New topic
PrintableDear HQ & BC,
I see both your points. As a fan I am bummed out by all the watermarking. Wy clean up a pic and then mark them again? On the other hand, props should be giving to the ones who copy these pics and post 'm on the net. But let's never forget; this copying is just as illegal as buying boots. None of the parties here actually own the rights to these pics. I understand there is a grey area. We're fans and we like to get as much underneath Prince's skin as possible. I myself saw three pics here that I have downloaded, as they represent the man as I want to see and remember him. To me, it's as important as the music. Let's not fight. It's a bright new illegal world that we all should enjoy as long as Prince lets us. Cuz I am sure he is irked about his image being exploited by others than himself. I just wish Prince would be as kewl as Bjork and have a freely accesible picture site, where fans can download them for their own pleasure. Bjork should educate Prince. Maybe we should tell him we are just as obsessed with him, his music and his image as he is himself. Play that funky music, Mr Nelson. And give us the key to your ride, hehehe | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
These are all great pics and i love to see them. I also really appreciate the fact that people go to a lot of time and effort to get them scanned and put up on the web. I really do. 
I think it's fair enough for someone who's gone to all that effort to want to be credited for that, but I also think that we're talking about pictures which we haven't ourselves taken. The only person who should really get grumpy is the photographer and how often do we see them getting credited? I just think it's a slight mountain out of a molehill - we're all prince fans and we all want to see pics and we all have the pleasure of seeing pics which we ourselves haven't gone through the motions of scanning / cleaning etc. So i guess my position is that people should strive to credit if it will make people happy. But it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - everyone freeloads, right? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SANSKER7 said: Try this one....
 Where was this taken??? I always love these threads because sometimes gems pop up like this that I've never seen before...great pic - are there anymore referring to the quote 'Nine essential scenes...' ?  I sincerely want 2 fuck the taste out of your mouth | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
derek said: SANSKER7 said: Try this one....
[img]1st avenue pic was here[/img] Where was this taken??? I always love these threads because sometimes gems pop up like this that I've never seen before...great pic - are there anymore referring to the quote 'Nine essential scenes...' ? Was a pic taken at 1st Avenue, MPLS - and should still be on the 1st Avenue website too. Check it out, interesting site! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Idea... Aaron...what about, if pix DO get posted here from your site (as above) that people simply leave them alone (ie by not 'tampering' with them, so that the URL stys displayed at the foot of the pix promoting your site? This is the only way I feel that everyone will be happy, as apposed 2 locking everything down - ie ALL pix banned. 4 as Gooey rightly states, NONE of us own the copyrights 2 these pix, and we should be thankful we can use/see them at all. Time...2 share as an online community methinx - Let's move 4ward. 2gether. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Some comments from me about this matter. Yes, I also put logos on the pics I scan myself. If I know the photographer I always mention his/her name in the thread. So I give credit when credit is due. There are mainly two reasons why I use logo's:
1. I do the scanning. I search for pics all the time and it is quite annoying when something I did a lot of work for is showing up within minutes on other sites. I mean there are people who know that Housequake members put up nice stuff every now and then. They just checked Housequake and posted pics as if they found the pic of the century themselves. 2. To prevent that my webspace is used by others. It took us quite some time to let people dig up their magazines and post the interesting pics. And it is too bad that people stop scanning again because they feel others are riding for free on their train (I hope this expression works in English ) I also try to tell people that they should mention where they found a pic. If I spot something on Housequake without proper credit I always make a comment about it.
Furthermore I think the Housequake logo's are quite modest. They never ruin the picture. Personally I'm not a big fan of the pics that have a big watermark in the middle of the image. The web is for sharing. And that makes it so interesting. But sharing doesn't mean you can skip 'good manners'. Now orgers: Warm up those scanners, dig up those pics. Let the scanning battle begin! [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 3:08:46 2004 by dothejump] Formerly known as Parade @ HQ and formerly proud owner of www.paradetour.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AndGodCreatedMe said: whoa! is that Vanity?? wat yr? great pic | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dothejump said: Some comments from me about this matter. Yes, I also put logos on the pics I scan myself. If I know the photographer I always mention his/her name in the thread. So I give credit when credit is due. There are mainly two reasons why I use logo's:
1. I do the scanning. I search for pics all the time and it is quite annoying when something I did a lot of work for is showing up within minutes on other sites. I mean there are people who know that Housequake members put up nice stuff every now and then. They just checked Housequake and posted pics as if they found the pic of the century themselves. 2. To prevent that my webspace is used by others. It took us quite some time to let people dig up their magazines and post the interesting pics. And it is too bad that people stop scanning again because they feel others are riding for free on their train (I hope this expression works in English ) I also try to tell people that they should mention where they found a pic. If I spot something on Housequake without proper credit I always make a comment about it.
Furthermore I think the Housequake logo's are quite modest. They never ruin the picture. Personally I'm not a big fan of the pics that have a big watermark in the middle of the image. The web is for sharing. And that makes it so interesting. But sharing doesn't mean you can skip 'good manners'. Now orgers: Warm up those scanners, dig up those pics. Let the scanning battle begin! [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 3:08:46 2004 by dothejump] Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend. I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more. Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed). It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD. I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough. People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years! Hey - anyone remember sharing?  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bananacologne said: dothejump said: Some comments from me about this matter. Yes, I also put logos on the pics I scan myself. If I know the photographer I always mention his/her name in the thread. So I give credit when credit is due. There are mainly two reasons why I use logo's:
1. I do the scanning. I search for pics all the time and it is quite annoying when something I did a lot of work for is showing up within minutes on other sites. I mean there are people who know that Housequake members put up nice stuff every now and then. They just checked Housequake and posted pics as if they found the pic of the century themselves. 2. To prevent that my webspace is used by others. It took us quite some time to let people dig up their magazines and post the interesting pics. And it is too bad that people stop scanning again because they feel others are riding for free on their train (I hope this expression works in English ) I also try to tell people that they should mention where they found a pic. If I spot something on Housequake without proper credit I always make a comment about it.
Furthermore I think the Housequake logo's are quite modest. They never ruin the picture. Personally I'm not a big fan of the pics that have a big watermark in the middle of the image. The web is for sharing. And that makes it so interesting. But sharing doesn't mean you can skip 'good manners'. Now orgers: Warm up those scanners, dig up those pics. Let the scanning battle begin! [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 3:08:46 2004 by dothejump] Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend. I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more. Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed). It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD. I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough. People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years! Hey - anyone remember sharing? excellent points, bc. "Awards are like hemorrhoids. Sooner or later, every asshole gets one." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bananacologne said: dothejump said: Some comments from me about this matter. Yes, I also put logos on the pics I scan myself. If I know the photographer I always mention his/her name in the thread. So I give credit when credit is due. There are mainly two reasons why I use logo's:
1. I do the scanning. I search for pics all the time and it is quite annoying when something I did a lot of work for is showing up within minutes on other sites. I mean there are people who know that Housequake members put up nice stuff every now and then. They just checked Housequake and posted pics as if they found the pic of the century themselves. 2. To prevent that my webspace is used by others. It took us quite some time to let people dig up their magazines and post the interesting pics. And it is too bad that people stop scanning again because they feel others are riding for free on their train (I hope this expression works in English ) I also try to tell people that they should mention where they found a pic. If I spot something on Housequake without proper credit I always make a comment about it.
Furthermore I think the Housequake logo's are quite modest. They never ruin the picture. Personally I'm not a big fan of the pics that have a big watermark in the middle of the image. The web is for sharing. And that makes it so interesting. But sharing doesn't mean you can skip 'good manners'. Now orgers: Warm up those scanners, dig up those pics. Let the scanning battle begin! [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 3:08:46 2004 by dothejump] Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend. I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more. Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed). It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD. I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough. People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years! Hey - anyone remember sharing?  Banana
Seems like the root of the problem is folks wanting a namecheck - I thought RD was the only one allowed to whine about that?? 
Seriously though, most of these images don't BELONG to any of us. Fine, let's all give credit - but honestly, WHO are we really giving credit to? Certainly not the original photog in most cases. It's all silly b/c @ the end of the day we find what we like & snatch it up - if it gets you off to feel like you're the only one w/ a certain pic fine, wet your pants all day about it. But you might wanna remember it probably wasn't really "yours" to begin w/ - you snatched the shit from somewhere/someone else, credit or no credit. GEEZ... 
. [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 4:00:09 2004 by CalhounSq]   I never met you, but I LOVE you & I will forever!! Thank you for being YOU - my little Princey, the best to EVER do it | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CalhounSq said: bananacologne said: Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend. I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more. Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed). It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD. I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough. People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years! Hey - anyone remember sharing? Banana
Seems like the root of the problem is folks wanting a namecheck - I thought RD was the only one allowed to whine about that??
Seriously though, most of these images don't BELONG to any of us. Fine, let's all give credit - but honestly, WHO are we really giving credit to? Certainly not the original photog in most cases. It's all silly b/c @ the end of the day we find what we like & snatch it up - if it gets you off to feel like you're the only one w/ a certain pic fine, wet your pants all day about it. But you might wanna remember it probably wasn't really "yours" to begin w/ - you snatched the shit from somewhere/someone else, credit or no credit. GEEZ...
. [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 4:00:09 2004 by CalhounSq] Plain n simple. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bananacologne said: CalhounSq said: Banana
Seems like the root of the problem is folks wanting a namecheck - I thought RD was the only one allowed to whine about that??
Seriously though, most of these images don't BELONG to any of us. Fine, let's all give credit - but honestly, WHO are we really giving credit to? Certainly not the original photog in most cases. It's all silly b/c @ the end of the day we find what we like & snatch it up - if it gets you off to feel like you're the only one w/ a certain pic fine, wet your pants all day about it. But you might wanna remember it probably wasn't really "yours" to begin w/ - you snatched the shit from somewhere/someone else, credit or no credit. GEEZ...
. [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 4:00:09 2004 by CalhounSq] Plain n simple.I thought we are passed the issue on who really holds the copyright? It's been discussed already, and we all agree to that. I studied photography myself at the academy here in Holland, so I really know the score about copyright. This is all about manners and giving props to the people that do the work to get quality images online.(that's what we all want right?) Whats the harm of adding a link or give credit to where you found the pic? Ofcourse if the images are years old that's impossible, but with recent pics you can. So why don't all? You all simply didn't. lazy?, ignorent?, lack of respect? I really don't know why... Now you are having watermarks on the pics. And now you are all wondering why? You can call it ego BC, but i call it appreciation, so give credit when credit is due! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
housequake said: bananacologne said: Plain n simple.I thought we are passed the issue on who really holds the copyright? It's been discussed already, and we all agree to that. I studied photography myself at the academy here in Holland, so I really know the score about copyright. This is all about manners and giving props to the people that do the work to get quality images online.(that's what we all want right?) Whats the harm of adding a link or give credit to where you found the pic? Ofcourse if the images are years old that's impossible, but with recent pics you can. So why don't all? You all simply didn't. lazy?, ignorent?, lack of respect? I really don't know why... Now you are having watermarks on the pics. And now you are all wondering why? You can call it ego BC, but i call it appreciation, so give credit when credit is due! that's the way of the internet, i guess. i have hundreds of pictures i've gotten off the web, done things to them to suit my needs, like removing watermarks or copyright info, etc. if i choose to put a few of them up on a photo archive to show some people, you expect me to remember where i got them from 5 years ago? "Awards are like hemorrhoids. Sooner or later, every asshole gets one." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Aaron... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GrayKing said: i choose to put a few of them up on a photo archive to show some people, you expect me to remember where i got them from 5 years ago?
Ofcourse not, i mentioned that in my post, read it again plz
(i am just seeing a cookie monster appear eating away all my pics)  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
But i will try to think of a way, to prevent this whole madness of these crappy watermarks business won't get out of hand. Because trust me, i honousty hate it!   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GrayKing said: housequake said: I thought we are passed the issue on who really holds the copyright? It's been discussed already, and we all agree to that. I studied photography myself at the academy here in Holland, so I really know the score about copyright. This is all about manners and giving props to the people that do the work to get quality images online.(that's what we all want right?) Whats the harm of adding a link or give credit to where you found the pic? Ofcourse if the images are years old that's impossible, but with recent pics you can. So why don't all? You all simply didn't. lazy?, ignorent?, lack of respect? I really don't know why... Now you are having watermarks on the pics. And now you are all wondering why? You can call it ego BC, but i call it appreciation, so give credit when credit is due! that's the way of the internet, i guess. i have hundreds of pictures i've gotten off the web, done things to them to suit my needs, like removing watermarks or copyright info, etc. if i choose to put a few of them up on a photo archive to show some people, you expect me to remember where i got them from 5 years ago? Seemingly, that's the case | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CookieMonster said:
Aaron... No - WE Aaron! 
housequake said: But i will try to think of a way, to prevent this whole madness of these crappy watermarks business won't get out of hand. Because trust me, i honousty hate it!
I commend u on that statement Aaron, THANKU. So do I - and Im sure many others. Many of us here really admire ur site and the great stuff u guys do - but it's time 2 move 4WARD - 2GETHER. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bananacologne said: Sorry, but u have completey missed the point my friend. I could scan EXACTLY the same pic as any posted here or at HQ, and people could 'claim' that it was actually they who scanned it... the only reason people want/need a credit is EGO, nothing more. Ive scanned stuff before, and screen-capped 4 hours and hours 2 put stuff online, but I dont slap: 'bananacologne' across it. (I only placed 'www.prince.org' across the pix above 2 get my point across because there was a definate imbalnce across the sites that needed 2 be addressed). It doesnt matter which way u look at it: because these pix aint 'yours' or anyone elses 2 claim apart from the original photographer. PERIOD. I used 2 think this way, how things should be 'exclusive', but it's impossible 2 retain, regardless of how u think, or what u do 2 attempt 2 stop it outside of a court of law. So just why not just let it go? It's fruitless, groundless, and smacks of ego - and the ego is ugly. Sure, It maybe a thankless task, but the fact that u make someone smile should be more than enough. People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? let's face it, and be realistic here - we should be thankful we can see pics of P online still at all the way he's acted in a legal sense the past few years! Hey - anyone remember sharing? Come on Paddy! You are telling me now it is all about EGO? I don't thinks so. If someone asks me for a pic, I'm always very helpful. I mean we even had a decent discussion about our websites. You thanked me on your website, although I hardly contributed anything. Now that makes my ego grow
Anyway it seems that you love Aaron for the stuff he does. I can tell you that about the pics Aaron and I share the same opinion. What did I do to say that I completely missed the point? All I can think of is that it must be my bad English. Marika Formerly known as Parade @ HQ and formerly proud owner of www.paradetour.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dothejump said: Come on Paddy! You are telling me now it is all about EGO? I don't thinks so. If someone asks me for a pic, I'm always very helpful. I mean we even had a decent discussion about our websites. You thanked me on your website, although I hardly contributed anything. Now that makes my ego grow
Anyway it seems that you love Aaron for the stuff he does. I can tell you that about the pics Aaron and I share the same opinion. What did I do to say that I completely missed the point? All I can think of is that it must be my bad English. Marika U dont have 2 tell me that - I know. I did wonder if it was a trnaslational thing. Seems like it was, but it still doesnt change the fact that what is ok 4 HQ wasnt ok over here - THAT is what I am addressing, and Aaron and I have been continuing this discourse on an amicable level privately endevouring 2 resolve it.
Hey, even Aaron has admitted he HATES it as much as me! All Im asking 4 is that we S-H-A-R-E, because by sharing, everyone is happy, it removes the whole need 4 this discourse, bad feeling etc etc anyone remember love 4 one another? 
I still stand by the following: People need 2 start asking themselves WHY they are putting stuff online: are they doing it 2 share...? or are they doing it 2 pump up their ego so they can feel good about themselves? Because if they are doing the former, then there simply isnt ANY need 4 a watermark - plain and simple. As u yourself know Marika - I learnt that the hard way - It's a pointless and sometimes thankless task, but that's just the way of the world - all the thanx anyone should need is 2 know that they may have made someone smile. 2 me now...that's enough. MORE than enough. But maybe that's just me.  [This message was edited Fri Apr 23 5:51:38 2004 by bananacologne] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dothejump said: ... You thanked me on your website, although I hardly contributed anything. Now that makes my ego grow
...and ur still there too!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree with aaron and Nana here, credit is indeed given where credit is due, but Nana's idea is better, imho - how about we just stop Watermarking altogether and share pics for the sake of them being pics - I have spent some hours touching up pics using Photoshop and will post them sometime soon, UNMARKED cause I don't care if I get credit or not, I WANNA SHARE MY PICS, Nana's right about it being ego-driven - just thank the poster for contributing and he can tell y'all where he got it from at his discretion.
I saw HQ stops watermarks now, as do all over sites, it's for the best and allows us 2 share and not f*cking complain all the time! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paradisekiss03 said: mchotsie said: 
 that doesn't look like prince to me. is he wearing contacts? Its just that the sun is in his eyes making them look like a lighter brown - we never see pics of him with sun in his eyes..... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mchotsie said: Paradisekiss03 said: that doesn't look like prince to me. is he wearing contacts? Its just that the sun is in his eyes making them look like a lighter brown - we never see pics of him with sun in his eyes..... oh ok!! i see! it makes him look almost younger with that look. don't you agree? I really like spicy food. I mostly put Jalapenos on a lot of my food.
"There are three types of women for a man. The woman he wants to marry, the woman he should marry, and the woman he ends up marrying". -Pedro Infante- Una Vez Y Otra Mas! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nothing special....just love this pic   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mchotsie said:
   See the man with the blue guitar, maybe one day he`ll be a star... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ahhhh the art of cutting and pasting
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
