| PieterMC 05.11.2007 19:38 |
Lawyers for Prince have ordered several of the superstar's biggest fan sites to remove any image that bears his likeness prompting fans to form a group to fight the demands. Three websites: housequake.com, princefams.com and prince.org have come together to form 'Prince Fans United' in response to the situation, which even sees demands to remove images of fans own tattoos. link |
| wstüssyb 05.11.2007 23:01 |
He has always been very Creative. Maybe he just wants to be more of a asswipe/creative type right now :) |
| Raf 06.11.2007 03:04 |
What does he earn by attacking the only people in the world who buy all of his releases and by forcing them to stop giving him free advertising? |
| Mr.Jingles 06.11.2007 08:04 |
The same shit Prince used to claim Warner Bros was doing to him back in the early 90s, now he's doing it to his fans. What a fuckin' hypocrite. I'm glad I've always downloaded his shit illegally. |
| Erin 06.11.2007 09:03 |
Prince is a jackass. |
| john bodega 06.11.2007 09:32 |
There should be a site formed, called "Not Prince dot com" where people can send in caricatures of how much of a fucked up midget he's become. The beauty is, the cartoons will look like him, but since the site is called "Not Prince", it's obviously not him. It could really take off. My sister got caught up in this Prince bullshit; she did a cover of "Purple Rain", and put it on Youtube - a really awesome cover too.... it got two thousand views in about a day, it was goin' up - and Prince had it taken down!! Cocksucker. |
| Micrówave 06.11.2007 12:27 |
^^^ ALL POSTS Just a prime example of how NIAVE some are here. Please, if you're looking for an entertainment lawyer, don't come to Queenzone. Before you go being brainwashed by ONE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, maybe you should look at the big picture. Prince isn't attacking websites or fans, you dimtwit!!! His lawyers are. Prince wants to make money in the entertainment industry. Please name for me ONE entertainer who's lawyers DON'T look out for his best interests. If Prince was such a jerk, why would his website say: "Thank U 2 Housequake 4 removing S.H.O.E. snippet link. Full video will b premiered here as soon as it’s approved 2 do so." It didn't say: "Thank U 2 Housequake 4 removing S.H.O.E. snippet link, that you had no legal right to post in the first place." Learn about the law before you attack it. Otherwise, let's start jumping on Barb for not posting every official and unofficial Queen recording ever. |
| PieterMC 06.11.2007 12:33 |
Micrówave wrote: ^^^ ALL POSTS Just a prime example of how NIAVE some are here. Please, if you're looking for an entertainment lawyer, don't come to Queenzone. Before you go being brainwashed by ONE MAGAZINE ARTICLE, maybe you should look at the big picture. Prince isn't attacking websites or fans, you dimtwit!!! His lawyers are. Prince wants to make money in the entertainment industry. Please name for me ONE entertainer who's lawyers DON'T look out for his best interests. If Prince was such a jerk, why would his website say: "Thank U 2 Housequake 4 removing S.H.O.E. snippet link. Full video will b premiered here as soon as it’s approved 2 do so." Learn about the law before you attack it.How many other artists are trying to shut down fan websites? I bet you can't name one. His lawyers are working on his behalf, so he is ultimately responsible. |
| Micrówave 06.11.2007 12:37 |
PieterMC wrote: How many other artists are trying to shut down fan websites? I bet you can't name one. His lawyers are working on his behalf, so he is ultimately responsible.Styx did this about a year ago. It was nothing personal. Go to Styxworld and read all about it. Don't worry, it was nothing permanent. So yeah, I guess Dennis DeYoung was going around knocking on nerds doors telling them to unplug it. Let's move this into the Sports world for a minute. An NFL player who's contract expires and is not renewed by that team, MUST remove all team logos AND COLORS from any personal marketing medium, including a website. Terrellowens.com, for about 6 weeks, had no official NFL logos on it. It's not a personal attack on fans. Nobody said they couldn't wear his jersey. It's just a legal matter that we all simply don't understand. |
| PieterMC 06.11.2007 12:42 |
Micrówave wrote:Dennis DeYoung was not in Styx a year ago.PieterMC wrote: How many other artists are trying to shut down fan websites? I bet you can't name one. His lawyers are working on his behalf, so he is ultimately responsible.Styx did this about a year ago. It was nothing personal. Go to Styxworld and read all about it. Don't worry, it was nothing permanent. So yeah, I guess Dennis DeYoung was going around knocking on nerds doors telling them to unplug it. |
| Micrówave 06.11.2007 12:45 |
PieterMC wrote: Dennis DeYoung was not in Styx a year ago.Neither was Tommy Shaw or the sick brother. But they couldn't use the Styx likeness either. So what now it's about Styx isn't Styx without Dennis? Jeez Pieter, you're missing the point... AGAIN!!! (waits for the other half) |
| PieterMC 06.11.2007 12:46 |
Micrówave wrote:Oh believe me. I understand your point completely.PieterMC wrote: Dennis DeYoung was not in Styx a year ago.Neither was Tommy Shaw or the sick brother. But they couldn't use the Styx likeness either. So what now it's about Styx isn't Styx without Dennis? Jeez Pieter, you're missing the point... AGAIN!!! |
| Micrówave 06.11.2007 12:52 |
PieterMC wrote: Oh believe me. I understand your point completely.Well great. Thanks for letting us know about Dennis, since you've got nothing else. Keep spreading your misconstrued opinions and then backing them up with band personel. Sometimes, I think you're like Eddie's sequencer in Greensboro, NC. We're all at 440.0 and you're at 448.0. |
| Erin 06.11.2007 14:10 |
Who the hell would want to make a Styx fansite anyway? The fewer Styx websites out there the better, I say. GO STYX!!! |
| Mr.Jingles 06.11.2007 14:16 |
Erin wrote: Who the hell would want to make a Styx fansite anyway? The fewer Styx websites out there the better, I say. GO STYX!!!STYNX RULES!! |
| Penetration_Guru 06.11.2007 15:47 |
Micrówave wrote: Prince isn't attacking websites or fans, you dimtwit!!! His lawyers are.Who instructs Prince's lawyers? Please name for me ONE entertainer who's lawyers DON'T look out for his best interests.How is it in the artist's best interests to threaten his fans with legal action? If Prince was such a jerk, why would his website say: "Thank U 2 Housequake 4 removing S.H.O.E. snippet link. Full video will b premiered here as soon as it’s approved 2 do so." It didn't say: "Thank U 2 Housequake 4 removing S.H.O.E. snippet link, that you had no legal right to post in the first place."The snippet in question was posted on the website of the company that made the video - if Prince's contract with them allows them to post excerpts on their website, you have to wonder whether his lawyers are focussed on the right targets? (as an aside, there are apparently plenty of videos that Prince has made and then archived, so I can understand why prince fans would want to see this, given that there is every chance that the "approved" version may never exist). Otherwise, let's start jumping on Barb for not posting every official and unofficial Queen recording ever.This is not a like for like example. Prince believes that he owns the copyright in any photo or drawing of him ever made (including tattoos), despite the fact that there is no court on the planet that would give such carte blanche. There is a picture in Prince's current tourbook that was downloaded from one of these sites, BUT without getting clearance from the professional photographer who took it. The sites involved in this do NOT post any recordings, and have previously tried to reason with Prince's representatives - always ending in a frustrating failure as one side is acting/being instructed to act completely illogically. I'm not interested in the name calling (this time!) that this is descending into, but I don't think there are many examples of an entertainer clashing so spectacularly with their audience. |
| Music Man 06.11.2007 17:57 |
Lawyers don't - they can't - act independently of their clients. |
| Micrówave 07.11.2007 18:12 |
Fair enough, P_G, but there's always two sides to a story. |