The Price of Fame: Prince

[Edited 2/19/18 22:24pm]

Reelz channel is so damn sleazy. A white dude is playing Prince in this show...not light skinned black or of color in another way (hispanic or arabic or persian)...a caucasion dude... Plus, the damn show looks super cheesy and simplistic.

i cant get the video to work for me.But if it's by REELZ then i know it isnt any good

jdcxc said:

jdcxc said:

Can’t the Estate block this garbage?

Why? It is the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Folks are also free to not watch it. I don't. They were actually running Prince stuff back to back last night. Again. Believe me, I'm not making a moral argument for it, or a fan's argument - it's a freedom of them to do it whether anyone else likes it or not. We have a right to be offended but we don't have a right to be consoled or righted for being offended.

So no, they cannot block it. They have no legal ground to block it. You can talk about anyone you wish especially dead people. That's why there are a gazillion unauthorized biographies and movies out there. They can't even block the photos because a photographer has the ownership rights to a photograph they take, not the subject in it. (That's why paparazzi have an ongoing job - they own the photos, not the stars in them.) So if one of these sleazy people at Reelz buys rights to a bunch of photographs of Prince, they can use them. If there are any in Getty Images or otherwise, they can use them.

I mean, they're really slapping this shit together anyway with a bunch of half-baked notions and lies. I don't know why folks on here (eg: the OP) are surprised by that.

Anyone who has been here for a minute knows Reelz is a dumpster fire.

Last night, I caught part of something on Reelz called Prince The Secret Life or someshit. It was awful! I changed the channel immediately.

[Edited 2/20/18 8:32am]

I saw it. I was surprised so many people who knew him well participated in it. The interviews added a lot of context, but the narratives were lazy and incomplete, and the dramatizations were off.

namepeace said:

The estate sends cease and desist of people positng Prince's music, videos and pics on Instagram and Facebook but sleazy programs produced National Enquirer with lies and exaggeration about Prince go unchallenged. FOH!

Again...

bashraka said:

The estate sends cease and desist of people positng Prince's music, videos and pics on Instagram and Facebook but sleazy programs produced National Enquirer with lies and exaggeration about Prince go unchallenged. FOH!

I have to say, seeing the breaking news flash about a death at PP upset me all over again...

namepeace said:

Strawberrylova123 said:

Strawberrylova123 said:

namepeace said:

I saw it. I was surprised so many people who knew him well participated in it. The interviews added a lot of context, but the narratives were lazy and incomplete, and the dramatizations were off.

It hasn't premiered yet

Sorry, Reelz has one in the can already, and I can't remember what it's called.

who owns REELZ channel?

luvsexy4all said:

who owns REELZ channel?

Interestingly enough the Hubbard Broadcasting Co. that owns Reelz is based in St. Paul, Minnesota...

luvsexy4all said:

who owns REELZ channel?

Hubbard Broadcasting, which is based in.... wait for it... Minneapolis! It was founded there 93 years ago. It has flagship station in that area. Reelz is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Their sister station is Ovation.

TrivialPursuit said:

laurarichardson said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Why? It is the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Folks are also free to not watch it. I don't. They were actually running Prince stuff back to back last night. Again. Believe me, I'm not making a moral argument for it, or a fan's argument - it's a freedom of them to do it whether anyone else likes it or not. We have a right to be offended but we don't have a right to be consoled or righted for being offended.

So no, they cannot block it. They have no legal ground to block it. You can talk about anyone you wish especially dead people. That's why there are a gazillion unauthorized biographies and movies out there. They can't even block the photos because a photographer has the ownership rights to a photograph they take, not the subject in it. (That's why paparazzi have an ongoing job - they own the photos, not the stars in them.) So if one of these sleazy people at Reelz buys rights to a bunch of photographs of Prince, they can use them. If there are any in Getty Images or otherwise, they can use them.

I mean, they're really slapping this shit together anyway with a bunch of half-baked notions and lies. I don't know why folks on here (eg: the OP) are surprised by that.

Anyone who has been here for a minute knows Reelz is a dumpster fire.

They can block the use of his image and music. They have already done it with some goofy stage show in Britain.

Partially incorrect, as I noted. I've bolded it for you since you probably glazed over it in an attempt to rebutt something you didn't read.


Do you think all these people - Toure, Alan Light, Ro Ronin, Per Nilsen, Alex Hahn and the link - got permission from Prince or his people to use his image or to simply write a book about him?

Did Steve Parke? Of course not, and you know why? Because he owns the photos. He took them. That is the law. Prince obviously didn't buy every single negative from Parke, Katz, or anyone else who photographed him. I worked in the photography field for a good while and lived with a photographer for 20 years. I know exactly what can and can't be used.

That's why you can't take your Sears or Olan Mills portraits to Walmart and copy them on that Kodak Photomaker machine (which is a fancy computer, scanner, & printer). The people who are in the photos have no right to reproduce them without express written permission of the photographer. There are people who took photos of Prince, either candidly or professionally, who own the photos (ie: Prince didn't buy their negatives to control a situation). And those people can lend or lease out the photos to Reelz, Showtime, or ol' drunk Bob down on Main to use for their projects.

A stage show is entirely different with laws and impersonations than an unauthorized biography either in print or on TV.
The music is a different issue, and that's why you hear sound-alike songs in these dumpster fire biographies. Sound-alikes are allowable by law (so are parodies or satire).

purplerabbithole said:

Reelz channel is so damn sleazy. A white dude is playing Prince in this show...not light skinned black or of color in another way (hispanic or arabic or persian)...a caucasion dude... Plus, the damn show looks super cheesy and simplistic.

That should be the main reason to boycott this bullshit.

[Edited 2/21/18 15:39pm]

TrivialPursuit said:

laurarichardson said:

There are photos that Prince had the copyright on that cannot be used. His image is controlled by the estate and of course the music is owned by the estate. So all images cannot be used. If you took the time to read the court documents you would know that a stage production in Britain using his image and music has been stopped.That is my point. If your estate knew about this project I’m sure they could’ve put a stop to it or at least made it difficult. If you’re OK with some white boy playing prince then you watch and enjoy.

Yes the photos he owned cannot be used without permission. The sun also comes up in the east. Tell us something not so obvious.

His image is controlled, to an extent, by the estate. All images he doesn't own and that are up for lease or sale can be used. That includes people taking photos when he walked out of a store, or had a camera phone and snapped a shot of him at a concert, or that person who photographed him on his bicycle, or the guy who took that iconic photo from the Piano and a Microphone tour. They own the image, not Prince. The estate cannot randomly control anyone who took a photograph of him for the sake of his image or likeness. There is no basis for it legally. And that is why entities like Reelz can gather images and make a 'documentary' (I use the term loosely). I get that you do not understand that. But the truth is the truth, no matter where you hear it.

I couldn't care less about a stage play that isn't happening. I don't have a dog in that race.

TrivialPursuit said:

Those shows are not very accurate.

jdcxc said:

Can’t the Estate block this garbage?

THANK YOU!

.

I am so sick of REELZ and their cheap docs every few months.

.

Where are the docs for Tom Petty and Bowie and others? They stay on Prince and are flimsy with facts.

cloveringold85 said:

Those shows are not very accurate.

Let's be honest - they're not supposed to be. Frankly, I'm surprised they've never partnered with Star or National Inquirer to create programming.

Vashtix said:

jdcxc said:

Can’t the Estate block this garbage?

THANK YOU!

.

I am so sick of REELZ and their cheap docs every few months.

.

Where are the docs for Tom Petty and Bowie and others? They stay on Prince and are flimsy with facts.

.

Yea, and the sad part is that people believe it like gospel.