What the..??
Why any one would want to remain a fan and continue to maintain a web site for this clown is beyond me. Why El Reg keeps reporting on this crap is also beyond me.
Prince is said to be in talks with three unofficial fan websites which could lead to a settlement over an ongoing copyright dispute. In what has been seen by many as an aggressive campaign to clamp down on the unauthorised use of his image and music all over the pesky interweb, the pint-sized warbling funkster has kept himself …
All Web sites, reporters, journalists, bloggers, etc, should henceforth *completely* refrain from naming the artist formerly known. Full stop.
Remove any existing files referring to him and/or his (alleged) art.
Refuse to participate in any sort of event that names him (to include concerts, motion pictures, etc.).
In other words, a complete and total ban on any mention of this former person.
Perhaps that will satisfy him.
... seems like a slippery slope if they start bowing ... I actually like the site because it was something that truly was free speak on the net.
I mean I would have loved to see some of the post on there go through the courts either in America or the UK ... it would have made Prince a laughing stock.
What a wimpy comment.
A) b3ta don't have the money to fight this kind of case. I don't suppose you're offering to fund the lawsuit?
B) Whilst parody is allowed under "fair use", this doesn't mean you can libel or slander people under the pretext of it being parody. I'm not sure that satire comes under "fair use" at all. Perhaps somebody who knows the DMCA a bit better can clarify this.
C) "Why should a UK website take notice of an US law" ? Er, because the hosting servers are in the US and therefore can come under US jurisdiction.
Did you read the reviews of his shows at the O2? He is no has been, and remains a musical genius, and a good businessman.
People are quick to have a pop at Prince - they forget he gives FREE music, and was likely the catalyst for many other bands to do the same.
Would you like it if some website posted rude parodies of you or your family? Or someone made money using images of you? Thought not.
Unfortunately to have the honour of officially photographing his purpleness you have to sign a photo-release which severely limits the use of the images - almost but not quite signing away copyright. For the cameraphone images not a problem but the photos on b3ta were professional images which almost certainly were taken under the agreement of the photo-release. Having signed a couple of these myself I'm sure they're pushing the boundaries of UK law but being freelance a) I don't have the money to test it in the courts and b) I want to carry on working ;-)
A Photog
"Unfortunately to have the honour of officially photographing his purpleness you have to sign a photo-release which severely limits the use of the images" -- but this almost certainly is not legally enforcible.
It would actually be worth calling the little runt's bluff and going to court. Remember, in the UK courts, the losing party pays both sides' costs and no lawyer gets a penny until a verdict is delivered.
Alternatively, you could refer Prince to the reply in Arkell vs. Pressdram .....
"People are quick to have a pop at Prince - they forget he gives FREE music, and was likely the catalyst for many other bands to do the same."
Actually he didn't give it away free, the papers gave it away to their readers but he was paid $500,000 plus the royalties from each CD so in one weekend earned 8 times as much as he made on UK sales of his previous album. Not bad earnings from giving something away.