Source: http://www.drfunkenberry....n-release/

Prince Involved In New Michael Jackson Release?

Sony Records began pre-selling the new MICHAEL release recently (CD and DVD).

The cover, designed by painter Kadir Nelson, is a collage of MJ pics and icons. If you look REALLY closely at the tiger on the right hand side, you’ll notice the Prince symbol floating in a glass orb. Yes, THAT Prince symbol.

Someone sent it to us and at first we thought it was a Photoshop hoax, but when you visit the Sony website and check out the album artwork, it’s very clearly there.

So was Prince involved somehow in one or more of the tracks on the new release? According to Sony, Kadir’s painting was created in 2009 and “takes us on a journey through some key moments and important people in Michael Jackson’s life.”

Whether Prince and MJ collaborated or Prince was just considered “important people” in MJ’s life remains to be seen. If there is a Prince/MJ collaboration, we definitely want to hear it!

To add to the mystery: Next Monday, November 8th, michaeljackson.com will world premiere “Breaking News,” a full track from the album. It was recorded in New Jersey in 2007.

Prince, want to clear this one up for us? -Dr.FB

UPDATE (1:45pm PST): The official response from Prince’s camp: “No permission was granted!”

[That's their exclamation mark, not ours " /> - Dr.FB]

I just thought it's interesting to hear the response from Prince and his camp to this..

This is probably gonna be locked quickly?!

[Edited 11/5/10 16:35pm]

gossip columnists. they love stirring up trouble, dont they.

robinhood said:

gossip columnists. they love stirring up trouble, dont they.

I don't know why it is so hard for fans of Michael to realize that he had a thing for Prince. I'm not talking about sexually. I'm talking about he admired him... he named his son after Prince... not his grandfather. Would Mile Davis name his son John Coltrane unintentionally? It is downright silly

http://www.mtv.com/photos...hoto.jhtml

Michael Jackson was obsessed with Prince and in the end it killed him

imo THIS is another gimmick, another media stunt from the MJ camp....

just trying to provoke a reaction from Prince's camp, maybe they want Prince to sue... to stir things up, to get the new MJ album into the headlines.

Haven't we seen things like that before, the MJ camp using Prince to get into the headlines?

thats free publicity for prince..

Prince the all powerful!

Get your money right!

TrueFunkSoldier2 said:

thats free publicity for prince..

But...

the Prince symbol is copyrights protected, everyone knows this including the MJ camp.

To see the symbol on a MJ album... is weird.

They just don't have the rights to print this.

Very cool.

Kind of Sgt. Pepperish. So there's a precedent out there; did the Beatles pay for all the imagery?

Pretty cool nonetheless.

thedance said:

TrueFunkSoldier2 said:

thats free publicity for prince..

But...

the Prince symbol is copyrights protected, everyone knows this including the MJ camp.

To see the symbol on a MJ album... is weird.

They just don't have the rights to print this.

ya but i dont see why it should bother him.. its on a cover of an album that will most likely do big numbers.

sro100 said:

Very cool.

Kind of Sgt. Pepperish. So there's a precedent out there; did the Beatles pay for all the imagery?

Pretty cool nonetheless.

maybe maybe not that was a risk they took back then. I would hope prince would let it go but who knows what he might do.

In any event, there should be at least one thread about this in Prince: Music And More. This really is about Prince and his symbol now.

Mods, please no locky.

I think Prince (or the camp) is prob. more surprised than upset about it, only because they didn't really have any kind of friendship.

I know the name from him doing local stuff in San Diego, did the artwork of the stamps for Negro League Baseball for the USPS, but he'd def. be a good one to do Prince's next project. Who knows, his last name's Nelson... might be a distant cousin.

Prince's symbol should not be on the cover. I mean is that supposed to be a joke?

TrueFunkSoldier2 said:

thedance said:

But...

the Prince symbol is copyrights protected, everyone knows this including the MJ camp.

To see the symbol on a MJ album... is weird.

They just don't have the rights to print this.

ya but i dont see why it should bother him.. its on a cover of an album that will most likely do big numbers.

because he would get a cut of those big numbers if his trademark is plastered on the front of it.

^ I believe Prince is more concerned with the copyrights infringement, than he is with earning money from a MJ project.

This is a bad joke from the MJ camp. I really hope they will remove that symbol from the album cover when the album is finally released.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sro100 said:

Very cool.

Kind of Sgt. Pepperish. So there's a precedent out there; did the Beatles pay for all the imagery?

Pretty cool nonetheless.

maybe maybe not that was a risk they took back then. I would hope prince would let it go but who knows what he might do.

The Beatles had to get permission and if you notice on the album cover there is a space where someone didn't give it to them. From wiki

The collage created legal worries for EMI's legal department, which had to contact the people who were still living to obtain their permission. Mae West initially refused — famously asking "What would I be doing in a lonely hearts club?" — but she relented after The Beatles sent her a personal letter. Actor Leo Gorcey requested payment for inclusion on the cover, so his image was removed. An image of Mohandas Gandhi was also removed at the request of EMI (it was airbrushed out), who had a branch in India and were fearful that it might cause offence there. Lennon had asked to include images of Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler, though neither was included through fear of causing offence.

thedance said:

I find this very odd. I could see if there were other artists on the cover (besides the We Are The World pic), but there's not. Would Michael Jackson really have wanted Prince's symbol on the cover of one of his albums? I'm thinking Prince does not like this!

mynameisnotsusan said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

maybe maybe not that was a risk they took back then. I would hope prince would let it go but who knows what he might do.

The Beatles had to get permission and if you notice on the album cover there is a space where someone didn't give it to them. From wiki

The collage created legal worries for EMI's legal department, which had to contact the people who were still living to obtain their permission. Mae West initially refused — famously asking "What would I be doing in a lonely hearts club?" — but she relented after The Beatles sent her a personal letter. Actor Leo Gorcey requested payment for inclusion on the cover, so his image was removed. An image of Mohandas Gandhi was also removed at the request of EMI (it was airbrushed out), who had a branch in India and were fearful that it might cause offence there. Lennon had asked to include images of Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler, though neither was included through fear of causing offence.

Speaking of Sgt Pepper, Common had a sort of modern equivalent with Electric Circus. I don't remember Prince's "official response" to that cover.

[img:$uid]http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac268/squirrelgrease2009/common-electric-circus.jpg[/img:$uid]

well the Sony ppl have taken off the symbol...go to www.michaeljackson.com and do the 'zoom in' thing on the album and you will see that there's a bubble there next to the tiger and no love symbol...

SomewhereHereOnEarth said:

well the Sony ppl have taken off the symbol...go to www.michaeljackson.com and do the 'zoom in' thing on the album and you will see that there's a bubble there next to the tiger and no love symbol...

If these are printed already, it's gonna be expensive to re-do them all. Of course, they could do a "Butcher Cover" and put a sticker over it. Maybe a middle finger image would be appropriate.

squirrelgrease said:

SomewhereHereOnEarth said:

well the Sony ppl have taken off the symbol...go to www.michaeljackson.com and do the 'zoom in' thing on the album and you will see that there's a bubble there next to the tiger and no love symbol...

If these are printed already, it's gonna be expensive to re-do them all. Of course, they could do a "Butcher Cover" and put a sticker over it. Maybe a middle finger image would be appropriate.

that would totally suck if they are already printed...

[img:$uid]http://images.sonymusicdigital.com/autoimage/display/zoom/media.sonymusicd2c.com/dda/5723321/b1a7c393d9af40ce385c7d80afc8689.jpg/b1a7c393d9af40ce385c7d80afc8689[/img:$uid]

squirrelgrease said:

[img:$uid]http://images.sonymusicdigital.com/autoimage/display/zoom/media.sonymusicd2c.com/dda/5723321/b1a7c393d9af40ce385c7d80afc8689.jpg/b1a7c393d9af40ce385c7d80afc8689[/img:$uid]

that bubble near the tiger looks soooooooooo depressing...

like somethings missing...

SomewhereHereOnEarth said:

well the Sony ppl have taken off the symbol...go to www.michaeljackson.com and do the 'zoom in' thing on the album and you will see that there's a bubble there next to the tiger and no love symbol...

Awww. That kind of sucks. Maybe a few discs got out? I'm sure they'd be of interest more to Prince fans than just fans of King of Pop as collector items.

The Purple Power strikes back.

This is weird, I just blew up the new bubble image and I think there may be more trouble on the horizon...

[img:$uid]http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac268/squirrelgrease2009/CloseUp.jpg[/img:$uid]

Thank goodness the symbol was removed!! That is Prince's symbol and does NOT belong on a MJ album cover. I love MJ and can't wait for this cd...but that was too much. Prince didn't give permission and doubt he would have. It doesn't make any sense, the artist sucks for doing that! Trying to provoke Prince...If other artist had been included, then I wouldn't be upset, but sense there wasn't any other artists, I find it completely disrespectful to Prince. Either way, its gone!

All this speculation is just that; meaningless speculation. Clearly this artist does not understand MJ. There is a winged naked baby on the cover and Michael is not molesting it. Symbol or not, the cover is not accurate.

Mars23 said:

All this speculation is just that; meaningless speculation. Clearly this artist does not understand MJ. There is a winged naked baby on the cover and Michael is not molesting it. Symbol or not, the cover is not accurate.

Come on. That is low. Edit that shit.