Prince Sues Three Fansites for Distributing His Image

Recording artist mogul Prince moved to sue three popular websites which distribute pictures and video clips of him. Although these websites are technically distributing unlicensed images of him, they are doing so for no profit, and are "fan sites" which exist solely to praise and promote Prince. Naturally, there are two sides to this argument, and both sides are significantly extensive.

First, one issue to consider is a matter of ownership. Prince legally owns the rights to copyrighted photos and videos. Is this right? To argue on Prince's behalf, he invested a significant amount of effort into creating these photos. Not only did he pose or perform, but he also arranged for the cameraman to film, and orchestrated the entire production. In a sense, most of these images can be thought of as products, since they are available for purchase at Prince's official website. So, it is a natural argument that Prince should own the rights to his own
product.

However, to play devil's advocate, there needs to be something said for the rights of the fans to enjoy Prince. If I wish to make a website to celebrate Prince's life and his music, it would be quite barebones if I had to display only pictures I took, myself. Therefore, I would conclude that it is right for Prince to own the rights to his own works, however, it is wrong for Prince to have 100% control over the distribution of these works, especially in the case of not-for-profit transactions.

Moving on, another issue which can be brought up for debate is that of restricting public access to the media. Prince went so far as to sue fan websites for displaying pictures of Prince-oriented tattoos and Prince-oriented license plates. This brings up an interesting concept- if one can outlaw the unrestricted printing of one's logo, anywhere, then how is fair media reporting, possible? Conceivably, Prince could walk around wearing a giant sign of his logo, and then sue the paparazzi for taking and publishing his picture. Naturally, that is a ridiculous notion, so one must ponder exactly where to draw the line.

At this point in time, I can only suggest possible solutions for this conundrum. Perhaps it would be best to treat a logo in a similar manner in which the law treats recorded songs. In other words, restrict the direct sharing of the logo, but allow a drawing of that logo to be shared, not unlike how cover songs are considered legal to record and perfom. Though this might work, the best solution is undoubtedly a full aand regular review of the way copyright law is viewed in regards to the Internet. Naturally, it is easy to see how copyright law can be fully outdated, despite efforts to keep up with the constantly dynamic Internet.

If Prince's goal was to anger millions of fans, then he certainly succeeded. This may be a horrible career move from the gentleman who already purposefully alienated himself from his record company and his distributors. However, if Prince was attempting to show the world the faultiness of modern logo protection, and chose to do this by playing the "bad guy," then his experiment could be considered a success, as the courts are now paying ample attention to his case.

http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2206460,00.html