Wall said:

Get a grip - it was a joke.
Next time he'll plaster Wall Needs 2 Calm The Fuck Down across the pics he posts.

---

FUCK OFF!!!

Ooooh, maybe it's the masochist in me, but I like this one a lot.

Yes, I'm a sick puppy

Adisa said:

DAMM...I like this..one..thanx..

One word for ALL of these pictures...



























GLAMFABULOUS!















.....Thank U very much.

BobGeorge999 said:

Oh, Lawd! LMAO.

.
[This message was edited Thu Apr 22 20:36:11 2004 by phlix]

IS THIS FUNKY OR WHAT?????

Hmmmmm.....how many licks does it take to get to the center?????

YOUNT!!

Oh yeah.....

Can you all tell I got my scanner working?????

Dansa, this ones for you!!!

Does anyone have any pics of P with just some jeans, a t-shirt and sneakers? Or just candid pics, not the posed for pics.

is there any SHEENA & P together pic?????

I can't even spell it!!!!! hot damn!!!!!

PurpleCharm said:

Here's one!

Try this one....

SANSKER7 said:

Cool...

Does Princey have on a halter top...

mchotsie said:

that doesn't look like prince to me. is he wearing contacts?

these are nice,

BUT CAN'T WE EVER GET ANY NEW PICS?!

mrdespues said:

he's gotta schedule the shoots first, lol.

bananacologne said:

I don't understand all this picture nonsense - not what you're saying but the general idea that certain sites have "exclusivity" We all lift all this shit from other places, be it a magazine, another site, whatever. Whatever, y'all gotta do what you gotta do but it's all silly. Nobody but the original photographer owns any of this shit

So basically, I agree w/ you Can't wait 'till this bool is over...


.
[This message was edited Fri Apr 23 0:09:41 2004 by CalhounSq]

bananacologne said:

I agree that the pics should be freely flowing over the internet, and also agree it's a grey area. But let me assure u, whenever i am certain of the photographer, i always mention his/her name on Housequake.com whenever that is possible to do so.

The reason why there are so many pics with Housequake watermarks on it, is because some people refuse to give credit to the people that took hours of time and effort in showing these pics online for us. It really happened too many times. This is our way to protect the work from our dedicated members.

You can't imagine how many hours I (or the other dedicated HQ members) have spent scanning and cleaning up. Hence, Housequake.com has always had a extensive Prince gallery online since god knows how long... 1997/6?. And there are ALOT of pics online I personally scanned and edited. Even the index2.html pic of loversexytour.com was possible because I freakin' scanned it years back. Also, the housequake.com watermarks are usually small in the bottom corner, and never large in the middle of the picture.

This whole watermark sh*t never would have happened if people just gave credit or props to people for doing the work and making things possible.

To make it clear for once and for all: Housequake.com does NOT claim exclusivity on any of the pics (Except the concert pics from Candy & Maceo because I took them myself) But WHY is it so damn hard for people to say a simple "thank you"? You are just proving we need to make the watermarks even bigger now.

FYI: Some of the '88 pics with the huge prince.org watermark i have spent hours of cleaning & retouching up on....

"hours of time"?


maybe cumulatively, if you're scanning/uploading a hundred pics or so.


but it doesn't take "hours of time" to do each photo, unless you're doing something to it. surely, the part that takes the longest in the process is stapling "www.prince.org" or "www.housequake.com" to it.

Apparently you don't know what's involved to get a good picture online.

Yes, some pics actually takes hours of editing time. If you want to remove certain parts like text or when you are trying to restore it to the original quality, whenever the pic is scanned from an old magazine or newspaper. Hmm, i don't think i will need to elaborate on this issue any further.

housequake said:

bananacologne said:

Aaron, this is no diss, or slight 2 u, or your website - I am simply trying 2 make a point here because unfortunately things have gotten out of hand 2 a point where the Org had a sticky thread actually stating that no pix would be allowed 2 be posted from other websites without acreditation, or the name of the orginal copyright holder etc etc.

Now, I dont know about u, and Im not speaking 4 anyone else here but myself, but I really do feel that when people start 2 lose out because of an edict preventing people seeing pix (ie: it's ok 4 people at your (and others!) site 2 see pics that can have been taken from the net, but not here...

*prime example: I was recently over at HQ, and someone had posted photoshopped images from a thread I had started here. Now, the pix were not 'mine' - I hold no copyright over them, but it DID annoy me that it was ok 4 'HQ' 2 take the pix and not credit the Org (or 'that other place' as it is seemingly known over there!) but not the other way around. Now, whichever way u slice or dice it - that's wrong.

I agree - crediting people SHOULD be done. But it's not most of the time. Many times the photographer isnt known, yes other times people are lazy. But this is the INTERNET and no matter how u try and lock something like that down, it just isnt going 2 happen, and I really do feel that people are losing out by being told what they can and cant do.

I personally wouldn't post photos that were taken by fans (someone on HQ posted some brilliant pix from the Emporium aftershow 4 example) but the rest of the stuff is fair game.

housequake said:

As 4 this, If I had been told that by the person who originally sent me them, then I would have certainly added u 2 my 'props' list on lovesexytour.com, but they didnt - and I never put them up on my 'site', so thought I would put them here - and YES, i did place the watermark across them 2 make a POINT!

The photos that I have placed here were NOT taken directly from your site, and were actually SENT 2 me via E-Male many months ago. Yes, they may have been scanned by u, and cleaned up - and 4 that, KUDOS. But I was not told then (nearly some 6 months ago) and only know now u have told me. But does this mean 5 years down the line u will be chasing people up 4 a credit? This is exactly what I am talking about - people cant be prevented from taking photos and using them if they dont know where they originate from.

I spent hours and hours screencapping Purple Rain shots 4 HQ, and they get used and bandied about left right and centre - do I ask 4 a credit 4 these when they do? No. Because this is the nature of the beast. We stop sharing, and things will grind 2 a halt.

I know that if I ever had 'exclusive' pix on lovesexytour.com, that It would be a matter of hours (if not minutes) before they hit the other sites... But so what?

There are much more important things in life.

I appreciate your site, I really do. But this has turned in2 a very strange egotistical area 4 some websites Im afraid, and I thought it should be addressed.

I feel that this is a fruitless battle, and we should just all share and share alike. There HAS 2 be some way of resloving this amicably as it's not fair on the org, and yes - it's not fair on HQ either.
[This message was edited Fri Apr 23 2:07:44 2004 by bananacologne]

housequake said:

no, you don't. but mostly because it's a dull conversation.


and yes, i do know what's involved. buying a good scanner and a fast internet connection. the rest of it is either fun and worth it to you, or it's not. and after you're done with it and put it up to share (if that's what you're doing, sharing) there's no use in going around saying "hey, that's mine" because 99% of the time people just don't care. and to go through all that work to make the picture perfect, and then ruin it by slapping a website URL across the middle of it seems to be defeating the purpose.


frankly, i don't really care about the website credits at the bottom of pictures. they're easy enough to cut off with something even as simple as mspaint, and most pictures need to be cropped in my use of them anyway (making CDR covers).

but hey, it's not like i and others don't appreciate someone doing the work to put them up. it's just in the end, we don't really care who did it. just that it was done...

sorry, but that's the way it is.
[This message was edited Fri Apr 23 2:13:07 2004 by GrayKing]

*****

said:

Now THIS I CAN understand u being annoyed with Aaron.

There just HAS 2 be a way - and I think the best way is 2 just let it go.

But that's just me, and not a reflection on u, or anyone who works so damned hard over at HQ. I DO mean that, I just think this had gotten 2 a point where it needed 2 be addressed, and addressed fairly due (as I said previously) 2 the very nature of the 'net itself.

It's like trying 2 staple jelly 2 a ceiling - ie: a wasted exercise.

Hey GrayKing, be nice now.