Yes!! they made between 2.5 to 5 million off of in rainbows...100% going to them...zero to labels, promotions tools or vendors.
[Edited 11/24/07 8:56am]

I think the dancing baby on Youtube video was made just an "example" to make people aware of how valuble a musician's work is to him. Yeah, it seems a little silly now when we look at it, but realistically it is misappropriating a musician's work to make a video (was although only 15 seconds) if you upload it onto the internet for public viewing. If you just use it for your personal collection, no one really knows or cares. Companies pay musician's to use their songs for commercial gain. Although the home video was just a little snippet, it still bring to point how importantly an musician views his work and does not want it misused because it was expensive for them to make it in the first place.

Photoshopping images again is new territory and although you can do it, it does not make it OK. Copyrighted images are a no-no and you can get sued.
Right now the laws governing the internet are lax and so people do whatever. But I think that is going to change soon. I think the most probable solution would be for the copyright holder to hold a paypal account and everytime an infringer is caught... he must pay up! LOL! that would really stop people and make them re-think what they are doing. By the way Photoshop does have a clause it in their user agreement regarding copyright.
Damn, but I still *love* Prince picture threads. Haha!

Below is a statement I am copying from another thread about the B3ta challenge and copyright infringment:
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 as the periodical pays for the right to use them.
The photographs used for the B3ta challenge 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) etc.
They were used for commercial website for commercial gain (generating traffic / ad space rental).

I think the dancing baby on Youtube video was made just an "example" to make people aware of how valuble a musician's work is to him. Yeah, it seems a little silly now when we look at it, but realistically it is misappropriating a musician's work to make a video (was although only 15 seconds) if you upload it onto the internet for public viewing. If you just use it for your personal collection, no one really knows or cares. Companies pay musician's to use their songs for commercial gain. Although the home video was just a little snippet, it still bring to point how importantly an musician views his work and does not want it misused because it was expensive for them to make it in the first place.

Photoshopping images again is new territory and although you can do it, it does not make it OK. Copyrighted images are a no-no and you can get sued.
Right now the laws governing the internet are lax and so people do whatever. But I think that is going to change soon. I think the most probable solution would be for the copyright holder to hold a paypal account and everytime an infringer is caught... he must pay up! LOL! that would really stop people and make them re-think what they are doing. By the way Photoshop does have a clause it in their user agreement regarding copyright.
Damn, but I still *love* Prince picture threads. Haha!

Below is a statement I am copying from another thread about the B3ta challenge and copyright infringment:
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 as the periodical pays for the right to use them.
The photographs used for the B3ta challenge 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) etc.
They were used for commercial website for commercial gain (generating traffic / ad space rental).

If you take things into perspective....

It is very difficult for a musician to earn a living the way the internet is set up with.. bootlegs and misuse of their work. The only way musicians can really make money now is to tour and proceeds from sale of their image. So the image is really important to them because with a tarnished image they can really be out of work. Agree or disagree?
[Edited 11/23/07 22:18pm]

I think the dancing baby on Youtube video was made just an "example" to make people aware of how valuble a musician's work is to him. Yeah, it seems a little silly now when we look at it, but realistically it is misappropriating a musician's work to make a video (was although only 15 seconds) if you upload it onto the internet for public viewing. If you just use it for your personal collection, no one really knows or cares. Companies pay musician's to use their songs for commercial gain. Although the home video was just a little snippet, it still bring to point how importantly an musician views his work and does not want it misused because it was expensive for them to make it in the first place.

Photoshopping images again is new territory and although you can do it, it does not make it OK. Copyrighted images are a no-no and you can get sued.
Right now the laws governing the internet are lax and so people do whatever. But I think that is going to change soon. I think the most probable solution would be for the copyright holder to hold a paypal account and everytime an infringer is caught... he must pay up! LOL! that would really stop people and make them re-think what they are doing. By the way Photoshop does have a clause it in their user agreement regarding copyright.
Damn, but I still *love* Prince picture threads. Haha!

Below is a statement I am copying from another thread about the B3ta challenge and copyright infringment:
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 as the periodical pays for the right to use them.
The photographs used for the B3ta challenge 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) etc.
They were used for commercial website for commercial gain (generating traffic / ad space rental).

I think the dancing baby on Youtube video was made just an "example" to make people aware of how valuble a musician's work is to him. Yeah, it seems a little silly now when we look at it, but realistically it is misappropriating a musician's work to make a video (was although only 15 seconds) if you upload it onto the internet for public viewing. If you just use it for your personal collection, no one really knows or cares. Companies pay musician's to use their songs for commercial gain. Although the home video was just a little snippet, it still bring to point how importantly an musician views his work and does not want it misused because it was expensive for them to make it in the first place.

Photoshopping images again is new territory and although you can do it, it does not make it OK. Copyrighted images are a no-no and you can get sued.
Right now the laws governing the internet are lax and so people do whatever. But I think that is going to change soon. I think the most probable solution would be for the copyright holder to hold a paypal account and everytime an infringer is caught... he must pay up! LOL! that would really stop people and make them re-think what they are doing. By the way Photoshop does have a clause it in their user agreement regarding copyright.
Damn, but I still *love* Prince picture threads. Haha!

Below is a statement I am copying from another thread about the B3ta challenge and copyright infringment:
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 as the periodical pays for the right to use them.
The photographs used for the B3ta challenge 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) etc.
They were used for commercial website for commercial gain (generating traffic / ad space rental).

1. I'm not even gonna waste my energy on the "dancing baby" aspect of this conversation because when all is said and done...Prince is going to lose big in court on this one. The lady suing him for misuse of the DMCA has the EFF assisting her in that fight and Prince is going down. The video in question was a few sec. snippet of a baby dancing to a song that happened to be Prince's. It wasn't posted for financial gain, or to take anything away from Prince...it was "Fair Use" and that'll be proven in court and Prince is going to be made to look look like a complete idiot for even letting it get that far or he'll settle when he realizes how badly he's going to lose.

2. B3ta.com is not a commercial website and it does not rent ad space. For your information anyone can put Google AdSense ads on their website, they do not generate income unless somebody clicks them so the very act of them being there is, doesn't mean the site was paid to put them there. Most people use Google AdSense ads to generate money for the recoup the cost of hosting a website.

3. All of those pictures were NOT disparaging, humiliating, or damaging to Prince's public profile...the majority of those photoshopped photos were indeed humorous and offered criticism of Prince by expression of the displeasure that has risen from his latest antics which makes those images...for the 1000th time...PARODIES protected by the FAIR USE clause of the Copyright Law!

I personally think Prince is way ahead of the other musicians with protecting his work on the internet. I was just curious how many of his fans feel the same?
ie: Copyright of his music, videos, lyrics from misuse.
Copyright of his image: pictures and symbol from misuse.
Abuse of his image: ALL forms!

Do you as his fan support his decision or not?

Let's discuss.