of those overzealous fans (Kathy), who assumed control of the project, is still the person who posts on 3121... I believe.

[Edited 11/8/07 5:12am]
[Edited 11/8/07 5:17am]

SquirrelMeat said:

1. I've not seen any documentation that showed that Prince asked for any pics of tatoos to be removed, only an interpretation of what was asked that stated "Their demands for removing content and mandating how we would refer to Prince, if obliged, would essentially mean the end of any discussion of Prince-related topics, hosting of images (even of people's symbol tattoos!) and more" which the part I've bolded is interpretation of what was intended. From that statement alone, it does not support the statement that Prince has asked people to remove pictures of their tatoos, rather that the websites are interpreting the demands for removing content as meaning pictures of tatoos too.

2. Prince has stated many many many times over the years to respect his rights as an artist and his material that is copyrighted. I've read so many statements from all of the old websites that has generally at one time or another mentioned that. So in essence, one could say that Prince has asked at different times throughout his career that others respect his rights as an artist.

3. Because again, Prince has stated many times over the years to fans (and the music industry) to respect his rights as an artist, and to respect those things he has created and what he owns. It's not his fault that the fans chose to ignore those messages out of love for him and his music and wanting to share everything about him. But he has asked many times over the years, so perhaps he got tired of asking and decided instead to act this time.

lspear76 said:

U always mention Kathy's name. You have even stated in the past that Love4OneAnother was not a real charity when in-fact it is.

You have way 2 much hate inside you against that person & the charity - darn - let it go - breathe - move on - your comming across as a bitter vengfull person....

LittleRedCorvette said:

We haven't seen the documentation. But we have seen the statement made by PFU.

That contained "Prince claims that fansites are not allowed to present any artwork with Prince's likeness, to the extreme that he has demanded removal of fan's own photographs of their Prince inspired tattoos and their vehicles displaying Prince inspired license plates."

So really it boils down to whether you think the likes of the Org have made this up or not?

If they have, you are right, Prince isn't doing anything wrong.

If they haven't are you still saying Prince is in the right???

LittleRedCorvette you have made many valid points, I do not know who you are but you have got my respect and I must say it is lovely to see someone that does not resort to name calling

.
[Edited 11/8/07 8:14am]

katt said:

I'll never have anything nice to say about "Kathy." Nobody will. That's situation is just fun to laugh at. IMHO, she was a huge cause of the problem.

SquirrelMeat said:

Actually that's the problem, we haven't seen the documentation in order to know what was actually demanded. People are all up in arms about this and aren't even sure what was truly stated in the cease and desist orders.

PFU has also stated: "Their demands for removing content and mandating how we would refer to Prince, if obliged, would essentially mean the end of any discussion of Prince-related topics, hosting of images (even of people's symbol tattoos!) and more." That "would essentially mean" is definitely interpretive in nature and does not imply that this was actually told that they would have to do. So which is accurate, that Prince has demanded the removal of artwork, including pictures of tatoos, or that he has demanded removal of content "which would essentially mean the end of any discussion of Prince-related topics, hosting of images (even of people's symbol tattoos and more"? You see the two statements are very different, and it would depend upon the wording of the actual document and whether it is being interpreted to mean what you've quoted, or whether it actually states what you've quoted.

And if the websites aren't misinterpreting what was stated in the document, then yes the org is right regarding non-copyrighted material, and Prince is right regarding his copyrighted material.

katt said:

Sweetie, you know me. KKKKaaaaattttt!!!!! or perhaps this will clue you in:

(((((Kat)))))

SquirrelMeat said:

Actually that's the problem, we haven't seen the documentation in order to know what was actually demanded. People are all up in arms about this and aren't even sure what was truly stated in the cease and desist orders.

PFU has also stated: "Their demands for removing content and mandating how we would refer to Prince, if obliged, would essentially mean the end of any discussion of Prince-related topics, hosting of images (even of people's symbol tattoos!) and more." That "would essentially mean" is definitely interpretive in nature and does not imply that this was actually told that they would have to do. So which is accurate, that Prince has demanded the removal of artwork, including pictures of tatoos, or that he has demanded removal of content "which would essentially mean the end of any discussion of Prince-related topics, hosting of images (even of people's symbol tattoos and more"? You see the two statements are very different, and it would depend upon the wording of the actual document and whether it is being interpreted to mean what you've quoted, or whether it actually states what you've quoted.

And if the websites aren't misinterpreting what was stated in the document, then yes the org is right regarding non-copyrighted material, and Prince is right regarding his copyrighted material.

Namid said:

Are you for real?

What is real love, sending cease and decists to a fan site?

He owes us nothing, and we own him nothing. Difference is, we ain't threatening to sue him.

lspear76 said:

U always mention Kathy's name. You have even stated in the past that Love4OneAnother was not a real charity when in-fact it is.

You have way 2 much hate inside you against that person & the charity - darn - let it go - breathe - move on - your comming across as a bitter vengfull person....

SquirrelMeat said:

But PFU is threatening to take him to court. I've not read anywhere yet where Prince has threatened to take the websites to court, simply that he has sent letters of cease and desist. But I have read that PFU is threatening to take this to a court of law. I've not read where he is threatening to sue the websites either, simply to cease and desist with copyrighted material (and however else people want to interpret the actual documentation of which we truly do not know what was stated). All of this conjecture that Prince is suing his fans or the websites, is simply that, conjecture. No where has there been any proven documentation that Prince is threatening to sue anyone. He has simply asked for compensation, or better yet, Web Sherriff has asked how the websites plan on compensating their client. There hasn't been a demand made there either, rather a question from what I've read.

LittleRedCorvette said:

Its all down to interpretation, but I don't think its confusing. PFU are basically saying, Prince isn't asking for them to shut down but but asking for such stringent restrictions, there would in essence be no point continuing.

I'm still not sure where you are coming from. On one hand you are saying (I paraphrase) "hang on, we don't know the facts", but then you make statements like " Prince is simply stating "Look respect my work, respect my image, respect what I own."

I think thats a much bigger leap of faith than those trying to translate the statements of the PFU.

katt said:

Has L4OA finally registered as a real charity then? When was that?

katt said:

Has L4OA finally registered as a real charity then? When was that?

LittleRedCorvette said:

When did PFU threaten to take P to court? I only saw the statement that they willing to defend themselves?

Should this not be possible, the fansites are fully prepared to defend their position in the proper court of law, as well as fully prosecute any claims to which they are justly entitled.

ladycat said:

I can appreciate that ladycat. I know that logo was there earlier yesterday, then gone for awhile, and then reposted. So not sure what was up with all of that.

I guess for me, I'm not sure WHY everyone is so angry. I got into Prince back in the early 80s with Little Red Corvette (got beat up by my ex-husband because I said the man was sexy in that video), became a closet fan (turned off his music when it came on when my ex was around but listened to it when it came on when he wasn't around) and finally got into him full-fledged without hiding back in the late 90s (after divorcing that bum) and had so many years worth of music to get caught up on. So I guess I missed a lot of the earlier hoopla surrounding Prince. All of this has made me re-examine why I got into him in the first place. It was simply the music and how that music made me feel. It was what I saw of him the first time I saw him in concert in 97, which wasn't this superstar on stage, but simply a man doing what he loves to do. It was what I saw behind his eyes and what he's shared in his music.

So he doesn't want us posting his images, it was never about his image for me to begin with. It was the music and what he shared in the music and how that music made me feel and how that music played in my life experiences.

So he wants compensation for the use of copyrighted pictures. I had asked in a previous thread if anyone had offered him anything at all for that. I knew that it was a token thing with Prince, a sort of "Hey, we did use some copyrighted images and we're sorry. What can we do to make that up to you? Could we possibly do a fund raiser for your Love 4 One Another charity as compensation? Can we maybe donate some monies to local charities in the name of Love 4 One Another? What can we do to compensate for the use of copyrighted images?"

As much as everyone is saying "Prince is doing this to his fans" I guess I disagree with that. Prince is simply stating "Look respect my work, respect my image, respect what I own." Unfortunately, he had to use a strong arm to attempt to get that message across because in all the things I've read to get caught up on his music and who he is, the one underlying theme over these years has been "Respect artists and their creations." He has directed that at his fans in the past, and towards the music industry. But it seems that has always gone ignored, and so now he's gotten a little heavy with it with the Cease and Desist orders. I guess to me, if, we the fans, had listened to his previous messages of "respect the artists and their creations" none of this would be playing out now. So how can I be angry with him since it's a message he's been saying for years, but is only now taking action on? And I guess because of that, I'm not sure why everyone is angry to begin with???

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:

If OUR life is but a flicker, what are we to learn? So many things, and they all point to LOVE. Perhaps we should acknowledge the other person's rights before we assert what we think are our own.

P
E
A
C
E

SquirrelMeat said:

They've been registered as a non-profit organization 501(c) for quite some time. Actually, as a social worker, there is a website online that I can get access to that actually shows a form they have to file each year which lists what they have done throughout that year. All I will say, is that he has donated a lot of money through this charity to a lot of good causes.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:

If OUR life is but a flicker, what are we to learn? So many things, and they all point to LOVE. Perhaps we should acknowledge the other person's rights before we assert what we think are our own.

P
E
A
C
E

LittleRedCorvette said:

Nice post LittleRedCorvette:

The thing I just don't get is that I find a lot of this a bit contradictory. For example, on all 3 unofficial fan sites the Mods snip and clip remarks made from members to other members that are disrespectful, insulting, personal attacks, derogatory statements, threats towards/from members towards each other, and state in their rules, what type of content is not allowable on these sitew, but at the same time, the Mods/owners of these sites, in representation of the members on these sites, state that they believe in the First Amendment, freedom of speech, for members and fans of the artist to freely discuss the artist and his music and share stories and fans concert pics and experiences.

So now let's say that the artist did make a request to the Mods/Owners of these 3 unofficial fan sites to remove material/content that he may find derogatory/defaming his character, misleading info/rumors, constant personal insults and inquiries regarding his personal life, choice of religion, his marriages, inquiries regarding women in his past or present relationships, comments he may find threatening/or may bring harm to him or his past/present associate band members and their careers, or derogatory statements regarding his close friends, comments on the death of his child, etc., pictures that members/fans post that may be illegal , images of him altered to present a derogatory image with same being done to artists he is currently with/or have previously promoted or performed with.

Then, supposedly in response to the artist’s requests, the Mods/Owners of these 3 sites, comply to a few of the artist's wishes, but let's say the Mods/Owners of said sites, do not agree to remove the written offending/insulting contents/comments made by the artist’s fans/members of all 3 unofficial Prince sites, that are not related to his music/fan’s concert experiences and stories, because the Mods of these sites, feel that members/fans have the protection of the First Amendment (freedom of speech). So, the Mods leave the comments on the sites instead of removing them, regardless if the artist finds these comments offensive, insulting, threatening to his reputation, personal safety /career and those of his associate band members/close friends, etc.

I just find it contradictory that the Mods basically are saying is ok to ban, snip/clip and remove personal insults, personal attacks, threats, name-calling that members do to each other on these 3 unofficial sites, (which is ok with me by the way), but yet they stress that they are for the First Amendment. But it is surprising to see that these Mods don’t really snip/clip/remove the constant name-calling, insults/derogatory comments, defamation of character comments, extremely personal inquiries regarding the artist’s personal life (and yes I am talking about Prince) on these sites, whether he requested they remove those comments or not. I would think to remove those comments would be in respect to the artist(Prince), that these sites honor, since all 3 sites were basically created in dedicaton to him.

I have no disrespect for the Mods of the sites, just find all this a bit contradictory. I just feel it’s a matter of respect if one calls themselves a fan of an artist. Not that all artists are perfect, because they are not, they are human and we don’t live in a peaches and cream world, , but it is just surprising that there is more defaming of his character, his choice of religion, constant inquiries regarding his personal life, and other related comments running rampant all over these unofficial sites and the Mods allow those comments to stay…….…and yet it’s suppose to be about the music……just my 2 cents, as we're all entitled to our opinions.
[Edited 11/8/07 8:54am]

LittleRedCorvette said:

To me the knocking of a charities hard work is a despicable thing to do. I understand people are not happy with what is going down in the Prince community but bringing someone’s charity work into this in an attempt to prove a point whatever that point maybe is deplorable.
We all should be praising Charities works and helping them if we can, as one day you never know what can happen in life it could be anyone of us seeking a charities help.

LittleRedCorvette said:

Thats a counter sue, usually for costs. Big difference. They make it quite clear they would only look at doing this if they had to defend themselves.

2elijah said:

I've been saying this type of stuff for years here.