New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Who else is fully supportive of P and his tight Copyright controls.? Another day, another drama with a fan site. So , following on from recent events and indeed previously how many on here actually look at copyright through P's eyes and subsequently can understand why he is so passionate about controlling his name and his creations?.
Me?, well my feeling is that it is clearly something he feels strongly about, he also speaks on behalf of many other artists who are finally waking up [see today's planned event in London with Coldplay, Robbie Williams etc], he's given me far more truly jaw dropping experiences than bad ones, he works damn hard and above all else his message is 100% clear about use of his image. Therefore is it too much to respect his wishes?. Whilst we may not agree with his methods or indeed the level of irrationality with some decsions there comes a point where we need to stop yanking his chain and let it be. So i'd be really interested to see who else can sympathise with P, oh and don't flame my ass!. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
 We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
funkyhead said: Another day, another drama with a fan site. So , following on from recent events and indeed previously how many on here actually look at copyright through P's eyes and subsequently can understand why he is so passionate about controlling his name and his creations?.
Me?, well my feeling is that it is clearly something he feels strongly about, he also speaks on behalf of many other artists who are finally waking up [see today's planned event in London with Coldplay, Robbie Williams etc], he's given me far more truly jaw dropping experiences than bad ones, he works damn hard and above all else his message is 100% clear about use of his image. Therefore is it too much to respect his wishes?. Whilst we may not agree with his methods or indeed the level of irrationality with some decsions there comes a point where we need to stop yanking his chain and let it be. So i'd be really interested to see who else can sympathise with P, oh and don't flame my ass!. seven supports copyright control. cheers! ~s=v=n s+v~n(sq2) 7. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I support Copyrights. I know a girl who is 8 years old and she has composed 3 songs and is working on a 4th. If she were to have them published in some form or other, I want to see her work copyrighted. No matter your age, pursue your dreams so that you will LIVE. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm ambivalent about it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree w/ Prince and support copyright control.
 Dad. Cartoonist. Illustrator. TOPPS Star Wars and Walking Dead Illustrator. Film Illustrator. JEDI. PRINCE Fan. www.theartofprince.com
www.jonathancaustrita.com www.theartofprince.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TikiColadas said: I agree w/ Prince and support copyright control.
second..that.. Da, Da, Da....Emancipation....Free..don't think I ain't..! London 21 Nights...Clap your hands...you know the rest..
James Brown & Michael Jackson RIP, your music still lives with us! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As soon as the ball is rolling you cant stop it from running down that hill. There is a lot to be found in the dark out there. We only come out at night. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think the issue was him wanting tight control over legally NON-copyrighted items, and using financial muscle for control. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
All artist should be thinking along these lines. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: I think the issue was him wanting tight control over legally NON-copyrighted items, and using financial muscle for control.
i think instead of 'tight' we should say 'strangulation' in P's case!. I thin there was always a very strong case that allowing use of TV footage to be put on HQ, Youtube etc can only lead to better publicity which leads to more sales for the artist concerned. However looking at the recent grim statistics of how much illegal downloading goes on it is obvious that artists of all generes are getting screwed by illegal downloads. I am being hugley hypocritical her as in fact only yesterday I borrowed my friends new Franz Ferdinand Cd and put it straight onto my Pod!, now how did that benefit a band that I really love?. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
on a legal level, i support him doing whatever he feels it takes to protect his image and his "brand" as a performer and a recording artist, and i support him doing what he's got to do to maintain a level of privacy and dignity that he feels is necessary.
on a personal level, if i were in his shoes i would probably go about things differently. on an ethical/shades-of-grey level, i don't think it's much of a victory when you know you have a thin case, but you can still bully anyone you like due to the fact that you can afford a top-notch legal team. it's complicated, i guess.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
everyone - famous or not, gifted or not - surely has a right to determine how their image is used and to be paid for their work.
I own a shop. I imagine some customers would prefer not to have to pay for what I sell, but I don't give stuff away for free. Why would I? Why would prince? If you value something pay for it; if you value someone respect their right to protect what they have created. You want something for nothing? Fine. You want to use someone else's ideas instead of coming up with your own? Fine. But trying to justify it in terms of being a fan giving you 'rights', or trying to criticise an artist for wanting to control how their image and work is used, seems a bit disingenous. Not meaning any of this as an attack on housequake, as I know nothing at all about what has gone on there....but the constant criticism of prince for doing what most of us do - want recognition and payment for our work, and the final say as to what ends our work is put, is essentially dishonest...demanding of an artist we claim to admire a selflessness that in the end would undermine his art. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mystickitty said: everyone - famous or not, gifted or not - surely has a right to determine how their image is used and to be paid for their work.
I own a shop. I imagine some customers would prefer not to have to pay for what I sell, but I don't give stuff away for free. Why would I? Why would prince? If you value something pay for it; if you value someone respect their right to protect what they have created. You want something for nothing? Fine. You want to use someone else's ideas instead of coming up with your own? Fine. But trying to justify it in terms of being a fan giving you 'rights', or trying to criticise an artist for wanting to control how their image and work is used, seems a bit disingenous. Not meaning any of this as an attack on housequake, as I know nothing at all about what has gone on there....but the constant criticism of prince for doing what most of us do - want recognition and payment for our work, and the final say as to what ends our work is put, is essentially dishonest...demanding of an artist we claim to admire a selflessness that in the end would undermine his art. NICE..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mystickitty said: everyone - famous or not, gifted or not - surely has a right to determine how their image is used and to be paid for their work.
I own a shop. I imagine some customers would prefer not to have to pay for what I sell, but I don't give stuff away for free. Why would I? Why would prince? If you value something pay for it; if you value someone respect their right to protect what they have created. You want something for nothing? Fine. You want to use someone else's ideas instead of coming up with your own? Fine. But trying to justify it in terms of being a fan giving you 'rights', or trying to criticise an artist for wanting to control how their image and work is used, seems a bit disingenous. Not meaning any of this as an attack on housequake, as I know nothing at all about what has gone on there....but the constant criticism of prince for doing what most of us do - want recognition and payment for our work, and the final say as to what ends our work is put, is essentially dishonest...demanding of an artist we claim to admire a selflessness that in the end would undermine his art. Says it all. Thank you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I support it. I only wish that Prince would meet the demand of his fans in other ways.
For example: I think it is Prince's right to put a stop to a bootleg DVD of his 21nights in London concerts. However, I wish that he'd put out a tight, well produced, official DVD of this historic event. I bet that 90% of fans would pay money for the material if it was officially released.. rather than bootleg it. I feel as if bootleggers of Prince's material don't do it because of the thrill of the steal or because it's free, they likely do it because it is not available otherwise. I mean, since 1994, has anyone searched for a bootleg copy of The Black Album? "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: I think the issue was him wanting tight control over legally NON-copyrighted items, and using financial muscle for control.
Yes, yes!!!! I agree. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: I support it. I only wish that Prince would meet the demand of his fans in other ways.
For example: I think it is Prince's right to put a stop to a bootleg DVD of his 21nights in London concerts. However, I wish that he'd put out a tight, well produced, official DVD of this historic event. I bet that 90% of fans would pay money for the material if it was officially released.. rather than bootleg it. I feel as if bootleggers of Prince's material don't do it because of the thrill of the steal or because it's free, they likely do it because it is not available otherwise. I mean, since 1994, has anyone searched for a bootleg copy of The Black Album? I'm sure they have...since the CD is now out of print. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: on a legal level, i support him doing whatever he feels it takes to protect his image and his "brand" as a performer and a recording artist, and i support him doing what he's got to do to maintain a level of privacy and dignity that he feels is necessary.
on a personal level, if i were in his shoes i would probably go about things differently. on an ethical/shades-of-grey level, i don't think it's much of a victory when you know you have a thin case, but you can still bully anyone you like due to the fact that you can afford a top-notch legal team. it's complicated, i guess. Not really. Prince wants to protect his stuff. That's cool, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But to do so at the expense of driving away those who made it something worth protecting, in the first place? Well that's just going out the world ass backwards or Facedown, if you ask me. 
After the initial blast off into his new galaxy, when the newness has worn off, who the hell does he think is going to keep it orbiting? His new protege'? His celebrity friends? The same people that made Lil' Wayne a star? 
Yeah, well good luck with that! I knew from the start that I loved you with all my heart. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I support him because I understand what he's trying to do. In the end maybe artists down the road will thank him. Even if he did release official DVDs we all know they would end up on youtube anyway. If you look at the cost into making and distributing the DVD, would he break even from fans who would buy versus those who get them free from the Internet? I don't think so. I follow alot of indie bands and they are literally begging people to download/buy their cds.technology has made it hard to make money in music.
What I don't support are the extreme cases, such as silencing home made videos or bands covering his songs on youtube, and restricting pictures on fansites. . I honestly don't see how that hurts him or causes him to lose any money. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mystickitty said: everyone - famous or not, gifted or not - surely has a right to determine how their image is used and to be paid for their work.
I own a shop. I imagine some customers would prefer not to have to pay for what I sell, but I don't give stuff away for free. Why would I? Why would prince? If you value something pay for it; if you value someone respect their right to protect what they have created. You want something for nothing? Fine. You want to use someone else's ideas instead of coming up with your own? Fine. But trying to justify it in terms of being a fan giving you 'rights', or trying to criticise an artist for wanting to control how their image and work is used, seems a bit disingenous. Not meaning any of this as an attack on housequake, as I know nothing at all about what has gone on there....but the constant criticism of prince for doing what most of us do - want recognition and payment for our work, and the final say as to what ends our work is put, is essentially dishonest...demanding of an artist we claim to admire a selflessness that in the end would undermine his art. How about if some of your most loyal customers, who've shopped at your store and recommended it to friends for years, decades even - if they printed your store logo on a t-shirt and handed out flyers for free. Would you whip the t-shirts off their back just out of spite because they didn't ask permission to use the logo? Or would you look for a more friendly way to interact with them? This isn't an issue of bootlegs BTW - that's a totally different subject. Personally, I think this falls under 'fair use'. Fansites using a picture without copyright is fair use IMO. They aren't a paid publication like a magazine, they're a community of fans who do what they do out of enjoyment of Prince's work. Prince doesn't lose any income if Housequake.com (or whoever) use a picture of him in a banner or site design. It's petty beyond belief, especially from an artist who has constantly waved the new media flag for many years (not to say shows a certain insecurity with regards to 'perceived competition' to his own ever-revolving line up of short-lived official websites). Basically, just chill the fuck out Prince, you know  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HatrinaHaterwitz said: Anxiety said: on a legal level, i support him doing whatever he feels it takes to protect his image and his "brand" as a performer and a recording artist, and i support him doing what he's got to do to maintain a level of privacy and dignity that he feels is necessary.
on a personal level, if i were in his shoes i would probably go about things differently. on an ethical/shades-of-grey level, i don't think it's much of a victory when you know you have a thin case, but you can still bully anyone you like due to the fact that you can afford a top-notch legal team. it's complicated, i guess. Not really. Prince wants to protect his stuff. That's cool, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But to do so at the expense of driving away those who made it something worth protecting, in the first place? Well that's just going out the world ass backwards or Facedown, if you ask me.
After the initial blast off into his new galaxy, when the newness has worn off, who the hell does he think is going to keep it orbiting? His new protege'? His celebrity friends? The same people that made Lil' Wayne a star?
Yeah, well good luck with that! Hmmm...I don't agree with you that it's the fans that make a piece of music etc 'worth protecting'....If something is good then it has a worth in its own right....and let's not forget it's PRINCE whose created it, not us! We're just consumers in this scenario... We're fans....we can choose to share in the pleasure of P's music, but we haven't shared in the act of creation and so I do'nt see that we're owed anything. I'm a fan - I buy music, I listen to music. I don't create it. It would exist and be beautiful without me. I'm a total zero in this scenario. Prince would write and perform music without any of us. So what does he owe us? We hand over our pounds or dollars and we get the tickets or CDs. That's the deal. Of course we want more...but more isn't what's on offer...and I haven't seen lotusflower full of prince's demands on his fans and what they should do and how they should behave - that would be pretty funny to see a whole list of his complaints on us.... If we support the new website or the new record we don't do it for any reason other than that we want to - we dig it - we get something out of it. We need it. We're not some philanthropic support group for former funk-pop superstars. So why pretend our 'loyalty' or 'support' is anything other than it is: hunger for the funky stuff we can't live without. Which means in this particular universe Prince calls the shots. Becuase he's got the talent and we haven't! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NouveauDance said: mystickitty said: everyone - famous or not, gifted or not - surely has a right to determine how their image is used and to be paid for their work.
I own a shop. I imagine some customers would prefer not to have to pay for what I sell, but I don't give stuff away for free. Why would I? Why would prince? If you value something pay for it; if you value someone respect their right to protect what they have created. You want something for nothing? Fine. You want to use someone else's ideas instead of coming up with your own? Fine. But trying to justify it in terms of being a fan giving you 'rights', or trying to criticise an artist for wanting to control how their image and work is used, seems a bit disingenous. Not meaning any of this as an attack on housequake, as I know nothing at all about what has gone on there....but the constant criticism of prince for doing what most of us do - want recognition and payment for our work, and the final say as to what ends our work is put, is essentially dishonest...demanding of an artist we claim to admire a selflessness that in the end would undermine his art. How about if some of your most loyal customers, who've shopped at your store and recommended it to friends for years, decades even - if they printed your store logo on a t-shirt and handed out flyers for free. Would you whip the t-shirts off their back just out of spite because they didn't ask permission to use the logo? Or would you look for a more friendly way to interact with them? This isn't an issue of bootlegs BTW - that's a totally different subject. Personally, I think this falls under 'fair use'. Fansites using a picture without copyright is fair use IMO. They aren't a paid publication like a magazine, they're a community of fans who do what they do out of enjoyment of Prince's work. Prince doesn't lose any income if Housequake.com (or whoever) use a picture of him in a banner or site design. It's petty beyond belief, especially from an artist who has constantly waved the new media flag for many years (not to say shows a certain insecurity with regards to 'perceived competition' to his own ever-revolving line up of short-lived official websites). Basically, just chill the fuck out Prince, you know well...it's a good point...but i guess it just shows I'm a control freak too, because I would go APE if someone did that to my shop...all that money i pay to pr firms and on advertising and design agencies....i would honestly think that a lot of damage could be done to my business by people acting like that and i guess my first thought would be...have you not got your own thing going on? set up your own shop and print your own t-shirt!!! why the hell are you trying to live my life for me? I never asked you to! go do your own thing and let me do mine! maybe it is just me....but when you put a lot of work into something, seeing other people claim to 'own' it or have rights in it just because they consumed something you made, doesnt feel right....that really underestimates the work that goes into creation maybe it is just me! i am a bad person and a control freak | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mystickitty said: well...it's a good point...but i guess it just shows I'm a control freak too, because I would go APE if someone did that to my shop...all that money i pay to pr firms and on advertising and design agencies....i would honestly think that a lot of damage could be done to my business by people acting like that and i guess my first thought would be...have you not got your own thing going on? set up your own shop and print your own t-shirt!!! why the hell are you trying to live my life for me? I never asked you to! go do your own thing and let me do mine! maybe it is just me....but when you put a lot of work into something, seeing other people claim to 'own' it or have rights in it just because they consumed something you made, doesnt feel right....that really underestimates the work that goes into creation I understand about control of image. Obviously Prince's image is a big part of his act, or any popstar or celebrity's schtick, and he feels strongly about it. I actually think the shop analogy is a bad one on my part. It would be a little crazy for someone to do that!  But it's not extreme for fans of a popstar, it's pretty normal in fact, which is my point about 'fair use'.
We're discussing this on a forum about Prince's career. If we didn't want to follow, discuss and disect it, we wouldn't've filled out the sign up form.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
im with it
its annoying that i cant watch his videos on youtube but if i was in his position i would probably do the same You're so glam, every time I see you I wanna slam! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mystickitty said: NouveauDance said: How about if some of your most loyal customers, who've shopped at your store and recommended it to friends for years, decades even - if they printed your store logo on a t-shirt and handed out flyers for free. Would you whip the t-shirts off their back just out of spite because they didn't ask permission to use the logo? Or would you look for a more friendly way to interact with them? This isn't an issue of bootlegs BTW - that's a totally different subject. Personally, I think this falls under 'fair use'. Fansites using a picture without copyright is fair use IMO. They aren't a paid publication like a magazine, they're a community of fans who do what they do out of enjoyment of Prince's work. Prince doesn't lose any income if Housequake.com (or whoever) use a picture of him in a banner or site design. It's petty beyond belief, especially from an artist who has constantly waved the new media flag for many years (not to say shows a certain insecurity with regards to 'perceived competition' to his own ever-revolving line up of short-lived official websites). Basically, just chill the fuck out Prince, you know well...it's a good point...but i guess it just shows I'm a control freak too, because I would go APE if someone did that to my shop...all that money i pay to pr firms and on advertising and design agencies....i would honestly think that a lot of damage could be done to my business by people acting like that and i guess my first thought would be...have you not got your own thing going on? set up your own shop and print your own t-shirt!!! why the hell are you trying to live my life for me? I never asked you to! go do your own thing and let me do mine! maybe it is just me....but when you put a lot of work into something, seeing other people claim to 'own' it or have rights in it just because they consumed something you made, doesnt feel right....that really underestimates the work that goes into creation maybe it is just me! i am a bad person and a control freak Just wanted to say it's nice to get the point of view from someone who is an actual business owner. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ifsixwuz9 said: Just wanted to say it's nice to get the point of view from someone who is an actual business owner.
You had two in that quote.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I support Prince and him wanting to have control over copyrights. It's his art and image and music, he should be in control over those things as should all artists and business owners and etc... I'm not a fan of "old Prince". I'm not a fan of "new Prince". I'm just a fan of Prince. Simple as that | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NouveauDance said: Ifsixwuz9 said: Just wanted to say it's nice to get the point of view from someone who is an actual business owner.
You had two in that quote. Really? What type of business do you own? Seriously I'd like to know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll play it first and tell you what it is later. -Miles Davis- | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
minneapolisFunq said: im with it
its annoying that i cant watch his videos on youtube but if i was in his position i would probably do the same Yeah cuz that's what artists do, create videos that can't be seen anywhere  2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
