2 Jan 2012 update: UMG reviewed and released me, I win again.
Motherfucker they are back again!!!!
21 Dec. 2012
UMG.... but look what YouTube first said about UMG back on 16 August, no problem!!!
Information about your video "Supertramp: It's Raining Again... In Brooklyn." Inbox x YouTube
So what, now all of a sudden 4 months later it's a fucking problem? What a goddamn bunch of hemorrhoids Supertramp and their agents are being. So my response:
Oh BTW I won my case....as you can see in the video both of my Supertramp vids from that rainy day in New York are back live. I've lost only one YouTube argument and I'm still looking into that one, involving a Seattle slumlord named Savannah Fuentes. I did put up a second video in her case.
Nearly 500,000 views, hundreds of musical selections and never a problem.... until yesterday. Supertramp and/or Evergreen Media Associates are among the last holdouts of artists or agencies who would actually go for a strike against people for using their music in a non-for-profit context on the Internet, specifically in YouTube videos. I remember 4,5,6 years ago this was an issue but then the music World woke up and changed the business model.
The fact that Supertramp -- a prog rock band -- is apparently so retrograde in actual practice will forever taint my opinion of them. And what is so funny is that when I sent the videos to a friend of mine yesterday who works in Boston's Entertainment Industry she said "I'll have to watch with no sound because I hate Supertramp for some reason." Well I just gave her one, Fucking A. And I've got a bloody right to say it. Copyright that, bitches.
I spent a long time editing a rainstorm movie in Brooklyn yesterday. It was not for profit and the music was all Supertramp, Breakfast in America in the first version and It's Raining Again was the track in a virtually identical second version. Here are the stills that remain. YouTube sent out its typical "no big deal" notice, informing that advertisements may be posted by folks with legal profit rights to the songs. Come to find out that these guys are viewing Fair Use in a way materially inconsistent with the enjoyment and celebration of the work, as noted. Plus I've never had a YouTube infringement issue. Now I have two in one day and like others I am fairly insulted that they just don't issue a warning or something when you go to purchase the songs because most of us logically believe that we've not exceeded Fair Use guidelines by paying no-for-profit homage to a band we love. This seems senseless and much ado about nothing.