My understand it this law is patterned after laws that are already in place in other States, so it's not like they are going in uncharted territory. I don't get the whining.

Now Prince has a son? I'm confused.

Why media law experts have some serious problems with the Legislature's PRINCE bill

https://www.minnpost.com/...rince-bill

unanticipated limitations on free expression

a gratuitous attempt to capitalize on the goodwill that Minnesotans feel toward Prince

Existing intellectual property law would most likely address most of the legitimate concerns about Prince

essentially a cash grab for attorneys

If someone wants to throw a Prince dance party, they can expect a cease and desist letter from an attorney

But if the law is basically identical to the one in California...um...I don't get the opposition beyond saying "the sky is falling" as opposed to using factual cases as in do celebrity representatives in Cali sue based on some random person throwing a party using a celebrities music or image? Does that happen often in Washinton or in Florida where these laws exist? Where is the evidence that this type of thing occurs enough to say this is only an attorney cash grab? Is Minnesota some sort of special hubub?

Eileen said:

Why media law experts have some serious problems with the Legislature's PRINCE bill

https://www.minnpost.com/...rince-bill

unanticipated limitations on free expression

a gratuitous attempt to capitalize on the goodwill that Minnesotans feel toward Prince

Existing intellectual property law would most likely address most of the legitimate concerns about Prince

essentially a cash grab for attorneys

If someone wants to throw a Prince dance party, they can expect a cease and desist letter from an attorney

yup lots of issues with the scope of the bill

Eileen said:

http://www.startribune.com/effort-to-lock-down-publicity-rights-for-prince-heirs-encounters-controversy-at-capitol/379884991/

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting the act is being scaled back to just ensuring the rights are protected after someone dies.

bilbolives said:

http://www.startribune.com/effort-to-lock-down-publicity-rights-for-prince-heirs-encounters-controversy-at-capitol/379884991/

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting the act is being scaled back to just ensuring the rights are protected after someone dies.

Thanks. Sounds like the over-reaching trustees and politicos were brought back to earth by both the local and national arts communities. When even the grasping MPAA says you've gone too far, it's time to pack it in.

Unfortunately it sounds like they are going to try for more next session, but at least there will be a lot of eyes upon future bills due to all the attention drawn by the outrageous, unconstitutional proposal they tried to jam through.

This whole thing is a huge waste of time. Lawyers are the ones who stand to get rich.....

[Edited 5/18/16 13:35pm]

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-state-lawmaker-pulls-prince-bill-amid-concerns/380040241/

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is noting that the bill has been pulled amidst concerns raised about unintended consequences.

bilbolives said:

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-state-lawmaker-pulls-prince-bill-amid-concerns/380040241/

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is noting that the bill has been pulled amidst concerns raised about unintended consequences.

Nice to witness some pols doing the right thing, at least for one session. Doesn't happen nearly often enough.

[Edited 5/18/16 20:13pm]

Eileen said:

bilbolives said:

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-state-lawmaker-pulls-prince-bill-amid-concerns/380040241/

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is noting that the bill has been pulled amidst concerns raised about unintended consequences.

Nice to witness some pols doing the right thing, at least for one session. Doesn't happen nearly often enough.

[Edited 5/18/16 20:13pm]

So glad this thing didnt go through...

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRINCE_LEGISLATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The Associated Press also reported the shelving of the act.

1817 said:

So the bill has been "set aside", according to Billboard, to collect dust and be forgotten of course.....sounds like some folks just sold out. Its basically a free for all now! what a shame! i still dont buy he had no will or trust...bet u it was hand written, tucked away in the Vault...then the thieves came, broke into the Vault, for prupose of an offical bogus investigation.....and there we go thieves in the temple!

The legislation in question had nothing to do with an estate's ownership of music or video. It was solely related to their ability to own his likeness.

There are no Thieves in the Temple tonight.

UncleGrandpa said:

It's good that this is happening now because it would put to a halt all of the bootleg items being sold on Facebook with his face and name, we now damn well he would not have endorsed phone cases and jewelry with the symbol on it.

Not true. I purchased a Love Sign Chain at his LoveSexy concert. Cost an arm and a leg too.

tollyc said:

Why is this a good thing?

The reality is these modern technologies such as google/youtube will allow a new generation of fans to curate his legacy and for a new audience to meet his music. If they start taking stuff off the websites his legacy is over (as us die hards die off).

EXACTLY. I enjoy reading the comments of youth stating they JUST discovered his music from youtube.

AnonymousFan said: agreed

luv4u said:

With reporting from Toni Randolph

UPDATED 11 a.m. with bill details.

Minnesota lawmakers are rushing to enact a law that would restrict the use of Prince's name and likeness in commercial ventures, affording more control to heirs of the late musician's estate.

They're dubbing it the PRINCE Act, short for the Personal Rights in Names Can Endure law.........................

http://www.thecurrent.org...803adf3ca0

Link to Bill SF 3609 https://www.revisor.mn.go...ion=latest

YES!!! WE NEED THIS!!!

yes, we want to utilize the "modern technologies". however, "google/youtube" are monetized, with profits not going to the artists/survivors, particularly the *bootleg* videos/music. perhaps, the p.r.i.n.c.e. law will encourage fans to pay to watch the videos and to listen to the music, like a tidal business model?

tollyc said:

Why is this a good thing?

The reality is these modern technologies such as google/youtube will allow a new generation of fans to curate his legacy and for a new audience to meet his music. If they start taking stuff off the websites his legacy is over (as us die hards die off).

auburgine said:

yes, we want to utilize the "modern technologies". however, "google/youtube" are monetized, with profits not going to the artists/survivors, particularly the *bootleg* videos/music. perhaps, the p.r.i.n.c.e. law will encourage fans to pay to watch the videos and to listen to the music, like a tidal business model?

It is not true to say money would not go to the artists/heirs without the PRINCE Act.

Copyright owners do have the right to sign up to receive such income from Youtube. One might argue on the percentage split, or ease of identification of owned content, however the program does exist.

The PRINCE Act doesn't change that for music or music videos, except to likely make legal "fair use" usages even more difficult.

I want to actually read the law before making any judgements. Any links to the actual bill? I don't trust what politicians, the media, commentors, or the media have to say about what the bill. I want to make up my own mind.

EDIT: oh, its here. I am going to read it and see for myself. Link to Bill SF 3609 https://www.revisor.mn.go...ion=latest

[Edited 5/24/16 20:11pm]

This has come a bit late considering all the stuff that went on sale almost immediately after his death was announced. I'm guilty of buying a few T shirts, but I agree that something should be done to stop fraudulent items from being sold and to protect the copyrights for the heirs.

It's too bad that Prince didn't leave detailed instructions on how to handle his estate in the event of his passing. Seems he would have wanted his affairs handled with respect and fairness and would have ensured this.

What really gets to me are the British tabloids reporting all sorts of outlandish tales about the cause of death. I think they take it a little too far with their speculations, especially reporting that he had AIDS.

dupe

[Edited 6/1/16 12:49pm]

dupe

[Edited 6/1/16 12:50pm]

This is a sad thread to bump, really. The board has more than a sackload of posts and threads with people excited about this tribute, that tribute, Prince parties, tours, celebrations, special mags... all of which would be illegal or at least sue-able offenses if the PRINCE Act had passed.

Everyone would be sitting around waiting (read: complaining vociferously on the org) for the estate to create licensing procedures and hiring expert pricing consultants and inviting corporations to submit bids to be selected as Officially Licensed Prince Estate Vendors.

If the bill has been withdrawn why are people still whining about it?

babynoz said:

If the bill has been withdrawn why are people still whining about it?

No idea why the thread was bumped, however beyond that the sponsor did state that he is committed to introducing a new version of the bill next session.

Eileen said:

babynoz said:

If the bill has been withdrawn why are people still whining about it?

No idea why the thread was bumped, however beyond that the sponsor did state that he is committed to introducing a new version of the bill next session.

Then we can talk about it when and if that happens.