HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Oh, I'm with him when he's right. I understand when he puts tight restrictions on things like posting scans from his "21 Nights" book, or even from tourbooks, liner notes booklets, and things like that.

I just don't think it's cool when the "copyright" is questionable, but he can still have his way because he has more money and can litigate any of us mere mortals into the ground just because he can. More power to him, I suppose, but I think that's playing dirty.

Fortunately, I don't feel like the specific things he asks to have removed are really going to be the end of the world for anyone. I think when/if he starts dictating what people can say or how people can express themselves in response to his music, that's when we'll have a real problem. So far I don't see that happening.

Prince goes so far beyond his legal rights it's no even funny.
You can't even photoshop Prince or discuss his bootlegs.
When has it ever been illegal to discuss this stuff?
It's like saying you can't discuss the drug trade because drugs
are illegal.
And photoshops of Prince aren't permitted?

Prince is a cunt.

Anxiety said:

This is the issue. It's not about what's legally copyrighted by him.

Anxiety said:

This is exactly what he's doing when photoshops aren't allowed.
There's no legal reason why they shouldn't be allowed. He's trying
to control his image and how he's portrayed. Ergo, what we say.

I agree he's going beyond his legal rights and just throwing his
financial clout around.

As a truly independent artist, if he doesn't protect his own rights, who will? Not WB, Sony or Clear Channel.

ufoclub said:

That's the issue for everyone who is bitching.

He thought of, creates it, it came out of his mind...whatever form that "it" takes ...he owns it. simple.

haleno1 said:

when he tried his first push on the fans he was trying to control pictures of tattoos. people should be careful handing out these blank checks

I agree that he has to protect whats his, if he doesnt where would it end.

Also he aint the only one to take youtube videos off due to copyright check this out....http://www.thesun.co.uk/s...193692.ece

there all doing it cause at the end of the day youtube are getting paid and the artists aint

cream72 said:

except for the artists who can't afford to host their own video content and can upload their videos/live clips/etc. to youtube for free and post it to their web site, myspace page, etc. - for them youtube is a pretty handy tool.

Anxiety said:

And really, it aint about paying the artists but lining the pockets of the corporate big wigs. I mean let's get real

I understand. But you know..as a casual fan you dont want to have to find bootlegs just to see a favorite video

paisleypark4 said:

Oh please, I love my bootlegs

Anxiety said:

Really? Remember the NPG Music Club Chat and Message Boards?

I certainly do!

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

I think he means specifically right now. One thing I will praise the whole PFU thing for though, without it I wouldn't have met my twin

haleno1 said:

Do you really believe this? in this day and age, living in a country built on principles of freedom of speech and expression? You do realize that the prince symbol is a melding of pre-existing symbols, right? That someone else invented all the techniques and technology that Prince adopted, right? So whatever form it takes regardless of Prince shaping it, they own the rights, correct?

ufoclub said:

I can't believe how compliant and brainwashed our society has become.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

You know, that was his site and he had a right to control what was posted however he saw fit. It didn't have to be fair, but those forums were his property so he wasn't under obligation to be fair.

It's when he starts trying to patrol comments on sites owned by other people that it goes out of bound. And again, I don't see that as being a problem these days.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Ditto and right back at you!

BSOD said:

would you like to be photoshoped in a degrading manner so everyone
can see it in a website and laugh at you?

garganta said:

Oh he has!

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

good for him then. not everyone has to accept it though.

ufoclub said:

A copyright is a copyright. Violation of copyrights is not freedom of speech.

If you create something new out of pre-existing things, it is your creation, and you can obtain copyright. If you create a new car, it is still your invention, although the basic design principles have been there before.

I understand some of the frustration going on here, but what I don't get is why we can't try sticking to facts!

From BSOD's post:


Who said discussing bootlegs is not allowed? As long as you don't discuss how to obtain them, you can do whatever you want. And as far as I know, you can photoshop pictures of Prince, but if you use copyrighted pictures to do it, you have a problem.

Btw, is the cameltoe pic copyrighted?

garganta said:

Prince is supposedly supposed to have a sense of humor but collapses into a pile of shit as soon as someone puts Aretha Franklin's hat on him? I mean really, the Prince who survived the "Slave" feud with WB can't handle that??

Copyright is important and should protect the copyright owner so another person cannot make money which was meant for the copyright holder or can put the copyright holder in a bad daylight.

In the case of HQ and prince.org there are imo two important points:
1. Some people think that Prince himself always has copyright to the pics which show Prince. Most of the time that is not the case: the photographer is the copyright holder. Prince only has copyright to those pics that were made on his request.
2. prince.org (and till last Friday HQ) are fansites. They are just celebrating their favourite artist and make no money in any way. I think it should be no problem to use pics of the artist the fansite is about. I even wonder if there is any other artist than Prince who tries to control his images on fansites.

dothejump said:

ad 1) That is fine and all, but if he has the copyright, it's his stuff, isn't it? And if he hasn't, it should be easy to point out upon request by the Prince camp if needed.

ad 2) How Prince should/could behave is entirely his business. A copyrighted object doesn't lose its copyright just because the copyright violation has been carried out with a good intention.

Btw, there is something else that bothers me. Some people seem to suggest that non-official websites disply the images of the artist they are dedicated to in order to promote and to support him, i.e. to do him good. In fact, I think that the use of images occurs to OUR pleasure and delight, and that we don't use images as some sort of charity towards Prince.

We complain about Prince being a hypocrite, yet we claim that we would act in his interest and just as his sweet little fans supporting him if we make a thread of the type "Photoshop a large penis into Prince's face". Let's be honest, folks, we do that for our entertainment...

EmancipationLover said:

No, that's not easy. It is one of the main problems.

EmancipationLover said:

You are completely right. The object still holds its copyright. But I'm just saying that showing a photo on a fansite shouldn't be such a big problem (again that is just my opinion). I'm not talking about photoshopped photos or high resolution photos that can be used by others for commercial purposes, just ordinary pics that are showed for the pleasure of the fans.

dothejump said:

Is the problem

1) to find out who the actual copyright holder is

or

2) to communicate to the Prince camp that a certain photo of Prince is not copyrighted by him

or

3) that Prince simply ignores the correct copyright and spends a lot of money on good lawyers who can scare the shit out of you

or

4) that it simply takes away too much of the fun of a fansite if you need to check the copyright of every single picture posted?

I am , but that baby on youtube incident was a little disturbing.
[Edited 2/2/09 13:58pm]