The page you've requested does not exist at this address.
Please check the URL for proper spelling and capitalization. If you're having trouble locating a destination, try visiting the AP home page or look through a list of AP's online services.

NM fixed now

But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

Prince is awesome. That is all.

hey probably wants it removed because he did a terrible job covering the song.

/likes prince, otherwise
//blouses

SockMonkeyHolocaust: But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

The sticky wicket is that Prince doesn't hold the copywrite to the song, as he's claiming. As such, "I am requesting that you remove it," is great, but holds no legal sway.

Prince has turned into quite the biatch, about pretty much everything it seems.

But this is really hypocrital, given...

"Over at Idolator, I got an answer to the question that was troubling me: Why do a cover of the Foo-Fighters' "Best of You"? The answer, with some help from commentator
MosH8ed - because of a possible beef dating back to the Foo Fighters' cover of "Darling Nikki". A quick google-search gets us this:

But ask him if he's heard the Foo Fighters' version of "Darling Nikki" and Prince, who a minute earlier said he never listens to the radio ("When I want to hear new music, I go make some"), replies by describing a Hawaii DJ's response to the Foos' cover. The DJ wondered if Prince had heard it -- then said he couldn't care less if he had. "Just no respect," says Prince. "I wonder if that's the kind of thing the FCC would like to clean up, too."

So...does he like the cover? "No! I don't like anyone covering my work. Write your own tunes!" He says he got up in R&B singer Ginuwine's face for bungling the lyrics in a 1996 version of "When Doves Cry." "I was just busting on him to bust him, but I was a little serious: Have some respect, man. If anyone tried to cover 'Respect,' by Aretha*? I would shoot them myself!"

http://www.stopmikelupica.com/2007/02/more_on_prince.php (new window)


So Prince, go fark yourself.

Gecko Gingrich: The sticky wicket is that Prince doesn't hold the copywrite to the song, as he's claiming. As such, "I am requesting that you remove it," is great, but holds no legal sway.

But in all likelihood he probably does have a trademark on his name and likeness AND a history of being very guarded about how both are used. I think it depends on whether or not the festival is considered a public place and if they allowed taping.

Gecko Gingrich: The sticky wicket is that Prince doesn't hold the copywrite to the song, as he's claiming. As such, "I am requesting that you remove it," is great, but holds no legal sway.

There's music that's even older than the current grotesquely extended copyright terms, music that's completely in the public domain, but even then the performances themselves are still copyrighted.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

I don't think so. He was performing in public. He has no right to expect privacy. The *music*, though, trumps that- as the actual sound is property. Unfortunately for Prince, it ain't his property. If I took a photo of prince at a concert, I think you'd have a hard time getting me to stop distributing it.

Would someone please go get him a camel so he'll calm the fark down?

Wettner: Prince is was awesome right up until he got too big for his britches, which was circa 1989 or so. That is all.

Fixed that for you.

I am not even a big fan of Radiohead's music, but gotta admit that I am becoming a big fan of Radiohead as a band.

downstairs: I don't think so. He was performing in public. He has no right to expect privacy. The *music*, though, trumps that- as the actual sound is property. Unfortunately for Prince, it ain't his property. If I took a photo of prince at a concert, I think you'd have a hard time getting me to stop distributing it.

It wouldn't be hard to get you to stop distributing it at all if the venue wasn't considered public. Prince has stopped people from doing it before. He has no right to expect privacy from a public venue or just walking around but if the venue is considered closed then they can stop people from distributing images, video and sound clips taken at the concert.

So what we need to know is if Coachella is considered a closed venue or not because once we know then Prince can come to us for legal info.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: downstairs: I don't think so. He was performing in public. He has no right to expect privacy. The *music*, though, trumps that- as the actual sound is property. Unfortunately for Prince, it ain't his property. If I took a photo of prince at a concert, I think you'd have a hard time getting me to stop distributing it.

It wouldn't be hard to get you to stop distributing it at all if the venue wasn't considered public. Prince has stopped people from doing it before. He has no right to expect privacy from a public venue or just walking around but if the venue is considered closed then they can stop people from distributing images, video and sound clips taken at the concert.

So what we need to know is if Coachella is considered a closed venue or not because once we know then Prince can come to us for legal info.

Read the back of the ticket. I almost guarantee it grants the purchaser a "license" to view the performances and that the performers and/or producers and/or venue retain all copyrights.

Chastain86: Wettner: Prince is was awesome right up until he got too big for his britches, which was circa 1989 or so. That is all.

Fixed that for you.

The days of butt out jeans. Thank you Prince and In Living Color for those good times.

/6th grade

Link (new window)

The above is the link to the youtube vid, btw.

ADIDAS247: I am not even a big fan of Radiohead's music, but gotta admit that I am becoming a big fan of Radiohead as a band.

Yup, seconded. Considering DL'ing (and paying for) their album out of support. Besides, how much revenue is Prince losing from one crappy vid on Youtube? If anything, it is free advertising that would make people want to find high quality tracks of his work or see a show.

For some other Coachella awesomeness, Daft Punk's (^) perfomance is on Google Video.

Dude seriously WTF: If anything, it is free advertising that would make people want to find high quality tracks of his work or see a show.

He's Prince. He doesn't need advertising.

Nabb1: Read the back of the ticket. I almost guarantee it grants the purchaser a "license" to view the performances and that the performers and/or producers and/or venue retain all copyrights.

That's what I was thinking. I couldn't imagine any outdoor festival would allow tapers, especially since when the Grateful Dead used to allow it they had to cordon off a special area because people would be bringing monstrous rigs in that got super-great quality. You'd have production companies and shiat making bootlegs like there was no tomorrow.

Prince sucks.

jlawn1000:

thanks for the link. i was disappointed the day after the performance because all the videos had been taken down. say what you will about prince's vigorous, nearly pathological guarding of his copyright, that guy can play the guitar.

to exemplify my point, if there is anyone out there who has not seen this, check this out:

Link (new window)

(not a rickroll, it is just prince wailing on the guitar dammit)

SockMonkeyHolocaust: He's Prince. He doesn't need advertising.

To us, but what about the younger generation? The YouTube generation? Maybe I don't listen to the radio enough, but I rarely hear Prince anymore, and even if I do, it's his old stuff.

Gee, that's a funny headline.

jlawn001: Link (new window)

ergh.

Visualingo: To us, but what about the younger generation? The YouTube generation? Maybe I don't listen to the radio enough, but I rarely hear Prince anymore, and even if I do, it's his old stuff.

Prince is really guarded about how his name and likeness is used. When Prince wants advertising, Prince will engage avenues that will inform fans that Prince has a gift to bestow on them. Prince has spent a lot of time building up Prince's reputation and Prince will not let it be squandered despite the efforts of a million internet Crispus Attucks' and their non-Prince plea of "we were doing it to set music free!".

Polonius_In_Drag: jlawn1000:

thanks for the link. i was disappointed the day after the performance because all the videos had been taken down. say what you will about prince's vigorous, nearly pathological guarding of his copyright, that guy can play the guitar.

to exemplify my point, if there is anyone out there who has not seen this, check this out:

Link (new window)

(not a rickroll, it is just prince wailing on the guitar dammit)


Yeah, but this video sucks and I'd much rather hear Radiohead doing the song.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: He's Prince. He doesn't need advertising.

Umm, since Prince is all against The Big Bad Intarnets nowadays and has taken down his own official website, he more or less does need it. Fansites, word-of-mouth, and places like YouTube are all helping in advertising the fact that the man is still around. It's a shame he really cannot comprehend how the 'net isn't just a big-assed clusterfark of bad stuff and that it can be very helpful to one's career as well, if it's utilized correctly.

Plain and simple: Prince totally fails at the internet.


/no Prince, you cannot control teh internet
//not yours
///you'll get over it
////slashies!

Radiohead still performs "Creep"??
I thought they stopped playing that live after the OK Computer Tour!

/ guess i learn something new everyday

Gecko Gingrich: SockMonkeyHolocaust: But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

The sticky wicket is that Prince doesn't hold the copywrite to the song, as he's claiming. As such, "I am requesting that you remove it," is great, but holds no legal sway.

Here's a quick lesson in copyright, at least as it relates to music:

There are two copyrightable elements for any given song: the composer copyright, that belongs to the person (often "people") who wrote the music and lyrics; and the performance copyright, that belongs to the people who actually perform that particular version of the song. E.g.:

The song "Respect" was written by Otis Redding. Thus, he holds the composer copyright. Everytime anybody perfoms the song publicly in a commercial setting, they are required to pay a royalty to him for the use of his copyrighted work.

The definitive version of "Respect" is performed by Aretha Franklin. She holds the performance copyright to the version of the song that you hear on the radio all the time. Each time that version of the song is played in a commercial setting, Aretha is entitled to a royalty as well. However, if someone else covers the song -- even if they do it in Aretha's style -- she receives no royalties for the performance of the cover version, because it's not her performing. Otis still gets a royalty, because it's his song being covered, but not her.

As for the Prince situation, Radiohead holds the composer copyright for the song "Creep," but Prince holds the performance copyright for his particular version of it at Coachella. Thus, Prince is within his right to invoke his performance copyright in insisting that the video be taken down, regardless of whehter Radiohead wants it to stay up. Radiohead owns the copyright to the song, and arguably could demand that YouTube pull it down by virtue of their composer copyright, but because they don't own the performance copyright, they can't force YouTube keep it up over Prince's objection.

Radiohead could bow Price up for using it without permission as well

msw-mojo: jlawn001: Link (new window)

ergh.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Good god, that is a crappy cover.

Hey Prince: you're playing the chord changes 2x as fast as the song was written. That's not artistic license, that's just laziness.

FAIL.

Prince has passed on to become an insignificant douchebag.

The MinniIowan: Umm, since Prince is all against The Big Bad Intarnets nowadays and has taken down his own official website, he more or less does need it. Fansites, word-of-mouth, and places like YouTube are all helping in advertising the fact that the man is still around. It's a shame he really cannot comprehend how the 'net isn't just a big-assed clusterfark of bad stuff and that it can be very helpful to one's career as well, if it's utilized correctly.

He's Prince. Prince doesn't need the internet. Not everyone is a ridiculous attention monger like Madonna with an almost disease-like need to be in the spotlight at all time or to sell a million albums.

People come to Prince to see if Prince has any songs they can use as singles on their albums.

You fail at understanding Prince in your haste to give the internet more creedence than it really deserves. This is the same technological breakthrough that brought you SaveKaryn.com, rick rolling and Snakes on a Plane.

The internet has nothing to give to Prince that Prince needs.

Occam's Razor: Radiohead could bow Price up for using it without permission as well

Huh? Bowing is so 13th Century

/Really, you didn't even get one character right

Has someone explained to Prince that YouTube constitutes free marketing?

Maybe if he wore sneakers more often......

SockMonkeyHolocaust: He's Prince. He's pretentious doesn't need advertising.

FTFY

SockMonkeyHolocaust: But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

Its a fan video. If you stand on a street corner performing this song, and I film it and upload it onto Youtube, can you demand it be removed?

I don't think you can.

Nabb1: Read the back of the ticket. I almost guarantee it grants the purchaser a "license" to view the performances and that the performers and/or producers and/or venue retain all copyrights.

But isn't this a little removed from the contract contemplated by those tickets? After all, its posted on Youtube which isn't a party to that agreement.

And besides, we come back to the fact that Prince doesn't own the copyright to this song.

Unfortunately, Prince has hired the Websheriff and that yokel goes after every little thing.

Rumor has it that Prince is going to release a DVD of his Coachella performance, so that's one reason they don't want the footage out there for free. Like a Prince fan wouldn't buy a real DVD after seeing some crappy YouTube footage.

The clips I did see before they were removed, showed that it was an AWESOME performance, very guitar heavy, will make for a great live DVD.

Q: Chaka mad?
A. Chaka real mad!

mdbuff12: Q: Chaka mad?
A. Chaka real mad!

This coming from the director of Under the Cherry Moon....

I love Radiohead.

Prince is being a douche.

That is all.

Gecko Gingrich: SockMonkeyHolocaust: But it's Prince's likeness and performance. Radiohead can ask their publishing company to collect royalties for a live performance but they can't force him to put it back up.

The sticky wicket is that Prince doesn't hold the copywrite to the song, as he's claiming. As such, "I am requesting that you remove it," is great, but holds no legal sway.

Even worse he doesn't own the copyright to the song either. You know, the right to copy it.

jlawn001: Link (new window)

Wow, that sucked And he botched the lyrics! I don't like the way the guy handles himself but until I saw that I still had respect for him as a songwriter, singer and mostly guitarist, but with timing like that on a pretty straight forward song? What the fark has this guy been smoking, did they even rehearse the the song, the guitarist seemed to know the melody but prince was full of fail on the lead parts and the lyrics
/liked Prince
//two decades ago
///likes radiohead
////What no Hero tag for Thom

wolfzr2: mdbuff12: Q: Chaka mad?
A. Chaka real mad!

This coming from the director of Under the Cherry Moon....

Cherry Moon is an hilarious, campy movie, (with terrific music btw) which is what it was intended to be. Jerome & Prince are a funny ass team.

"Wrecka Stow!"

This just shows that Radiohead is the greatest band ever.

chitownmike: jlawn001: Link (new window)

Wow, that sucked And he botched the lyrics! I don't like the way the guy handles himself but until I saw that I still had respect for him as a songwriter, singer and mostly guitarist, but with timing like that on a pretty straight forward song? What the fark has this guy been smoking, did they even rehearse the the song, the guitarist seemed to know the melody but prince was full of fail on the lead parts and the lyrics
/liked Prince
//two decades ago
///likes radiohead
////What no Hero tag for Thom

He didn't 'botch' the lyrics, it was purposeful and he usually doesn't do the same exact arrangements of songs. As for the band, if it was the usual recent lineup, Prince is the only guitarist (excluding bass) playing rhytmn & lead.

So Prince is trying to short shrift his fans? That's a tall order. The height of self-importance, even.