Tom said:

Agree on all accounts.
I posted the law issues on this case when it was first brought to our attention in the club and it has vanished withought a trace, i double checked again today It was a public place, security could have been called at the airport to help assist yet this was not the case.

If i got the time i will pull up the laws in mnpls about invasion off privacy and protecting ones self and using using reasonable force....

I'd sue if my camera was taken.

violett said:

What's the point...by the time the Purple Brigade responds, my student loans will be paid off Hopefully

mtbaldwi777 said:

Well this is the whole point, the young man was not wrong to take a photo, at least, not legally anyway. Morally is a different matter.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

co-sign.

If I were the judge (and it's probably just as well I'm not) it would go something like this :
(All Rise)
Prince, give him back his damn camera, or replace it. And remember, it's not against the law to take a photo.
And you, young man, let it go. Emotional distress ? Give me a break. Now take your camera and get out of my court room. Oh, by the way, Prince doesn't like having his photo taken, you'd do well to remember that in future.
Case closed.






btw...it was Johnny Rotten

violett said:

i shoulda taped that episode, man...you shoulda seen me when they announced the case, i was like "ohmigod, it's fancy ray!!!" i forgot what the case was totally about--think it had to do with appearing in a local commercial or somethin like that.

lol @ Asylum. You sound like Judge Judy. You would make a good judge.

.
[This message was edited Sun Apr 11 13:35:15 2004 by katt]

psychodelicide said:

that's exactly what i was thinkin...judge judy would be done with this case in like 60 seconds.

AsylumUtopia said:

Yeah, and as soon as you've got the camera back, pop a roll of film in and take a picture of the judge.

Then run the hell outta there as quick as your little legs can carry you.

minneapolisgenius said:

No am I not joking. You don't see his orignal post up there do you? It's been removed because I don't appreciate being called naive by LoveMachine for stating my opinion on here. That is FLAMING point blank, and I don't tolerate that shit around here. I would never be so nervy as to call someone "naive" even if I disagreed with their opinion, I would have been a little more polite about stating my disagreement with the poster, which LoveMachine does not seem to know how to do without offending someone.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

That's for sure! She would not tolerate this "emotional distress" claim that this kid is making.

This is going to be an extremely difficult case for the kid.

First, didin't Prince's lawyer have some rule/order made that Prince's image was sole property of Prince? Isn't that how 98% of the fansites were successful sued and closed? Hasn't it been pointed out again and again that no cameras nor recordind devices are allowed at the concerts? Does this man not have a history of not allowing reports to speack with if they had more than a pen and pad? Looking at a track record like this, the boy is going to have issues.

Secondly, the only part of this suit I see plausible is replacing the camera. But then again, reference the above paragraph.

Finally, emotional distress? Please. He was embarrassed and thus had to make the story "sound" much more aggressive than what probably occured.

Hey, Prince is a "star" equated to money. IF you had a physical meeting with a star that could turn out to be lucrative, wouldn't you try to get some easy cash?

But this kid better be careful. I understand there is a Prince mafia fan set called REturn of the Bombsquad and they'll blow him away.

.
[This message was edited Sun Apr 11 13:32:56 2004 by katt]

As much as I love Prince and am thrilled about his huge comeback this year, I hope the kid wins this case. You just don't treat your fans this way. Prince is from the midwest, he knows how starstruck we get out here - if he wanted to make a point, he coulda just approached the kid and said "I'll shake your hand but I won't pose for your camera." Privacy, schmivacy - if you can deal with the money, cars, women and miscellaneous bling that comes with being a public figure, you can put up with the occasional fan.

Tom said:

Ditto

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

You know what we need - Celebrity Judge Judy, where our favourite celebrities sue various people over stupid and minor issues, purely for our entertainment.

This week : Prince versus Dageurre (posthumously) - for inventing the camera.
Next week : Russell Crowe versus the journalist he hit - extensive knuckle injury.

serves prince right!!

AsylumUtopia said:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This has been a very trying situation for everyone involved. My client Mr. Nelson and I would like a fair and speedy trial. There's so much time and so little to do. Wait, scratch that. Reverse it . In order to expedite things, I would like to, on behalf of my client Mr. Prince Rogers Nelson, make both my opening and closing statements at once.....
.....
.....
.....


Opening statement:

YOU LOSE!!!



Closing statement:

GOOD DAY SIR!!!


If there is a problem, my boys will be outside




Here, this should more than cover any damages



[This message was edited Thu Apr 8 9:03:20 2004 by OdysseyMiles]

I have seen this happen in person before. It is a pretty shocking thing to see, but not very violent. A woman whipped out a camera at an afterparty once and snapped a picture of P as he was walking down the steps. It had a flash and she got about three pictures off. During the second and third pictures, P made an extremely ugly face towards her to ruin the picture. I was standing there watching all of this take place when all of the sudden this huge bodyguard comes up to the woman and without saying anything rips the camera from her hands and breaks the camera into. He ripped the film out of it and threw the camera in the trash. The woman looked petrified and shocked beyond belief. She sobbed.

She obviously meant no harm, but was breaking the rules at the club. It could have been handled about 100 percent better by P's people though. Didn't even ask. Just charged up to her and bam! Technically, it is an assault and battery because it is a rude, offensive and unwanted touching. However, if the dude in the court case first mentioned in this post is suing for thousands or millions of dollars, he will get laughed out of court.

I am not sure how much leeway a personal "bodyguard" has in the eyes of the law, but my guess is that unless provoked one is not allowed to whip the crud out of someone or take their property because they took a picture of a celeb. Interesting though.

hilton02895 said:

I believe that the fansites were attacked for copyright infringement. Since the student took the picture himself, he owns the copyright. No problem there.

There is a doctrine of law known as "misappropriation of likeness." For example, if I own the rights to a picture of Prince, I can't put it on the boxes of a product that I'm selling (thereby suggesting that Prince endorses or is affiliated with my product). But simply taking a photo of a person in the airport is not misappropriating his or her likeness.

Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

About This Guide

Confrontations that impair the con-stitutional right to make images arebecoming more common. To fight theabuse of your right to free expression,you need to know your rights to takephotographs and the remedies avail-able if your rights are infringed.

The General Rule

The general rule in the United Statesis that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they arein a public place or places where theyhave permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibitionsuch as a statute or ordinance, you arelegally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are tradition-ally considered public are streets,sidewalks, and public parks.Property owners may legally pro-hibit photography on their premisesbut have no right to prohibit othersfrom photographing their propertyfrom other locations. Whether youneed permission from property owers to take photographs while on theirpremises depends on the circum-stances. In most places, you may rea-sonably assume that taking photo-graphs is allowed and that you do notneed explicit permission. However,this is a judgment call and you shouldrequest permission when the circum-stances suggest that the owner is like-ly to object. In any case, when a prop-erty owner tells you not to take photo-graphs while on the premises, you arelegally obligated to honor the request.

Some Exceptions To The Rule

Some Exceptions to the RuleThere are some exceptions to thegeneral rule. A significant one is thatcommanders of military installationscan prohibit photographs of specificareas when they deem it necessary toprotect national security. The U.S.Department of Energy can also pro-hibit photography of designatednuclear facilities although the publiclyvisible areas of nuclear facilities areusually not designated as such.

Members of the public have a verylimited scope of privacy rights whenthey are in public places. Basically,anyone can be photographed withouttheir consent except when they havesecluded themselves in places wherethey have a reasonable expectation ofprivacy such as dressing rooms, rest-rooms, medical facilities, and insidetheir homes.

Permissible Subjects

Despite misconceptions to the con-trary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

-accident and fire scenes
-children
-celebrities
-bridges and other infrastructure
-residential and commercial buildings
-industrial facilities and public utilities
-transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
-Superfund sites
-criminal activities
-law enforcement officers

Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights

Most confrontations are started by security guards and employees oforganizations who fear photography.The most common reason given issecurity but often such persons have no articulated reason. Security is rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets.

On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography butmost understand that people have theright to take photographs and do notinterfere with photographers. They dohave the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.

They Have Limited Rights to Bother,Question, or Detain You

Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to answer such questions in any state and do not have to disclose your identity or the purpose of your photography.

If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fearthat they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs.

Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your willand may be subject to criminal and civil charges should they attempt todo so. Although the laws in most states authorize citizen’s arrests, such authority is very narrow. In general, citizen’s arrests can be made only for felonies or crimes committed in the person’s presence. Failure to abide by these requirements usually means that the person is liable for a tort such as false imprisonment.

They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a courtorder, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

SensualMelody said:

Which he would have no right to do.

Your Legal Remedies If Harassed

If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may beliable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police. You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers. The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.

Other Remedies If Harassed

If you are disinclined to take legalaction, there are still things you can do that contribute to protecting the right to take photographs. (1) Call the local newspaper and see if they are interested in running a story. Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage. (2) Write to or call the supervisor of the person involved, or the legal or public relations department of the entity, and complain about the event. (3) Make the event publicly known on an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.

How to Handle Confrontations


Most confrontations can be defusedby being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative,or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don’t allow an event to escalate into violence. In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how dothey intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

Disclaimer

This is a general education guideabout the right to take photographsand is necessarily limited in scope. Forexample, it does not cover importantissues such as publication and copy-right. For more information about thelaws that affect photography, I referyou to my book, Legal Handbook forPhotographers (Amherst Media, 2002).This guide is not intended to be legaladvice nor does it create an attorneyclient relationship. Readers shouldseek the advice of a competent attor-ney when they need legal adviceregarding a specific situation

Bert P. Krages IIAttorney at Law6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200Portland, Oregon 97223

AsylumUtopia said:

Okay, so he has the right to sue for having his camera confiscated. That is inexcusable, but does anyone actually buy the whole "pain and suffering" crap? If that's the case, I have the right to sue for suffering through New Power Soul

Universaluv said:

According to Prosser and Keeton on Torts, for purposes of battery, touching anything connected to a person is the same thing as touching the person directly. They cite a case where a restaurant manager snatched a plate from the hand of a restaurant patron who was waiting in a buffet line, and the court held that the manager's actions constituted battery.

So Johnny Rotten stole Prince's camera?

i'm sorry, but if prince stole my ***damn camera, i'd sue his f'kin ass, too...