Come on Prince...

[jocelyn]

Prince threatens to sue his fans over online images


Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Wednesday November 7, 2007
The Guardian

He\'s a singer who has made some odd career moves in his time, from changing his name to an unpronounceable love symbol to scrawling "slave" on his cheek in protest at his record company.
But industry experts yesterday warned that Prince\'s latest decision might be the most controversial of all.

He has threatened to sue thousands of his biggest fans for breach of copyright, provoking an angry backlash and claims of censorship.

His lawyers have forced his three biggest internet fansites to remove all photographs, images, lyrics, album covers and anything linked to the artist\'s likeness. A legal letter asks the fansites to provide "substantive details of the means by which you propose to compensate our clients [Paisley Park Entertainment Group, NPG Records and AEG] for damages".

The singer himself is believed to take a close interest in unofficial use of his image and music, monitoring websites from his sprawling Paisley Park studio complex in Minneapolis.
A coalition named Prince Fans United, representing Housequake.com, Princefans.com and Prince.org, has been formed by the website organisers to fight back. They said they would contest the action on the basis that it was an attempt "to stifle all critical commentary about Prince". They added that the "cease and desist" notices went as far as calling for the removal of pictures taken by fans of their Prince tattoos and their vehicles carrying Prince-inspired licence plates.

"It\'s a really short-sighted and futile move," said Nicola Slade, editor of the industry newsletter Record of the Day. "Prince has got a lot of fans and as he\'s decided to take a more leftfield approach to releasing his material, he should be nurturing the relationship. I\'m shocked, really."

The singer had been considered to be in the vanguard of efforts by some artists to cut record labels out of the equation and forge their own relationships with fans through the web and live concerts, having been one of the first to sell music directly to fans via his website.

He recently completed a 21-night residency at London\'s O2 arena, effortlessly mixing up the setlist each night to draw on a rich back catalogue that includes Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, Kiss and Sign o\' the Times, and was lauded for a genius marketing move in giving away his CD to concertgoers and with copies of the Mail on Sunday.

Alex Burmaster, an analyst at Nielsen Online, said: "It\'s a paradox that a musician who has done so much to bring himself closer to his fans, particularly with his \'them and us\' crusade against the record labels, should be engaging in a course of action that effectively removes the raison d\'etre of fansites.

"But it\'s the mark of the man who always goes against the grain that he should be doing this at a time when other artists and their labels are suddenly embracing the social media phenomenon."

In 1993, amid a bitter dispute with the record label, Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable "love symbol" as a step towards his "ultimate goal of emancipation from the chains" that he said tied him to Warner Bros.

Yesterday\'s move follows an earlier declaration of war on copyrighted material hosted by web giants such as YouTube and eBay.

In September, he appointed the internet company Web Sheriff to police the removal of up to 2,000 clips from YouTube. Web Sheriff managing director, John Giacobbi, said at the time that the singer wanted "to create a template for other artists". "Prince doesn\'t really want to go around suing people - he\'d much rather people just respected his rights. He will be victorious," he said.

Controversy followed this decision, too, when a mother from Pennsylvania posted a clip of her baby dancing to his 1984 hit Let\'s Go Crazy and Prince\'s lawyers demanded it was taken down.

Lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have vowed to contest the claim on her behalf, saying the song is hardly audible and constitutes fair use.

By going after the Google-owned YouTube, Prince was merely following the lead of a handful of other big rights owners - including MTV-owner Viacom, the estate of Elvis Presley and the Premier League - that believe the video sharing site makes advertising revenue off the back of their copyrighted content. But while some artists have resorted to the law in an attempt to persuade websites or internet providers to remove pirated songs and there have been disputes over lyrics, most decided long ago that it was counterproductive to attempt to get fans to remove images and album covers.

"You can get things taken down, the legal tools are there to do it," said Caroline Kean, a partner at the law firm Wiggin. "The reason people don\'t is partly practical, because there are so many images, but also due to the bad publicity you get from going after your biggest fans. Most people soon realised it was counter-productive."

A spokeswoman for the fans\' campaign said the sites had always tried to work with Prince\'s management. But it appeared that Prince wanted to edit his past and there was "no sign" of his lawyers backing down, she said. "He\'s trying to control the internet 100% and you can\'t do that without infringing people\'s freedom of speech," she added.

I believe this warrants an "Are you ser?"

[Vassillios]

what a loser

[kindm's]

He is a strange one.

I think he has every right to protect his image and likeness and his copyrights. If he does not assert control over it he will lose it forever.

This is just the same argument that people make all the time. People want to be able to steal pictures and music and all sorts of other stuff without compensating the people who originally created them.

He gives away his music, does free and or reduced cost shows, what else do they want.

Taking something that isn\'t yours and using it is stealing, just because it is really easy to do on the internet still does not make it right. Especially for sites that generate $ using advertising or other types of $ generating ventures.

They are devaluing the content by diluting it. If all Prince content was on his official site. It would make Prince fans or others interested in Prince have to go to 1 source. It is his source that would be able to generate $ from his site. Now lets say that all that content is spread over 100\'s of sites. Now people do not have to go to 1 source they can get it anywhere and that impacts his bottom line.

I really have no problems with an artist exercising their rights.

[jocelyn]

What I find ridiculous is that he has let it go on for years and years and then drops this bomb out of the blue. If he wants all of his pictures, lyrics, etc down, ok (though I think it unnecessary)... but I don\'t think he should now ask for compensation from fansites that have been around for so long.

[davepeck]

pretty much the grossest thread title we\'ve had in a while. thanks joce.

[kindm's]

What I find ridiculous is that he has let it go on for years and years and then drops this bomb out of the blue. If he wants all of his pictures, lyrics, etc down, ok (though I think it unnecessary)... but I don\'t think he should now ask for compensation from fansites that have been around for so long.

so there is a statute of limitations?

his decision is definitely not a popular one but it appears that the company he has hired to enforce his protections is leaving no stone unturned. I think where he differs is that instead of sending cease and desist his people are sending cease and desist as well as initializing the beginnings of litigation. They are looking for damages for unlawful use of his copyrighted image etc.

I would imagine much of this is legal wrangling to see if folks believe they owe damages. I would imagine it would be easy to use that against people in a civil suit. Saying they offered to pay us this so they knew they were breaking the law etc etc.

The issue of going after the mom and the photos of tattoos is very interesting and I would imagine that they would not have a leg to stand on in that sense but that has never stopped lawyers from sending a letter or bringing a civil suit. In civil matter the lawyers are gonna get paid no matter who wins so why would they care.

[kindm's]

pretty much the grossest thread title we\'ve had in a while. thanks joce.

SPALT!!!!

[Dweasel Weasel]

There\'s usually a point to his madness.  I\'m guessing that he\'s making a statement here:  musicians used to make money selling records.  Unfortunately for them (and record companies) people no longer consider music something you buy: you just download it, burn it and listen to it.  Although many of us believe music is worth buying, it doesn\'t really feel like stealing every time you burn a CD.  It\'s kind of like paying a travel agency to book your flight - you\'re paying for the convenience of getting something delivered to you.

But if the law is supposed to reflect the values of a particular society, Prince\'s threatened legal action really brings to light/challenges our collective values about what we think is free, and what is the preoperty of an artist.  He\'s either desparately trying to retain the ability to make money on what\'s legally his, or he\'s trying to send a larger message reminding people this stuff ain\'t free...... at least for the time being.