looking forward to it

Those look like the same photos in Parke's own book.

laytonian said:

Those look like the same photos in Parke's own book.

All of those are late 90's, no?

lust said:

Is this approved by The Estate?

PennyPurple said:

Is this approved by The Estate?

IIRC, Parke was sued by the estte over his last book "Picturing Prince" (I do not know the outcome).
I guess we'll know if the book is sold BY the estate

laytonian said:

PennyPurple said:

Is this approved by The Estate?

IIRC, Parke was sued by the estate over his last book "Picturing Prince" (I do not know the outcome).
I guess we'll know if the book is sold BY the estate

Where did you read that? Got a link?

Folks gotta understand the law. The law states that whoever takes the photo owns the rights to it. Reductively speaking, it's why paparazzi have a job. If Paris Hilton owned every photo taken of her simply because she was in it, she'd have her own printing house. It's also why you can't take your Sears Portrait Studio or Olan Mills portrait to Walmart in 1999, and scan it on the Kodak Picture Maker because you want a copy. The Sears owns the negative.

I believe it was a 75-year thing before they lost ownership (like record albums had a 30 or 35 year ownership life bfore they reverted). But I could be wrong on that number. It's a while, though.

With Prince, while Parke was on staff, unless something was deleted (in the age of digital photography), or unless he signed an employment agreement that all pics taken during his tenure were automatically owned by Paisley Park (or Prince; and much like a record company makes an artist relinquish ownership of their work when they submit it), then Parke owns the negatives (physical or virtual or digital) and there rights to do with them as he wishes, including publish them.

We don't know the details of any agreement between Prince and Parke which - if we're considering the source of Prince here - was a handshake at best, probably.

My ex-boyfriend, and now best friend, was a photographer for years. Decades. He had to know all this stuff. It's actually pretty interesting.

Now, if they sued Parke over that book (waitin' for that link cuz I never heard about it myself), then it could've been that he used "Prince's likeness" or whatever. But again - it's like a paparazzi taking a photo. The paps owns the photo because they created the image, despite who was in it. I would think Parke & the estate would've simply worked out some sort of profit sharing or something. Unless they were hardcore dicks to him about it.

Say what you want about Steve Parke, but I've had a long phone conversation with him. The guy is a freakin' sweetheart of a guy, good spirit, talks like no one's business, and is incredibly talented with all his creative outlets.

[Edited 4/10/22 18:34pm]

laytonian said:

Here's your link.

Docket for Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Parke, 0:20-cv-00869 - CourtListener.com
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Case Type: Contract Case No. 0:20-cv-00869-J

See. That's what I mean when I say "where's the source? Where's the link?" Someone actually posts - wait for it - A LINK.

Thank you. I honestly must've missed it when it happened.

TrivialPursuit said:

laytonian said:

IIRC, Parke was sued by the estate over his last book "Picturing Prince" (I do not know the outcome).
I guess we'll know if the book is sold BY the estate

Where did you read that? Got a link?

Folks gotta understand the law. The law states that whoever takes the photo owns the rights to it. Reductively speaking, it's why paparazzi have a job. If Paris Hilton owned every photo taken of her simply because she was in it, she'd have her own printing house. It's also why you can't take your Sears Portrait Studio or Olan Mills portrait to Walmart in 1999, and scan it on the Kodak Picture Maker because you want a copy. The Sears owns the negative.

I believe it was a 75-year thing before they lost ownership (like record albums had a 30 or 35 year ownership life bfore they reverted). But I could be wrong on that number. It's a while, though.

With Prince, while Parke was on staff, unless something was deleted (in the age of digital photography), or unless he signed an employment agreement that all pics taken during his tenure were automatically owned by Paisley Park (or Prince; and much like a record company makes an artist relinquish ownership of their work when they submit it), then Parke owns the negatives (physical or virtual or digital) and there rights to do with them as he wishes, including publish them.

We don't know the details of any agreement between Prince and Parke which - if we're considering the source of Prince here - was a handshake at best, probably.

My ex-boyfriend, and now best friend, was a photographer for years. Decades. He had to know all this stuff. It's actually pretty interesting.

Now, if they sued Parke over that book (waitin' for that link cuz I never heard about it myself), then it could've been that he used "Prince's likeness" or whatever. But again - it's like a paparazzi taking a photo. The paps owns the photo because they created the image, despite who was in it. I would think Parke & the estate would've simply worked out some sort of profit sharing or something. Unless they were hardcore dicks to him about it.

Say what you want about Steve Parke, but I've had a long phone conversation with him. The guy is a freakin' sweetheart of a guy, good spirit, talks like no one's business, and is incredibly talented with all his creative outlets.

The link is in the court documents. You can find that link in the Estate thread.

laytonian said:

PennyPurple said:

Is this approved by The Estate?

IIRC, Parke was sued by the estte over his last book "Picturing Prince" (I do not know the outcome).
I guess we'll know if the book is sold BY the estate

I'm not seeing anything about it being approved by The Estate. I'm not saying it isn't approved by The Estate, but I'm not pre-ording shit because it could be pulled anytime.

If it's not Estate approved, I don't think they should be able to advertise here, I mean boots aren't Estate approved and we can't post them here.

laytonian said:

Where did I read that? Here, in the Estate forum.
Steve's book is THE BEST of all the photographers' books on Prince. His stories are detailed and ring true, without embellishment. His photos were also genuine.

Here's your link. It's such common knowledge.

Docket for Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Parke, 0:20-cv-00869 - CourtListener.com
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Case Type: Contract Case No. 0:20-cv-00869-J

Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT Steven Parke, Defendant. Plaintiff Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson ("Prince Estate"), by and through its attorneys, Fredrikson & Byron P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant Steven Parke.

[Edited 4/10/22 18:34pm]

From the link above.

Found this interesting.

Parke also agreed that he would not write a book about Prince or give interviews. The relevant provision, entitled "NO RIGHT TO GIVE INTERVIEWS, WRITE BOOKS OR ARTICLES," provides that Parke "shall not, without our prior written consent, give any interviews (whether written or oral), [or] write or prepare or assist in the preparation of any books or articles" that in any manner concern Prince.

PennyPurple said:

laytonian said:

Where did I read that? Here, in the Estate forum.
Steve's book is THE BEST of all the photographers' books on Prince. His stories are detailed and ring true, without embellishment. His photos were also genuine.

Here's your link. It's such common knowledge.

Docket for Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Parke, 0:20-cv-00869 - CourtListener.com
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Case Type: Contract Case No. 0:20-cv-00869-J

Plaintiff, v. COMPLAINT Steven Parke, Defendant. Plaintiff Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. as Personal Representative of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson ("Prince Estate"), by and through its attorneys, Fredrikson & Byron P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant Steven Parke.

[Edited 4/10/22 18:34pm]

From the link above.

Found this interesting.

Parke also agreed that he would not write a book about Prince or give interviews. The relevant provision, entitled "NO RIGHT TO GIVE INTERVIEWS, WRITE BOOKS OR ARTICLES," provides that Parke "shall not, without our prior written consent, give any interviews (whether written or oral), [or] write or prepare or assist in the preparation of any books or articles" that in any manner concern Prince.

But... was that part of an NDA? Those things tend to last only while the person is alive. I mean, everyone and their kids have written books about him, including his last photographer.

Crickets?

Must not be approved by the Estate.

If anyone is interested, the price dropped down to $50 on Amazon.

So, having read over the bits I could on the 2017 lawsuit against Parke, it seems it was dismissed. Maybe a settlement was reached?

The estate really tried to go heavy-handed with "we now own that contract and it's binding" bullshit. It's weird because Parke signed with PRN Productions, but when that ceased to exist, it volleyed to Prince. But Prince died, so... again, where does that stand? The estate makes the claim, but is it binding? I mean, Wendy & Lisa's talking, Brownmark wrote a book. Shahidi put one out, as did Randee St. Nicoles (sp). Were they sued? Did they have "permission?" Dez wrote a book. Even that slag Kim Berry wrote one (albeit full of trash, and other such nonsense).

It just seems knee-jerk and low-brow of the estate to do that. I don't know if Parke was striking while the "Prince is dead" iron was hot (it was published in April 2017), or if he was trying to get it out before the estate got settled into how it now exists, or what.

It seems obtuse of the estate to assume a photographer isn't going to keep and own his work on some level. As if every artist doesn't keep copies of the stuff they created, even if it's for someone else? Is Parke expected to spend thirteen years of his life taking photos and not have a damn thing to show for it when he exits the park?

Fuck that. If I were him, I would've called the book Paisley Parke.

Also, every other person came out telling stories, sharing photos, etc etc. when Prince kicked the bucket. Did they get sued? Hell no. It seems, even moreso, that Parke's suit was a bit too knee-jerk and out of fear rather than the law. I don't know if folks like MJ, GM, Bowie or the others we lost in recent years had NDAs, but everyone around them were really loose jawed and publishing books when their former bosses died. Even that goddamn security guy wrote a book and got it made into a movie! But Parke can't publish some pics and tell some stories?

Girl, I hate to say it... ***** PLEASE!

[Edited 4/12/22 23:37pm]