SexyBeautifulOne said:

Prince’s image is copyrighted. The photographer or Prince has rights to photographs of his image unless the photographs are sold to a periodical. Unless the photographer or Prince give the individual permission to use photographs of his image, it is illegal to use it.
Scanned photographs from periodical etc are ILLEGAL.
The photographs used were photo-shopped (illegal), not promoting science or arts and so NOT “fair use”.
They were disparaging, humiliating, damaging to Prince’s public profile (of which he derives income, boy can I go on and on here) etc.
They were used for commercial website for commercial gain (generating traffic / ad space rental).

Prince’s legal team served the DMCA and the web pages were removed… now can I have a round of applause?
[Edited 11/14/07 19:48pm]
[Edited 11/15/07 19:14pm]

pplrain said:

They were removed with Apology... next time Prince should sue the shit out of them, I would be all for it...
[Edited 11/14/07 20:49pm]

pplrain said:

You remind me of a young soldier falling for NAZI propoganda. Pridefully, if not arrogantly blind. Above you said "them". Have you considered from how many different areas and people submissions came in?

Have you opened your eyes to the fact that almost every single page of the internet is filled with photography, reports, and icons of pop culture not owned by the web page creators? Are you also one of the people that supports the death threats for cartoonists offending certain Muslims?

It really doesn't matter what the technical copyright law is, what matters is the right of freedom of creative expression without fear of persecution. On a much bigger scope, people have died for this, and are dying today for this cause. Countries have been founded on rebelling against ideological control.

Im going to start writing down every time someone says NAZI in a thread just for my own amusment that this is the best someone can come up with as a form of insult

I posted a link to that site a few days and it got bounced with the quickness.

The mods sent me a warning.

It ws pretty distasteful, but that didn't stop it from being funny.

Let's keep pissing him off so we can get some more good songs.

ufoclub said:

Thank you. These are the same types of folks who say Prince should own all his warner brothers masters despite what the law says. They take their stances base soley on the fanaticism.

The idea that Prince would stifle artistic expression on the websites most visit and also containing some to the most disturbingly devout fans, is asinine. It's like he's wanting to funnel folks back to that shitty 3121 website.

pplrain said:

You need to stop regurgitating Prince's baloney and do a little research of your own!

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees. Luther Campbell and his musical rapper group, 2 Live Crew, wrote a rap song entitled Pretty Woman that had substantial similarities to the Orbison/Dees song. 2 Live Crew attempted to obtain permission for their parody from Acuff-Rose, the publisher of Oh, Pretty Woman, but were refused permission. 2 Live Crew then proceeded without permission to release their rap song and accorded Orbison/Dees with authorial credit and listed Acuff-Rose as the publisher. Acuff-Rose then brought a lawsuit, which at the trial court level ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew based upon its fair use parody defense. This decision was reversed on appeal when the Sixth Circuit ruled against the fair use parody defense because of the commercial nature of the 2 Live Crew rendition and the presumption of market harm that the rap rendition might cause for the Orbison/Dees song. The Sixth Circuit's decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted 2 Live Crew's song as a parody because the rap song mimicked the original to achieve its message and because it "reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree." The Court then had to decide whether a parody such as Pretty Woman could claim protection from copyright infringement liability under the scope of the fair use doctrine. To ascertain whether Pretty Woman was protected by the fair-use defense the Court proceeded to evaluate the four fair use factors.

The Court determined that the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, favored 2 Live Crew because a "parody has an obvious claim to transformative value" and the rap song was certainly transformative in that " it provid[ed] social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creat[ed] a new one." Therefore, under this factor, even though Pretty Woman certain had as its motivation commercial gain, the Court ruled that a "parody, like other comment or criticism may claim a fair use under [Section] 107 [of the Copyright Act]." Justice Souter stated that the threshold question involving a parody fair-use defense "is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. ... It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works."

The second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, the Court decided was not of much help in this matter since a parody by its very nature would only be based upon an "expressive" work.

The Court's analysis of the fourth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, stated that the authors or copyright owner of the original work would normally refuse to license or grant permission to a parodist to parody the original work. Based on this finding the Court then excluded "parody licenses" as a potential market that could be effected by a parody use. The Court then distinguished that 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman consisted of two separate elements, (i) the parody of Oh, Pretty Woman and (ii) the original rap music itself. In distinguishing these elements the Court decided that the parody could legitimately undercut the market for the original song and any derivative works but that the rap music threatened to illegitimately replace a derivative work market that belonged to the copyright owner of Oh, Pretty Woman. Because there was no evidence on what might be "the likely effect of 2 Live Crew's parodic rap song on the market for a non-parody, rap version of Oh, Pretty Woman, the Court remanded this issue to the trial court for its decision on this matter.

As to the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work, the Court indicated that a parody presents a unique difficulty when evaluating the amount of copying because the success of a parody depends upon its use of the original work while its "art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin." The Court then reverted to the "conjure up" test that would deny a finding of fair use under this factor only when the parodist "has appropriated a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure up' the object of the [parody]." Traditionally the third factor weighs against an infringer when the heart of the original work has been copied, but it is the heart of the original that "most readily conjures up the song for the parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." The question for the Court then became how much further could the parodist go in copying the original once the heart of the original was used. The Court, as did the trial court, believed that 2 Live Crew did not use any more lyrics than were necessary from Oh, Pretty Woman and therefore ruled that the third factor favored 2 Live Crew's fair use defense, but since the Court had already remanded the case on the fourth factor it then also decided to remand on the question of whether the quantity of copying was excessive or not.

Conclusion

The importance of the Acuff-Rose case, even though segments of the case were remanded for further findings was that the Supreme Court reached the unequivocal conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense.
[Edited 11/15/07 7:12am]

SexyBeautifulOne said:[quote]

pplrain said:

CHECKMATE!

SexyBeautifulOne said:

the one about his baby was WRONG in multiple levels. I agree with u.

and besides that... it would be good for Princey to be able ot laugh at himself and just let ppl have their opinion. It's part of life.

chillichocaholic said:

okay, how about SHORTSIGHTED, self righteous, and conservative?

SexyBeautifulOne said:

If you are going to do a cut and paste job ... please make it relevant.
Don't compare apples to PINEapples (or oranges).... that's sad...

Find an article comparable to the B3TA image challenge where disparaging photo-shopped copyrighted pictures were used and the lawsuit was WON IN COURT.
Thank-you!

pplrain said:

You just don't want to see the truth...

What took place during the B3TA Image Challenge was criticism of Prince in the best form they know how...by photoshopping his pictures.

It was clearly Fair Use Parody as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court! Prince and Web Sheriff had better be damn happy I'm not the owner of that site because I'd sue their asses for harassment and misuse of the DMCA and I'd win in court!!
[Edited 11/15/07 9:43am]

pplrain said:

The real point is the disparaging photoshopped pics are art and progressive, they fulfill the function of free artistic expression which will never be controlled in the long run (history proves that). That conservative law is unjust in the UK and should be overthrown.

What's next? No more photoshopped bits on Conan O'Brien?

SexyBeautifulOne said:

I was looking up the term Fair usage the other day and all the sites i visited stated as long as the images as NOT been altered in anyway and the Photos were used in a Newsworthy way then that would be seen as Fair Usage.

But as these images of Prince WAS NOT Newsworthy and the Images were Altered They would NOT have a case in court as they must of agreed to remove them and to say SORRY.

Some People seem to think that if you google Prince's Picture then take that picture and put it on their Site thats Fair Usage and when you get a Cease & Desist Letter all hell breaks loose.

...
[Edited 11/15/07 10:06am]

cream72 said:

Since when has PARODY ever been NEWSWORTHY?

You and Pplrain can deny it all you want to but it does not change the fact that Photoshopping those pictures and using them to express their criticism of Prince and his current actions during the B3TA Image Challenge did indeed make them PARODIES which is protected under the FAIR USE clause of the very same Copyright Law that y'all like cheer about!

cream72 said:

Do you feel that George Bush should clamp down on any photoshopped silly critiques of his character?

So what it comes down to just because certain people are in the Public eye their fair game for anyone who hasnt a life to Ridicule them.

Hmm lets all get the Org Members photos and do the same, I bet Most wouldnt like it.

cream72 said:

Have you not noticed that there are already a tons of orger photoshopped/animated parodies posted on this website throughout the years of existence and some are quite obscene, and they are hilarious, and no one is taking legal action?

ufoclub said:

Actually it was Tipper Gore that MADE her grandkids SIT DOWN (of ages 3-7 years old) listen to the ENTIRE Purple Rain album(I remember this very well, even my mother was furious)not even a child of those ages KNEW what masterbation is. THAT is how the Parental Warning Stickers came out on the albums back then.

toots said:

i think it was her investigating what her daughter was listening to and it was Darling Niki, I think she was a bit young for grandkids... and her daughter was 12.

@ some of the folks on this thread....


I bet if Britney Spears started suing over all the photoshopping thats happened to her ass lately, all these folks wouldn't support her cause...

cream72 said:

most orgers who have been here for any length of time have fallen victim to photoshop...and I've never seen anyone complain, much like ufo club said...

ofcourse, most orgers aren't financially secure, world renowned superstars with careers that would hardly be affected by a run of the mill photoshop job...

ufoclub said:

It was! I remember, I was in high school(15-16 years old) Dont remember about the kid being grandkids exactly cause that was about 20 years ago, Im 34 now. Man, IM OLD!

ufoclub said:

Just because they do it and don't get caught in a lawsuit does not make it legal. It is still copyrighted material.. Maybe you need to understand the definition of Parody... Photo-shopped copyrighted images are NOT considered "artwork" and so cannot be considered "parody".
Do you think someone can take one of Prince's songs and add something to it and remove other thing and call it their own "Parody"? Please don't make me laugh!

roodboi said:

If they track you down to the photoshopped images (which is not difficult) and the courts find that you caused damage to their image....they have the money to pursue a legal case against you, you will be putting up all your finances to fight them. You will go to court and will have to be paying lawsuit bills for the rest of your life. So why even risk it??

Reading messages on this board makes me think one thought:

I hate Prince "fams". Please Prince, open your own 3121 boards so they have a place to go to drink the Purple Kool-Aid.

pplrain said:

Good thing there's 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court that disagree with you!!

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees. Luther Campbell and his musical rapper group, 2 Live Crew, wrote a rap song entitled Pretty Woman that had substantial similarities to the Orbison/Dees song. 2 Live Crew attempted to obtain permission for their parody from Acuff-Rose, the publisher of Oh, Pretty Woman, but were refused permission. 2 Live Crew then proceeded without permission to release their rap song and accorded Orbison/Dees with authorial credit and listed Acuff-Rose as the publisher. Acuff-Rose then brought a lawsuit, which at the trial court level ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew based upon its fair use parody defense. This decision was reversed on appeal when the Sixth Circuit ruled against the fair use parody defense because of the commercial nature of the 2 Live Crew rendition and the presumption of market harm that the rap rendition might cause for the Orbison/Dees song. The Sixth Circuit's decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted 2 Live Crew's song as a parody because the rap song mimicked the original to achieve its message and because it "reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree." The Court then had to decide whether a parody such as Pretty Woman could claim protection from copyright infringement liability under the scope of the fair use doctrine. To ascertain whether Pretty Woman was protected by the fair-use defense the Court proceeded to evaluate the four fair use factors.

The Court determined that the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, favored 2 Live Crew because a "parody has an obvious claim to transformative value" and the rap song was certainly transformative in that " it provid[ed] social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creat[ed] a new one." Therefore, under this factor, even though Pretty Woman certain had as its motivation commercial gain, the Court ruled that a "parody, like other comment or criticism may claim a fair use under [Section] 107 [of the Copyright Act]." Justice Souter stated that the threshold question involving a parody fair-use defense "is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. ... It is this joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works."

The second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, the Court decided was not of much help in this matter since a parody by its very nature would only be based upon an "expressive" work.

The Court's analysis of the fourth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, stated that the authors or copyright owner of the original work would normally refuse to license or grant permission to a parodist to parody the original work. Based on this finding the Court then excluded "parody licenses" as a potential market that could be effected by a parody use. The Court then distinguished that 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman consisted of two separate elements, (i) the parody of Oh, Pretty Woman and (ii) the original rap music itself. In distinguishing these elements the Court decided that the parody could legitimately undercut the market for the original song and any derivative works but that the rap music threatened to illegitimately replace a derivative work market that belonged to the copyright owner of Oh, Pretty Woman. Because there was no evidence on what might be "the likely effect of 2 Live Crew's parodic rap song on the market for a non-parody, rap version of Oh, Pretty Woman, the Court remanded this issue to the trial court for its decision on this matter.

As to the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work, the Court indicated that a parody presents a unique difficulty when evaluating the amount of copying because the success of a parody depends upon its use of the original work while its "art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin." The Court then reverted to the "conjure up" test that would deny a finding of fair use under this factor only when the parodist "has appropriated a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure up' the object of the [parody]." Traditionally the third factor weighs against an infringer when the heart of the original work has been copied, but it is the heart of the original that "most readily conjures up the song for the parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." The question for the Court then became how much further could the parodist go in copying the original once the heart of the original was used. The Court, as did the trial court, believed that 2 Live Crew did not use any more lyrics than were necessary from Oh, Pretty Woman and therefore ruled that the third factor favored 2 Live Crew's fair use defense, but since the Court had already remanded the case on the fourth factor it then also decided to remand on the question of whether the quantity of copying was excessive or not.

Conclusion

The importance of the Acuff-Rose case, even though segments of the case were remanded for further findings was that the Supreme Court reached the unequivocal conclusion that a parody falls within the scope of the fair-use defense.

SexyBeautifulOne said:

Sorry I don't have time to teach you English

pplrain said:

I'd rather you keep trying to teach me about the Law!

lspear76 said:

Prince Fams = Prince Family... nothing more, nothing less. Just because you make it out to be something derogatory doesn't make it so..
[Edited 11/15/07 18:23pm]