LOS ANGELES — In the days since Prince's death at age 57, fan-shot performance videos from the music icon's concerts have started popping up in droves on YouTube — something that never would've happened while he was alive.

Enjoy them while they last. It's likely that most won't stay up for long.

In life, Prince was so personally invested in protecting his copyrights that violators sometimes got him on the other end of a telephone call. In death — after a torrent of well-meaning but unauthorized uploads — mop-up is left to the anti-piracy firm he used, some built-in tools on YouTube, his estate and any other interested parties who may want to take up the torch.

SEE ALSO: Londoner dances on the Tube to Prince in heartwarming tribute

It was only two years ago that Prince announced he was suing 22 people for $1 million each. While 20 of the defendants remained anonymous, two were identified as Dan Chodera and Karina Jindrov, everyday fans who ran a Prince fan page on Facebook.

These 22 people had uploaded performance videos to Facebook or blogs, which in the lawsuit Prince equated to "thousands of separate acts of infringement and bootlegging."

While, yes, he dropped the case just a day later, it sent a strong message: Prince doesn't like you posting his performances online.

And yes, he might just sue you if you do.

So it's no surprise that performance videos from the Purple One are seemingly starting to be removed from YouTube.

A fan-shot video of his final performance of "Purple Rain" — which was shared by several media outlets — has been removed due to a copyright claim by Web Sheriff, the anti-piracy firm that Prince worked with from 2007 up until his death. Web Sheriff has already issued takedown notices for over 1,000 files on file-sharing websites in the week since his death.

Unlike other file-sharing sites, YouTube takedown notices are not reported online. But chances are, this is just the beginning.

When Prince first started working with Web Sheriff, founder John Giacobbi told The Guardian that it wasn't about money, but artist control.

"He wants to set a template. We don't want to get rid of everything but want to separate proper, normal content from commercial pirates," he said at the time. "He wants people to see his art as he originally perceived it, not on a mobile phone bootleg or whatever."

Seven years later, in 2014, Prince took tighter control over his catalog by bringing his music publishing in-house through his own NPG Music Publishing. NPG was described as "founded by artists for artists."

Meaning, even Prince himself would partake in takedown requests.

In an interview with The Frame, yourlisten.com's Scott Goodman said that, when Prince pulled his music from everywhere but Tidal, he got a call from Prince himself asking for the removal of his music from the site.

"We never had the artist decide to physically call us and ask us to take that music down," he said.

Representatives for Web Sheriff and NPG Publishing did not respond to Mashable's request for comment on whether they plan to pursue takedowns for the videos. Representatives for Prince and YouTube had no comment.

James Sammataro, a Miami entertainment lawyer with experience in copyright and intellectual property law, anticipates some "aggressive plays" in the next few days and weeks.

A source familiar with the management of Prince's content tells Mashable that his music was managed through a mixture of Content ID and DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown notices. Content ID allows artists to provide reference files for their work so that YouTube can match them against fan uploads, giving them the choice to block, make money from or track user engagement on claimed videos.

While this is highly effective when a fan uploads, say, an album version of "Purple Rain," it's a little trickier for live performance videos.

Due to the massive number of videos posted in the past few days alone, Sammataro says "they're going to have to evaluate which ones are really damaging."

They also may be considering the potential for profit and the risk of alienating fans.

"It's interesting because they're being posted in a respectful manner, to respect the legacy and pay tribute to him," he added. "But this would go against the very grain of what he believed in, and they should be guarded and treated in the highest respects."

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.