[Infowarrior] - Prince threatens to sue his fans over online images

[Richard Forno]

Prince threatens to sue his fans over online images


Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Wednesday November 7, 2007
The Guardian
http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html

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".

Article continues
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.