|Copyright infringement; does anyone know anything about an outfit called Evergreen Social Media Associates. I googled th||Joshua Vanneck||11/22/11 9:16 AM|
Evergreen Social Media Associates;
managed to get YouTube to disable one of my home videos on U-tube ;
Rotary Technology Tournament Royston England Feb 09
It is a completely harmless 7 minute video with some background music . . . . . . viewed by a ferocious 117 people.
So who are these 'Evergreen' people, and why do they not show up on a Google search?
Is this some form of guerilla harassment [YouTube say that I will be struck off for life if I get a second disablement] ?
Has anyone else been on the receiving end of this? And what to do?
|Re: Copyright infringement; does anyone know anything about an outfit called Evergreen Social Media Associates. I googled th||RavdMyvid||11/22/11 10:28 AM|
As you can see at the search results, you're not the only one with this problem:
|Re: Copyright infringement; does anyone know anything about an outfit called Evergreen Social Media Associates. I googled th||Joshua Vanneck||11/22/11 10:57 AM|
Evergreen Social Media Associates disabling YouTube clips. Thank you for this. Isn't it strange that 'Evergreen Social Media Associates' does not seem to appear on Google search ? Is this some sort of deception whereby they use a name that doesn't directly link up to their business name?
If so, then how on Earth are they able to block peoples' YouTube clips with the use of an Un-googable name ! --- Joshua
|Re: Copyright infringement; does anyone know anything about an outfit called Evergreen Social Media Associates. I googled th||fourtytonz||11/25/11 6:50 AM|
Same here, Evergreen media associates, also had video I recorded and posted taken down. It was a very bad quality video of an accident I witnessed in De Moines IS.
|fourtytonz||12/1/11 1:11 PM|
Personally, I say we band together, Find this Evergreen Media Asso and sue them... You can contact me at Fourt...@Yahoo.com
|Gusbekian||12/1/11 1:19 PM|
It's frustrating, but it's like that: You uploaded one or more videos on a "free service" platform, but the company behind doesn't care for the rights of the individual user. Solution: Change the platform, or even better, create your own website.
|markimatang||12/1/11 4:42 PM|
Well, this sets off my pet peeve. At some point in the process (CID dispute/ DMCA notice) YouTube should identify the claimant unambiguously.
So who is “Evergreen Social Media Associates”? This thread http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?hl=en&tid=330526f37f7da4e8 jumps to the conclusion that it is Evergreen Media Holdings (http://evergreenmediagroup.com/) but I wonder.
These folks http://www.setlist.fm/user/heartsong62 (Possibly some relation to Supertramp) state “Evergreen Social Media Associates represents the record label and has been having videos removed, sadly resulting in people getting strikes against their Youtube accounts. For this we are very, very sorry.”
If you are up for a lawsuit best be sure that you own or have ironclad license for everything in you video but sooner or later someone will.
|fourtytonz||12/1/11 8:53 PM|
Hey, I took video of an accident with my camera, and if a song was playing on the radio at time it does not fall under infringement.
|markimatang||12/2/11 12:11 AM|
Well now, as you’ve stated it, it might fall under fair use but the mindless computer algorithm will slap it with infringement. Fair use will be decided later when a judge rules. You think it’s obvious but consider what if it were…
You photograph a hot rod Lincoln speeding by, top down with that song blaring from the radio. A cop whips out in pursuit and the two fade into the distance with the song. Hey wow ambient sound fair use right! Well, until the plaintiff’s lawyer proves that it was your friend driving the Lincoln and you set the whole thing up. So It’s a little more than can be decided here in these forums.
|JASIV||12/2/11 10:01 PM|
You don't mention what music you had in your video, but as one of the posters in the earlier long thread discussion regarding Evergreen Social Media Associates, it was always Supertramp music that caused the problem. Many users, including myself, had had Supertramp songs recognized and tagged by the automated I.D. system when it was uploaded, but the record company had elected to allow it to play and attach ads to it. This is what is so frustrating.....if the record company was allowing it to play, then who was taking it down? A simple block would have sufficed and a strike was really not necessary, but they don't seem to care about alienating fans who have listened to the band for years and wanted nothing more than to show their love by using the music in their videos? I'll never spend another penny on any Supertramp product, though I've purchased everything they ever did/do....oh well.
1 of 2 things has to be happening....we know it's not the record company, and especially considering how "strained" relations have been between the two primary songwriter/singers in the band, it's either:
1.) Roger Hodgson has hired this company to pull and issue strikes (though his management team strongly denied it as detailed in the other thread), in which case if it is he who is causing his long time fans to receive strikes....he's also a liar. OR
2.) Rick Davies has hired this company to to pull and issue strikes.
of course, I could be completely wrong, but really not much else makes sense. Who else could it be?
Did your video contain Supertramp music? I strongly suggest if anyone has any Supertramp music in their videos they remove them ASAP......very likely to receive strikes....many, many already have and Supertramp vids are disappearing rapidly.
|markimatang||12/3/11 9:01 AM|
This is illustrates the underlining problem with the whole Content ID process. The allowed videos are STILL INFRINGING copyright. Music (and musicians) are bought and sold often. The new owner (or administrator) most often has a different policy and if that policy is a low tolerance the previously allowed videos (and there can be thousands) will result in strikes for the uploaders. Not only is this legal it should be expected. I just cannot understand why people tolerate this system (other than ignorance). It is the warning that many who get strikes do not get. Why would anyone leave a video posted with a Content ID match if they know that it is infringing unless they just don’t understand or care.
Of course, if it is a Content ID error file the dispute.
|higginns||12/7/11 8:05 PM|
Evergreen Social Media Group is a group which has taken down my harmless BarbeQue across america. Unfortunately they messed with the wrong guy.
I am taking them down. Already working on it. Not sure who these wacos are but they have seen their better days. No one messes with us.
|gadi0110||12/20/11 10:04 PM|
Just wanted to confirm what JASIV stated is correct.
I also got a strick today from Evergreen Social Media Associates, as one of my home videos had a Supertramp song attached as my soundtrack.
I deleted the video & it's a shame, as it was a beautiful home video showing the behavior of my cichlid fish.
|Skootles||2/2/12 11:18 AM|
My Roger Hodgson - Take the Long Way Home video was just taken down by the mysterious Evergreen Social Media Associates. It took them a couple of years to find it.
|GuyTheElder||8/1/12 2:26 PM|
Me too. My innocuous cini film / video was meant as a thank you to a French Family who looked after me in 1979 and with whom I have lost touch.
I used a Supertramp song because it was so evocative of the vacation. It had about a hundred hits and then I got a strike and found my way here.
Its laughable to think I was trying to benefit commercially, and its really sad to speculate that somebody from the band might be so petty. Mental really.
Its soured my liking for Supertramp. Big shame.
|gbcali||8/1/12 2:34 PM|
It's illegal to distribute others' copyrighted content without the proper license.
|athenareich||8/23/12 5:51 AM|
I bought a license to sell The Logical Song. As it was explained to me by the record company, I can make a video so long as I don't sell the video.
|athenareich||8/23/12 7:20 AM|
this is so frustrating.. I am talking to the legal department at Almo Corporation about it. It's ridiculous as I wasn't making any money off the videos, and I paid for the rights to record my own cover version of it.
|gbcali||8/23/12 1:44 PM|
Assuming you have a valid license to cover the song and make/distribute a video of it....
– If the video was removed due to a Content-ID match you can "dispute" the claim on the grounds that you have a license.
– If the video was removed due to a DMCA takedown notice you can file a "counter-notice" per the DMCA.
Just be absolutely sure that your license allows you to both cover the song and make/distribute a video of it as there are potential serious legal consequences to doing either of the above if your use of the song in a video isn't covered under the licensing terms.
|BoilerRoom4||9/15/12 3:50 AM|
I recently synched the Paris 2003 women's pole vaulting to "Had A Dream" from Roger's first CD and uploaded it. Then I got shat on by Evergreen. I've expressed my disgust to them at in...@evergreenmediagroup.com but I'm not sure they will care. Maybe if some hackers could take Evergreen down, Evergreen will stop taking us down.
|BoilerRoom4||9/15/12 3:53 AM|
Express you disgust in...@evergreenmediagroup.com
|Pablo Murillo||10/27/12 7:37 AM|
They erased my channel video "Give A Little Bit Roger Hodgson subtitled Castilian (CC)"
I'm really angry
Many people come to my channel to watch the subtitled video after watching the video of Coca Cola on security cameras
|Madcactus||10/28/12 1:58 AM|
These a$$holes just removed my video. And there was me thinking after 9 views I was getting popular. How pathetic. Having bought a ton of Supertramp albums in the past...oh yes, got the vinyls and the CDs and now MP3s, you gotta wonder how greedy these people really are.
|markimatang||10/28/12 9:26 AM|
@ Pablo and Madcactus Well, do you have a license to broadcast the copyrighted material?
@athenareich “and I paid for the rights to record my own cover version of it.”
And that license allows you to make and sell your audio performance. It does not allow you to sync the sound to a video. Consider the effect of a compulsory license if it did allow syncing. You could perform the theme to Star Wars and use in a space opera cutting into George Lucas’s profits. (You think evergreen is nasty!)
|(unknown)||10/31/12 4:05 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|J1994||10/31/12 4:11 AM|
I put up four covers of Supertramp songs, all labeled as "solo piano cover". Now I remixed my own piano cover of Bloody Well Right and called it "Bloody Well Right (REMIX)"- and guess what?? One day later they pulled it down!! I won't be uploading any more Supertramp covers, but I am worried about the ones I still have on my channel. What should I do? Mark them as private?
|BoilerRoom4||10/31/12 4:19 AM|
Personally, I would take them down as soon as possible. With YouTube, apparently the rule is 'three strikes and you're out'. It would appear that either Rick Davies or (more likely) Roger Hodgson has hired Evergreen to do this. Reportedly, Roger has denied this. I expressed my disgust to Evergreen themselves, in...@evergreenmediagroup.com but I'm guessing they don't care.
|J1994||10/31/12 4:33 AM|
But you see what I mean, right? As long as I had the "solo piano cover" in the video titles, nothing happened. By the way, there are thousands of piano tutorials and/or cover versions. I think they assumed I remixed the Supertramp recording because I didn't put the "cover" in the title!
|BoilerRoom4||10/31/12 4:46 AM|
Right, I understand. Well, you should be alright if, as you say, there are many other cover versions. I hope everything will be alright for you. It is such a shame when we spend years buying CDs of a band/artist we adore; and when we express our adoration on YouTube (to no one's commercial detriment), they can be so nasty. Greetings from Australia.
|J1994||10/31/12 5:18 AM|
I always have a reference to the original of the song at the beginning ("the original of this song can be found on the 1974 Supertramp album"). After all, I'm trying to make people buy those albums! That's what any music fan would do, make advertising for your favourite bands, right?
|SSweb||11/9/12 6:28 AM|
I'm an artist, I play mostly my songs and sometimes some covers live.
I wanted to do something different: I recorded a live acoustic show for Youtube only. I played two songs of mine and a Supertramp cover (I'm afraid to even mention it and get retaliated).
It was not their recording or anything, just me and my guitar playing the damn song, and they took it out and gave me a strike.
I've been doing this for years, when I play a cover song they simple label it as "Matched third party" and that's it, I don't even care, in fact I feel I'm promoting them, not me, with this. I don't even intend to monetize those videos.
The thing is, I played Queen, Oasis, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. and never got past that.
Now what will I do in the future? Do I stop broadcasting covers for good? It's ridiculous.
|BoilerRoom4||11/9/12 10:14 PM|
So, like the rest of us, you had to watch the insulting video by YouTube reminding you to only upload videos you created yourself. What YouTube don't realize is that without so-called copyright infringement, there would be no YouTube. Many of my uploads are VHS recordings from the late nineties. They are documentaries that are not available on DVD, so no one's missing out on their money. As for people like yourself, when did it become a crime to pay homage to a singer/songwriter you greatly admire? When did it become a crime to share with the rest of the world your rendition of somebody else's art if you're doing it for free and paying credit to the original artist? Maybe twitter and facebook can be used for something sensible after all. Maybe a big enough social outcry would get YouTube to review their rules concerning this so-called crime.
|gbcali||11/12/12 1:58 PM|
On Friday, November 9, 2012 6:28:41 AM UTC-8, SSMusic wrote:It may be your recording of your performance of the song but it's their copyrighted musical composition and their prerogative as what to do with infringements.It was not their recording or anything, just me and my guitar playing the damn song, and they took it out and gave me a strike.
Some artists and publishers are cool with people doing covers... some are @-holes.
Most recently it was reaffirmed as a crime in the U.S. with the passage of the DMCA but it was a crime under previous copyright laws dating back decades.
|BoilerRoom4||11/12/12 2:40 PM|
You're correct, and we all know the law. In my previous entry, by "crime", I meant 'moral issue'. The internet has changed the whole concept of public domain and public sharing. Behind this Roger Hodgson copyright nonsense is nothing but spite. There's no one else I'm aware of acting like a YouTube Nazi.
|SSweb||11/12/12 6:13 PM|
It's even counter-productive for him. I've seen several complaints on a website where enraged fans (maybe some who wrote here?) were disgusted with them pulling out their videos. One even had links to buy the songs on iTunes. All of them said they were sorry for going to his concerts and pledged never again buy anything from him.
Hodgson's management, appears to tell them they have no idea who Evergreen Media is and why they did such thing... strange they have no idea, music world is a small one.
If he or his management are doing this, it's incredibly shortsighted since many people are really pissed about this, as far as I can tell I will never play another one of his songs again in front of a live audience (and I have the license to do so). And if someone else is doing it, then by all means get to the bottom of it! It's seriously hurting his image.
|(unknown)||11/13/12 8:33 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|BoilerRoom4||11/14/12 3:21 PM|
It's a gamble. One person had an offending video on YouTube for a couple of years before Evergreen came through. Theoretically, something like this could happen to any of your covers at some time in the future. Fortunately, most artists (and, I guess, most record companies) realize that this sort of use of YouTube does them no harm and are they happy for the 'worship' as it were. There are stil many of us who love buying old-fashioned CDs (from all over the world, as and if available) instead of using free downloads. As a last resort, I will download a YouTube and convert it to an MP3—only if I can't get the CD from any part of the world.
|BoilerRoom4||11/22/12 3:23 PM|
One thing's for sure—there can be no way that Roger Hodgson doesn't know this is happening. This means that if, indeed, he is not doing it himself, then he is aware of what is going on and approves of it. Incidentally, the only YouTube of "Had A Dream" that hasn't been removed was uploaded in 2011 by jamin4u2 and is nothing but a promotion for Hodgson's CD's and concerts. For a short while, there was also an upload by someone called MrRogerHodgson. This, too, was a promotion for an online shop selling Hodgson's CD's. Roger, you're 'doing it wrong'.
|Trampproyect||11/26/12 2:30 AM|
All my covers of Roger´s songs were eliminated. Should I have to pay to Roger everytime I play theirs songs?? This is pathetic!
|Ben Sharp||11/26/12 3:40 PM|
They took down my cover to, it's been up for 3 years. I posted that cover because I love Supertramp, they were part of my childhood and that video was a homage. It was a cover for christ sake, who gonna listen to some bod's version when they could hear the real deal? I was actually quite upset by it being taken down then to be slapped with a copyright infringement. I had to go through YouTube's "copyright school' to reenable my account, it was demeaning. To be honest I'm considering deleting my YT account, ever since google took over it's gone to rats.
|Dudette Blades||12/5/12 7:27 PM|
Well, youtube has put me in the club too: I got a strike for singing "Take The Long Way Home"...I've set almost everything to 'private' so it cannot be viewed...I didn't do it for gain, just a tribute...BUT what I find interesting is that YouTube is FILLED with people singing other people's songs, not for gain, but because they love the song, or the artist or both, and because they identify with the material...I'm guessing YouTube's is gonna go out of business since gazillions of people love to sing, and upload what they do, and they won't be able to because they'll get strikes against them and their account will be deleted...
Way to go YouTube! No more free commercials for singers/songwriters done by fans and music lovers...And yes, illegal as it may be to sing a song, go tell that to all of us who sing for the love of it and who are not profiting in any way whatsoever with what we do...We should all just be able to buy a KARAOKE license from youtube, cheaply, and get on with it, that's what I think...Otherwise, youtube will die...I wonder if they gave strikes and/or deleted all the repeat offenders, and I mean all those people worldwide that have had the gall to actually perform a known artist's material? To the record companies: Not buying your overpriced product... Should be funny, right? :)
|J1994||12/11/12 6:01 AM|
"MrRogerHodgson" (http://www.youtube.com/user/MrRogerHodgson) IS Roger Hodgson's official video channel. So... I guess that's where we'll have to complain. Roger watch out!!
Ironically he even features two "fan channels". So those don't get strikes? i still can't make sense of it all. I still think Evergreen is Delicate Music, and Roger SHOULD know.
|BoilerRoom4||12/11/12 6:14 AM|
I left a message for Roger on this channel earlier in the year. I got no response.
|Mario Carriòn Garcìa||12/11/12 11:46 AM|
EVERGREEN SOCIAL MEDIA CLOSE MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
I was playing a drum cover of Babaji music and they removed my video,I uploaded a new video edition with the audio distorted and again removed my video...Then i uploaded a new video JUST ME PLAYING DRUMS WITH NO MUSIC BEHIND AND WAS ALSO REMOVED ¡¡¡¡¡¡ I`VE ONLY USED THE NAME OF THE SONG AND THE NAME OF THE BAND IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO¡¡¡¡¡¡¡and get the third penalty and closed my channel...IT WAS ONLY ME PLAYING WITH NO MUSIC AND THEY REMOVED IT¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ It´s illegal but they have the money,the lawyers and the power.....ansd I can´t do anything but hate them...
|conor doyle||12/15/12 6:13 PM|
I posted a vid of driving on a Highway on a recent trip(for a relative).
A few seconds of Supertramp just happened to be in the backgound on the radio in the car and youtube removed. Overkill.
|BoilerRoom4||12/15/12 6:57 PM|
There's hope on the horizon, everyone. Two people have had their Supertramp videos restored. The process is obscenely complicated—it took me 30 minutes of going round in circles in YouTube settings/whatever to stumble upon the correct email address. The email must include two lawyer-style pasted sentences; and draft Nº5 of my email finally made it through YouTube's spam filter. If I have success, I will share with everyone a set of detailed instructions and a template so you can hopefully get your videos restored. The sky may yet tumble down on Evergreen Media Group.
|strike 1||12/16/12 5:48 PM|
I made the big mistake of posting a video of Roger Hodgson performing "School" live (great performance, thought I would share it). Anyway, I was blindsided when I received a strike within a few minutes of making it public. I do not think that anyone had time to see it before it was deleted.
I then did a YouTube search for "Roger Hodgson" and "Live" and only found what appeared to be official Roger Hodgson videos. In the future, I will do a YouTube search to see if an artist is ok with postings of their live performances before I post. If you can't find any unofficial performances posted, look out!
I cannot imagine that using a company like Evergreen to beat up your fan base would be good for any artist.
|Andrew Carruthers||12/19/12 3:06 PM|
I can guarantee that the complaint was lodged because of the use of Supertramp's music.
There are few musical groups (though I'll say I don't think it's Roger H. in this case, as he's supportive, and loads his own videos, too) and companies that are so forcefully protective of their product.
I've had two complaints about two separate videos in recent weeks. Both were Supertramp songs. I'd forgotten about the second one, and actually removed a third before receiving the second complaint.
As I type and hear the soundrack to your video in the background here, I'll say...I'm glad Bowie's people aren't so agressive.
I've no doubt 'Give A Little Bit', and it's use in your vid, is the reason for the complaint. I've now two complaints and have survived, so...I hope it doesn't happen again.
|S K1||12/20/12 1:35 PM|
My cover version of Sister Moonshime by Supertramp was also removed today by Evergreen Social Media --and I have one copyright strike. This cannot be for real- and You Tube is not doing anything about this???
|ian bell||12/29/12 1:41 AM|
Yeh I had a rough video of a cover of my favourite song Take the long etc made in 2007 by me playing and singing the whole song on Youtube. Today after 5 years evergreen removed it. I got nothing for the video except some encouragement of Roger H fans just like me. Roger should thank me I had 18000 people listen to his song. I dont understand. Oh well I wont be getting Take the long way home played at my funeral now. That was the only copy I had left. I got a strike why. Why dont they target the real copyright infringers.
|Lee Skill||12/29/12 12:06 PM|
my really poor attempt at hide in your shell has been removed , how silly they may as well close you tube down theres lots of covers on there !
|BoilerRoom4||1/1/13 7:58 AM|
Express you disgust in...@evergreenmediagroup.com
|gbcali||1/1/13 8:39 AM|
On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:58:29 AM UTC-8, BoilerRoom4 wrote:
Perhaps you should let Santa know you think Evergreen Media Group has been a bad little whatever it is they are (LLC? holding company? private equity company?) ––> northpole.com/mailroom
(Evergreen Media Group is probably too busy counting the hundreds of millions of dollars they brag about making to care too much about your disgust.)
So you have a license to use the content?
Or are you attempting to claim "fair use"?
|BoilerRoom4||1/1/13 9:13 AM|
No, my argument doesn't need to address my use of the material. Apparently, the record company has no problem, and Roger Hodgson has no problem (though he has known about these issues for years), but reportedly, Evergreen Media Group is "one woman in a garage in Texas" and she doesn't have ownership of the songs. What happens (according to a New Yorker who had his two videos restored) is that YouTube/Google give the person claiming ownership 14 days to respond to the challenge. If they don't respond, you get your video back. The process, however, is designed to be very difficult for the challenger (I don't think YouTube/Google want the extra work) and I will know in less than a week whether or not my challenge has been successful.
|BoilerRoom4||1/2/13 6:06 PM|
Unfortunately for me, the inflexible YouTube system was unable to process my counter-notification because after my video was “removed”, I deleted it from my account. So, ironically, it wasn’t Evergreen Media Group who defeated me—I defeated myself. Oh-well, life goes on (outside the internet).
Just an update on Christopher King, who won his challenge against Evergreen Media Group and had his video “It’s Raining Again…in Brooklyn” restored—the video has now been blocked by UMG.
Meanwhile, you might enjoy his video “Supertramp and Evergreen Media Associates are f••king copyright douchebags.”
This is my last post in this thread.
So, remember, people—keep your tongue wet, your bumcrack dry, and don’t touch one with the other.
|J1994||1/8/13 8:47 AM|
Am Dienstag, 1. Januar 2013 18:13:36 UTC+1 schrieb BoilerRoom4:
Wait...what? This means that we were actually blaming Roger without cause (I thought this from the beginning, hence my confusion at Roger featuring "fan channels" - but why doesn't he get strikes? If he does, he could prove he's the copyright holder to all of these songs so that YT will not accept "Evergreen"'s claims any more!!)
Wow, I mean that's news. I hope this thing will clear up in the end.
|gbcali||1/8/13 10:37 AM|
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:47:40 AM UTC-8, J1994 wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Januar 2013 18:13:36 UTC+1 schrieb BoilerRoom4: .
more news: On January 1, 2013 the word "gullible" was removed from all dictionaries
|J1994||1/8/13 11:19 AM|
What are you trying to tell me?
|BoilerRoom4||1/8/13 11:27 AM|
Thanks for your information, very interesting. I'm starting to think there might be two "Evergreens".
Comments from YouTube http://youtu.be/lrPQ6SeYVoA
(Christopher is a New York Attorney)
They turned my shit back on.... thank goodness. I filed a counter response that I think I posted that just basically says c'mon mates, this is the new era get over it... and it's better for you anyway.
They failed to respond so I win.
Billy Bob Kickarilla Cash Jr
I just won a challenge to reinstate my Supertramp video/cover of, Take The Long Way Home. UMG/A&M (where I was a development producer for years) owns the publishing rights to the Supertramp collection, FULLY. Evergreen social media is a BS, made up company, ran by one woman in a garage in Texas; likely hired by disgruntled sellers, of copyrights in full, who have PROJECTS with the same title. The yt strike infuriated me. I won and you will too, EGSM has no right, challenge it. Regards BBKCjr. ;)
Billy Bob Kickarilla Cash Jr
Got a 1st strike from evergreen social media a while back, challenged it and won on a Supertramp song, Take The Long Way Home. Now today, UMPG has complained about the song, yet another strike. After being in touch with UMPG, I am convinced it is, Rodger, from, Supertramp, that is the complainer here as "you cannot even buy a license to use the song, as per the writers wishes," UMPG's words; I challenged on fair use to at least rid me of the strike... and so it goes. Regards BBKCjr.
bobmuse40Yes Evergreen and UMG together
|BoilerRoom4||1/8/13 11:50 AM|
I just got this reply from Roger:
Re:Everybody's Supertramp/Hodgson YouTubes being torn down
Hi, Roger's catalogue is held by Universal Music Group. Universal is affiliated with several companies that monitor video sites for various copyright infringements. lt is our understanding that each time a video is uploaded on YouTube (or other video sites) that contains copyrighted lyrics, composition, or text with lyrics, it is either claimed and monetized by automated fingerprinting processes or it is removed as an unauthorized use of copyrighted material. This applies to cover videos/remixes also. There are times sweeps happen that sometimes results in videos being removed that may have been up a while.
Publishing companies such as UMG that holds Roger's catalogue and sites such as YouTube have legal fiducary duty to monitor and remove copyright infringements. So, we suggest that to preserve your channel, you do not upload videos that use copyrighted material.
|gbcali||1/8/13 12:39 PM|
Publishing companies such as UMG that holds Roger's catalogue and sites such as YouTube have legal fiducary duty to monitor and remove copyright infringements."YouTube doesn't have a legal fiduciary duty to monitor and remove copyright infringements.
YouTube is legally (but not fiducially) required to remove infringing material when properly notified by a copyright owner.
|BoilerRoom4||1/8/13 12:49 PM|
Any idea why they've made that claim?
|J1994||1/8/13 12:51 PM|
As I said before, there are songs from "Brother Where You Bound" and "Free As A Bird" on YT, blocked in Germany, but NOT removed. Both albums are under UMG's catalogue, but Roger/Delicate/Evergreen is not involved because Roger had then left the band. If I'm wrong correct me.
|PeggyK||1/20/13 11:25 AM|
>> I have not laid claim to owning this material and it is clearly stated as a cover song on my youtube description.
So their copyright claim is likely correct. If you are using the composition without explicit permission, the copyright holder for the composition can request your video be removed.
>> Which leads me to assume that this may be a fictitious company formed by Google to prevent any further legal action against them.
As best I can tell this is not a fictional company. It is, however, apparently a private company that seems to have been incorporated for the sole purpose of protecting the intellectual property of Supertramp. There is no requirement that such a company have an online presence.
|Acousticat1||1/20/13 1:56 PM|
Being a singer/songwriter myself I certainly can understand the importance of copyright infringement. In this case, as with so many others where people are merely just doing cover versions of songs and are in no way being compensated for doing so, I have to say seems totally ridiculous. I will accept removing the video from my you tube home page. But I might add that if it were my copyrighted work being covered, I certainly would be flattered. However, this seems not to be the case and whomever is behind it all (I am assuming it would be R.Hodgen) is certainly within their rights. It just seems a shame that he doesn't see the flattery and honor being associated with it. Cheers Roger!
|gbcali||1/20/13 5:08 PM|
It's seems rather obvious that Evergreen is likely former lead singer Roger Hodgson's muscle. Roger is in a dispute with his former band Supertramp and clearly resents that people refer to "his songs" as "Supertramp songs." From rogerhodgson.com:
... our intention is to help the public realize who the actual songwriters were behind the classic “Supertramp” songs so that when people hear Roger’s voice, “one of the most recognizable voices in rock history,” they will recognize it as Roger Hodgson, the songwriter and composer of the songs we love.
. . .
When Roger Hodgson left Supertramp 27 years ago he and Rick agreed that the band would not play Roger’s songs. Their agreement was for Supertramp to become a vehicle for Rick’s music and Roger would go forward with his future secured by his songs and his voice. And it wasn’t just a gentleman’s agreement. The publishing company & the contract legally recognize which songs each songwriter actually wrote and Roger was given legal approval rights for his songs and Rick for his.
. . .
The songs Roger sings lead vocals on are the ones he composed the music and lyrics for, and the songs Rick sings lead vocals on are the ones that he wrote.
We are posting below the song list from Exhibit A of the contract, which is "a schedule of the titles... showing the actual writer(s) of each composition" giving Roger the approval rights of his songs...
The webpage referenced above has a full list of who owns what from the band's repertoire as well as the makings of a really bad reality tv show or soap opera – gotta love a guy who refers to himself in the third person on his own website.
|markimatang||1/21/13 10:38 AM|
“There is no requirement that such a company have an online presence.”
And “gotta love a guy who refers to himself in the third person on his own website.”
Tickles one of my pet peeves. Why does Google hide the legal identity of the entity making a CID claim? I suppose you would have to be from Mars not to know SME is Sony Music Entertainment but that abbreviation is used by tens of other firms and in the case of lesser-known entities there is real confusion. For instance, is AdRev adrev.com or adrev.net?
|J1994||1/22/13 9:33 AM|
You might be right, and I might be naive, but: WHY DOES ROGER POINT OUT EXACTLY WHAT HE WROTE IF THE SONGS BEING STRIKED ARE 50% HIS AND 50% RICK DAVIES' ? Also, there are solo songs of his being striked by Evergreen - that has NOTHING to do with Supertramp and his dispute with Rick and the rest of the band.
After all, he uploaded some of the Supertramp recordings on his channel.
I currently wrote Billy Bob Kickarilla Cash a message, trying to find out if he knows for sure that Evergreen is a made-up company ran by a person who does not own any rights. Anyway, the fact that people who sent counter-notices got their videos re-stored gives some proof. If Roger was behind Evergreen, why would he not reply and insist on his songwriter's rights?
|Lawrence Collins||1/27/13 5:40 AM|
lol- just posted up a live cover of Logical Song and fell into the same trap as you all... unbelievable; been playing professionally for 20 years, 10 of my own albums out to date, and this is the first time I come across this crazy situation because I wanted to test my new gopro camera. just chose the wrong song... very instructive thread guys- thanks.
so I followed a link above and messaged mrrogerhodgson... not expecting much there.
If I get the jist of these threads, we might as well challenge the complaint? with the formal youtube "counter-notification" form?
thanks for your feedback
LC from bordeaux
|gbcali||1/27/13 6:42 AM|
On Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:40:32 AM UTC-8, Lawrence Collins wrote:If I get the jist of these threads, we might as well challenge the complaint? with the formal youtube "counter-notification" form?
If you'd like to open yourself up to being sued in federal court and/or possibly fined/imprisoned for filing a fraudulant counter-notification (perjury)... no one here can stop you.
|BoilerRoom4||1/27/13 5:43 PM|
gbcali, you're so full of bile, negativity, and smart-arse comments—why don't you just f••k up and f••k off. If you have nothing sensible or constructive to contribute, go and get yourself a hobby, you sarcastic arsehole.
|ulivinico||1/28/13 1:27 AM|
It is happened to me as well with a video of 15 years ago while playing "School" in Italy in a village party. It's absurd. Does anyone from other country , like Italy, tried the "counter-notification"?
|BoilerRoom4||2/6/13 3:56 AM|
Tez, all of us exchanging ideas here (the link) would be glad to hear more from you. Greetings from Australia.
|(unknown)||2/9/13 3:05 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|J1994||2/9/13 6:12 AM|
Thank you very much! That's just how I felt.
Anyway, Roger doesn't seem to have problems talking to his fans, as evidenced in this open letter about the Paris DVD: http://www.breakfastinspain.com/index.php/component/content/article/3-newsflash/546-rogers-comments-about-the-paris-live-dvd
Although it's not directly related to our matter, it has some very interesting paragraphs concerning copyright, publishers, his problems with ex-bandmates and about lawyers...
Oh by the way: I just found out that after six months, the copyright thing clears up and I will be able to upload longer videos again ;)
Greetings from Germany
|gbcali||2/9/13 9:25 AM|
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:33:47 AM UTC-8, J1994 wrote:WHY DOES ROGER POINT OUT EXACTLY WHAT HE WROTE IF THE SONGS BEING STRIKED ARE 50% HIS AND 50% RICK DAVIES' ?
Blocked in Germany isn't the same thing as receiving a copyright strike.
Could you cite even 1 example of a user who received a copyright strike for uploading a cover of a Supertramp song written by Rick Davies?
|gbcali||2/16/13 2:31 PM|
Covering a song without permission of the copyright owner is copyright infringement.
Covers are not "fair use."
On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:43:48 PM UTC-8, Carl in Vancouver wrote:
Wow, so glad I found this thread, nice that I'm not alone. I've now just been to YouTube's "Copyright School" for posting my piano cover of the Bloody Well Right intro. It feels like that should fall under "fair use", but I'm hesitant to counter the claim. Seems odd that mine would get pulled when there are so many other (easily found) ones out there. Maybe it's a back-handed compliment that mine was too accurate a cover? ;-)
|Carl in Vancouver||2/16/13 4:16 PM|
You're right of course, covering a song doesn't fall under fair use. To be precise, I posted a video of me playing just the piano intro portion of their song, which I had learned by ear. In my humble opinion, you could tell from the context of the video that it wasn't intended for any promotional or commercial purpose. What I meant by my previous comment was that I think our copyright framework *should* permit such use, even if fair use as defined today does not.
|gbcali||2/16/13 4:33 PM|
Thanks for the clarification. When you previously stated "It feels like that should fall under "fair use", but I'm hesitant to counter the claim" I thought you were thinking about filing a counter-notice which would be fraudulent under current copyright law.What I meant by my previous comment was that I think our copyright framework *should* permit such use, even if fair use as defined today does not.
|J1994||2/17/13 9:40 AM|
Of course I can: I __myself__ got striked for covering Bloody Well Right, which is a Rick Davies song. Of course, because they shared writer's credit, it also has Roger's name under it. But why should he take a song down he hasn't written??
Also, I cited the blocks by UMG to show that Evergreen is definitely not the record company (as some people think) because, as I said, they only block videos, they don't strike (well, not really).
|Tezool||2/22/13 8:39 PM|
I would just like to say that TODAY my Supertramp video was reinstated!My counter notice was accepted (or unopposed). Covers are NOT fair use... but covering the song without permission is NOT copyright infringement. Cover the song without paying any royalties from monies made from sales, performance or any other form of income from the song IS copyright infringement. I have made no money from this video cover that isn't covered by my musicians union fee.
I actually think they couldn't take it off cos my cover version is so bad that its duly unrecognisable as the cover itself...lol.
|funcrunch||3/2/13 9:14 PM|
Found this thread after searching for Evergreen Social Media Associates which recently gave me a copyright strike for a video posted three years ago of my music school workshop band covering The Logical Song. It was a nonprofit performance by a nonprofit school at a local club which pays fees to the appropriate agencies so that people can perform cover songs there. I'm not claiming it's "fair use" even though it was as part of a school performance; being a freelance photographer, I do understand that term is often claimed too broadly. It just irritates me that such a video - an amateur, nonprofit performance - would give me an actual copyright strike against my account when perfect digital copies of thousands of songs are all over YouTube with little or no consequences.
I don't think I have the legal right to submit a counter-notification. I would reach out to the song's author himself but from this thread it doesn't appear that would do any good. I just hope I don't get more strikes for the other (amateur, nonprofit) cover performances on my channel. At least with the Beck Song Reader I should be safe since the artist is actually soliciting those...
|J1994||3/12/13 11:00 AM|
Bah! At this very moment I don't think that Roger Hodgson or any other Supertramp member is behind this. So far I haven't heard from anyone whose counter-notification was unsuccessful. This gives quite some indication. After all, if you're gonna claim your right, why not respond to counter-notifications?
Personally, I wonder if anyone has talked to Roger face to face about this. As far as I know, he likes to chat with his fans...
Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that YouTube has to change its policy. It's just not OK that anyone can claim the right to any video. How am I supposed to know that Evergreen actually HAS the copyright to the songs they're claiming?(apparently they don't!)
And back to your case: It's your choice whether you send them a counter-notification, but it's just an automatic thing - if there is no reply after 14 days you get your vid back (unless you've already deleted it, like I did...)
|J1994||3/12/13 11:35 AM|
Just what I'm doing... waiting for the strike to expire. I can also tell you that I don't think apart from Supertramp/Hodgson songs this is happening anywhere else. I have quite some covers and never got striked for them. Matter of fact, I even had three Supertramp songs up before I got striked for the fourth.
But I don't think that YT would accept another claim from the same entity for the same video. Furthermore, don't forget that when we're talking about Evergreen's strikes, the actual "striking party" is YouTube itself. This is a problem, and somebody should get it right to avoid the harassment of 'innocent' YT users.
|Acousticat1||3/12/13 12:34 PM|
I tried to contact Roger through his website about his very matter and I clearly stated my case and all I got was a reply from his management team... They said that he was on vacation... I only really wanted to know if Roger himself knew that this was going on but was deflected to his management team... Whatever, like I mentioned in my correspondence to Roger, I have no desire to re-post the video on my channel or have it re-instated by YT...
|J1994||3/12/13 12:49 PM|
Go to a one of his concerts and try to catch him. I heard from a fella that had a conversation with him, it's possible, believe me :)
Or tell the management that you would like to hear a reply from him. Even if you're not interested in your vid being restored, we should do something about it because it's nonsense, scares people and even makes them boycott Roger's music. That's an argument even his management should find important.
Greetings from Germany
|NixiChron||3/16/13 1:35 PM|
J1994 wrote on Mar 12:
"Bah! At this very moment I don't think that Roger Hodgson or any other Supertramp member is behind this. So far I haven't heard from anyone whose counter-notification was unsuccessful. This gives quite some indication. After all, if you're gonna claim your right, why not respond to counter-notifications?Yeah, and TEZOOL's has been removed again due to copyright claim by IFPI.
I found this thread after I'd posted a self-written MIDI composition of "Breakfast In America" performed on an automated robot band, with Tesla Coils performing the lead melody. Full credit was given to the artist in both the title and subject area. It was briskly removed from Youtube within hours of upload, and a strike was given. Really? Was that necessary?
After 'carefully' researching the origins of "Evergreen Social Media Associates" and it's claimants, it's clear they are the internet strong arm for you know who. Hint; there are two levels of corporate isolation.
Just try to find any cover material on youtube. Zero. DMCA = Disgruntled Musicians & Corporate Assholes. Of course, this is only my opinion.
|J1994||3/26/13 11:30 AM|
Wait. What has IFPI lost in this matter? Isn't it possible that, due to the automated YouTube system, they mistook it for the Supertramp recording?
And "you know who" is Roger Hodgson, Supertramp/R. Davies or Universal? If you have news, please give us more details!
|Colin Roberts||4/6/13 7:17 AM|
Just posted a bloody well right cover. Just got a copyright infringement notification. This is out of hand
|J1994||4/9/13 9:05 AM|
I had posted the video before I went to sleep and got the strike the very next morning. I don't think anybody had seen it. How long did yours take?
|Sarah Jones- bassist||4/25/13 9:26 AM|
This is fascinating! I had no idea that Supertramp's music was so precious and poisonous! I would have thought that since they haven't made a record together for at least 10 years they would be grateful for any sales generated by other users creating an interest for them!
I am a bass guitarist, and I recently did a bass cover of 'Give A Little Bit', which originally failed to appear from the moment it was uploaded. I got round the problem by modifying the recording; I removed the first minute of the song. That allowed it to upload to my Youtube account for about 2 weeks until Evergreen Social Media Associates had it taken down and I got a strike against my account!
The annoying thing was that the performance on the video is mine; it's ME playing the bass along to the original recording; I have also covered songs by The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Carpenters... the list goes on! However, Brian Wilson seems perfectly happy to let me play along to God only Knows, and Paul McCartney doesn't seem too bothered that I play his stuff too.
Supertramp can go to hell now; I'm done with them!!
|J1994||4/26/13 1:45 PM|
Got this reply on Chris King's video:
MissDistarr60 vor 2 Tagen
I'm beginning to think he does. I posted a studio version of "Lord is it mine" because I could only find 2 other versions (1 of them under a "Roller Boogie" flick and the other was homemade video and both had pretty bad audio and all the rest are live performances) and it was yanked. The only thing I can see that I did different in my posting is I didn't have the words: "Written and composed by Roger Hodgson, Co-Founder Of Supertramp" in BOLD print and listed "IN" the title of the song.
|Ivan Andres Solano||5/8/13 9:25 PM|
I had a video about a Coca-Cola's ad and they made me delete it too :/.
|H Favorite||5/26/13 4:48 PM|
I just got nabbed by these people. I had taken a video at a concert and posted it. I have always posted videos of this group in concert as they have no problem with this- and have fought with various venues over having cameras admitted. They also have instructed their security to allow people to video their songs, so I know that it is okay with them, as I have been doing this for over 10 years. BUT... they have been doing a Supertramp cover for the last 9 years. It was one of their singles, studio released, and one of their encore songs. I attended one of their concerts last weekend and recorded their encore, both songs an original and a Supertramp cover (Give A Little Bit). Today I got notification that these bozos have had my video taken down due to copyright infringement. Such crap, I know the band has permission for this song as they play it at concerts and it has been released on a studio album. But I can't put it up on You Tube?? WTF??
|markimatang||5/26/13 7:02 PM|
“Today I got notification that these bozos have had my video taken down due to copyright infringement.”
“These bozos” OWN the copyright to the songs. It is entirely within their right to decide who may and who may not copy the songs. They have not given YOU a license. YOU may not broadcast their songs.
“Such crap, I know the band has permission for this song as they play it at concerts and it has been released on a studio album.”
“The band” has a license to perform the song in public. “The band” has a mechanical license to release the song on a studio album. “The band” may or may not have a license to broadcast the song.
“But I can't put it up on You Tube?? WTF??”
Putting the song on YouTube is the legal equivalent to broadcasting the song to the world. You do not have a license to do that! You are infringing “these bozos” copyright PERIOD.
|H Favorite||5/26/13 7:50 PM|
Do you enjoy jumping down the throat of others that are just looking for answers and want to blow off some steam? I don't recall asking to be raked over the coals by someone who thinks I'm an idiot and a thief. Most of us weren't out to blatantly break a law, if that were the case we would have taken better care to hide our identities and the content. And unless you know the specific situation and what was in the contract, then I suggest you make no assumptions either. (BTW, the remake of the song was played all over CNN to help with disaster relief, was broadcast from nationally televised concerts again for disaster relief, put out on a 'Live' DVD the band released, and a video was released from the album version.) So thanks for making me feel like an ass, I hope you feel better now.
|markimatang||5/27/13 10:27 AM|
“Do you enjoy jumping down the throat of others that are just looking for answers and want to blow off some steam?”
I did not intend to jump down your throat. If you are looking for answers I gave them. If you just wanted to blow off some steam, you did.
“I don't recall asking to be raked over the coals by someone who thinks I'm an idiot and a thief.”
You asked a question. I answered. I don’t think you are an idiot or a thief. I think you and many others need to understand better how copyright and online publishing interact. If you have been on these forums for a while or wish to review my posts you will see that I am very critical of YouTube and its processes relating to copyright infringement. I like to think that I have helped many people resolve their copyright issues and have exposed some of YouTube’s blatant errors. If I could find anything in your post to indicate that you had been treated unfairly I would be “jumping down” Youtube’s and Evergreen’s throat.
“(BTW, the remake of the song was played all over CNN to help with disaster relief, was broadcast from nationally televised concerts again for disaster relief, put out on a 'Live' DVD the band released, and a video was released from the album version.)”
Again, I do not mean to jump down your throat. You and many others are making assumptions that just do not fit with copyright law. The ONLY ISSUE here whether or not you have a proper license from all administrative parties to post the material on YouTube. Nothing else has the slightest relevance (unless you wish to explore “Fair Use” and that is an even more complex subject).
“So thanks for making me feel like an ass, I hope you feel better now.”
I hope you and others will come to better understand the issues that we are all facing here. As long as great numbers of YouTuber’s continue to post infringing material those companies administering copyright for profit will be able to justify the excessive enforcement that often does harm to those of us trying to operate within the law. There is a place and time to blatantly break a law but since I don’t have that courage I work to change it from within.
P.S. Here is my first post. Many changes have been made since. http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/youtube/creators-corner/iMlPyMqNhq8
|J1994||5/28/13 9:03 AM|
You are obviously assuming that Evergreen has the copyrights that it claims to have, but how are you to know? THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION THAT A COMPANY LIKE "EVERGREEN" IS IN ANY WAY ASSOCIATED WITH SUPERTRAMP AND/OR ROGER HODGSON. I apologise if there is one, but I haven't heard of it. If I had a license to upload a video, how would YouTube know?
And yes, you are jumping down other peoples' throats (at least IMO). I see that you have had issues that are obviously different, and you're right, we should not mix up those where you were clearly in the right with this one. But although we are talking about laws here, how are you going to tell millions of people they should stop what they're doing? Good luck :)
PS: If there is something important that I've overlook, please tell me about it. While I'm not promoting copyright infringement, I would like to know if this strategy is really necessary and who is behind it.
|markimatang||5/28/13 9:22 AM|
I’m going to recycle my comment from another thread since it mostly applies here as well.
“It does not matter how many billions of people infringe copyright. You got caught. It does not matter you were caught by a copyright troll and that his actions are fraudulent, you have no standing to protect your fraudulent upload. In a way you are responsible for the existence of these trolls. If there were nothing for them to feed on they would not exist.
Now that is assuming that you are experiencing a real copyright troll (and there are many). Music industry contracts are convoluted and often secret. You have no way of knowing (short of the discovery process during a lawsuit) that the claimant does not administer the copyright in some territory under certain conditions. Without a license from the copyright holder you cannot know.
I will admit that Google itself has some culpability here. It often appears OK to upload infringing material in cases where Google and the copyright owner have a contract allowing its use. This is no different from a small town speed trap where the town and the county agree to split the ticket revenue. It is still illegal to drive above the speed limit, it just looks OK if you pay the fine but they could hold you for trial.
In short if you play Google’s game expect to loose. They write the rules so that they always win.”
And I’ll add Google makes a profit on every false claim that is monetized. Why would you expect them to correct this situation? They are after all in business to make a profit; they are not in business to be fair or even to avoid evil.
|markimatang||5/28/13 9:32 AM|
P.S. “But although we are talking about laws here, how are you going to tell millions of people they should stop what they're doing? Good luck :)”
You might find this to be an interesting read: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
|Sarah Jones- bassist||5/28/13 9:32 AM|
A video of me playing the bass to 'Give A Little Bit' was removed because of an apparent infringement flagged by Evergreen Social Media. I launched a counter claim, and about 2 weeks later I received an email informing me that by video had been re-instated!
22 minutes later I got another email saying that it had been removed again because of a copyright infringement flagged by IFPI.
Who are IFPI?
Are they another incarnation of Evergreen?
Are they anything to to with Supertramp or its former members.
It seems to me that Supertramp collectively are little more than a bunch of bitter old men who are to busy squabbling about music rights to care about the people who made them rich in the first place!
In the meantime, I have launched another counter claim against IFPI, and I expect my video to shortly be re-instated again, until someone else objects.
|Sarah Jones- bassist||5/28/13 9:35 AM|
By strange coincidence (monents after posting my previous comment), I have just received the following:
We've completed processing your counter notification regarding your video:
This content has been restored unless you have deleted the video(s). Your
|Tezool||5/28/13 10:25 AM|
It must have been the day for it Sarah because my second counter-notice has finally been granted! No doubt there will be another one sometime soon, but I don't care because there are many loopholes in the copyright laws which I pointed out to them and I do actually have full rights to parts of my video. Mainly though, as there is no defamation or monetary loss for the copyright holders within my video, they haven't got a leg to stand on. The new digital laws passed 18 months ago give associative media more rights. I have not claimed to be the originator... and I have not lessened the originators value by association.
|gbcali||6/2/13 6:22 PM|
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:32:15 AM UTC-7, Sarah Jones- bassist wrote:
IFPI = International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (ifpi.org)
IFPI is a trade association that represents over 1,400 major and independent record companies in the US and internationally who create, manufacture and distribute sound recordings. IFPI is authorized to act on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
Are they another incarnation of Evergreen?
|Cram Renraff||6/24/13 1:16 AM|
So does anyone know how long a person is in YouTube jail for this?
|Tezool||6/25/13 4:56 PM|
Well... I just received a NEW Copyright Infringement notice to contest. This one is still allowing my video to play in all countries EXCEPT the USA. Thats an interesting tactic. This apparently has not affected my standing with Youtube!?
Here is the Youtube notice I received:
Your video is blocked in some countries. *United States*
Here are the details:
"TAKE THE LONG WAY HOME", musical composition administered by:
I am already disputing this notice... I'll let you all know how it goes... :) Tez
|gbcali||6/25/13 5:45 PM|
Since UMPG manages the publishing rights to the musical composition "TAKE THE LONG WAY HOME" they will probably respond by taking down your video and giving you a copyright strike.
|J1994||7/2/13 9:01 AM|
Am Montag, 24. Juni 2013 10:16:50 UTC+2 schrieb Cram Renraff:
Six months, actually. For the one strike I had. I don't know what happens if you have two strikes.
|thewhitlam||7/21/13 12:26 AM|
i also just got my ' if everyone was listening' youtube recording removed. why Supertramp? If anyone less litigious than Roger Hodgson is on the planet, tell me about it.
I went to see Roger at RAH - we support his music by playing his music.
So I can only conclude it is a spam
|J1994||7/30/13 10:00 AM|
I would like to agree with you but this "spam" has already troubled so many people. Certain people want to put the blame on Roger, and if you read the setlists you'll see where they get their evidence.
If I was you, and if you have the feeling that this is actually spam, you should try contacting one of the YouTube staff members. Perhaps they can tell you more about where the strikes come from, and how YT knows that "Evergreen S.M.A." actually has any copyrights. Did your video feature the original recording?
|Damian Harding||8/10/13 6:37 PM|
Evergreen media group.... I wonder if its the same people who stole my art work:
They ignore all requests to take it down or give artistic acknowledgement
|J1994||8/13/13 12:19 PM|
Evergreen Media Group have claimed not having to do anything with Evergreen Social Media Associates. Somebody else mentioned the "company" that has taken the Supertramp/Roger Hodgson songs down might be related to EverGreen Copyright Acquisitions. But from what you've written, I wouldn't trust anybody who has an Evergreen in his name :(
|J1994||8/27/13 1:18 PM|
Another strike. It took them a year or so until they found it. They can go to hell.
|Sergio León Vélez Castaño||11/21/13 4:11 PM|
i think same thing. I uploaded GIVE A LITLE BIT VIDEO from Supertramp and those fuckers stormed to me through YOUTUBE Spanish. I don´t accept anything menaces. Let´s get together to destroy or infest to this musical MAFIA.
|Sharry Edwards||1/16/14 2:44 PM|
they so harassed us - even though we had a letter of permission from the artist - that we took our business elsewhere
|3ii3||2/11/14 9:37 AM|
Here's the info on Evergreen Copyright. I searched Google for Evergreen Music Copyrights and got this link. Check the free results, not the paid ones at the top.
The Wikipedia page notes that BMG Rights management owns Evergreen Copyrights now:
|Adrian Urdang||2/14/14 7:19 AM|
"Evergreen" may now have my name and address now as I had to supply them to contest a claim. Do I get their details too?? Even if they do hold copyrights on Supertramp material (which seems in doubt given the lack of info) then a strike is way over the top when a simple take down request would suffice. The Digital Millenium Act includes a provision for penalizing a false claim, where is the youtube equivalent? Seems to me they need a matching "3 False Claims and you are out" rule. I am contesting a strike for my allegedly infringing video which was a parody of the aggressive copyright enforcement of Supertramp material, I will let you know when it is reinstated :)
|Flimsy Flower||2/25/14 3:41 PM|
Same here, who are they? I will report them to be fraudulent, destroying original works by artists, maybe even stealing their work.
|Dave theguitarguy||3/2/14 1:24 PM|
I am infuriated that Evergreen Social Media assoc. takes down, as it seems, only Supertramp videos from Youtube. I did a guitar lesson on "Give a Little Bit (No pun intended) none of their music in the background, just me and my guitar. I had 83,000 hits, they must have felt threatened. Furthermore, you would think a washed up band from the 70's would want as many new listeners as possible. Playing their music can only help them, not hurt them. I made NO money from the video, but now I have a strike against me on Youtube and had to sit through a humiliating cartoon video "teaching me" all about copyright infringement. Everyone and their brother do cover songs with their guitars and other instruments and are not hassled. Screw Evergreen Media, and Supertramp.I am busting all of their C.D's as I write this! Good for you Hodgson, I hope you wind up washing dishes at Denny's!!! If you would like EASY guitar lessons, check out some of my other videos which include a lot of Pink Floyd, at, Youtube Dave the guitar guy Thanks! Dave
|Ear Candy||3/11/14 2:40 PM|
Ok! I think I my experience tops them all. I have a supertramp-crime of the century (complete cover & video) that was taken down with a strike. Ok, fine. So I deleted it and uploaded a revised video which contained no audio. For the cover art I used a combination of images. One image of the night time stars and one image of hands holding jail bars. I overlapped them and produced a likeness of the original cover art, but in no way whatsoever was any of the supertramp copyrighted material used to get this final image. I did not copy or use any of their material. Indeed, one could call that plagiarism but there is not one bit of material that belongs to them. I titled the video supertramp crime of the century (complete cover)and inserted annotations with links to where the video can be seen outside of Ytube (http://freeearcandy.com/video.html). They took this down with a strike. What did I do to violate copyright law @ youtube? Hum?
|gbcali||3/11/14 3:06 PM|
If Evergreen Social Media properly filed a DMCA copyright infringement notification demanding YouTube remove your video then YouTube must remove the video or risk losing the safe harbor protections afforded content hosting services under the DMCA. If you do not believe you violated copyright law you have the option of filing a counter notification. Make sure you fully understand the legal ramifications of filing a counter notification before doing so.
|markimatang||3/11/14 6:13 PM|
“I overlapped them and produced a likeness of the original cover art, but in no way whatsoever was any of the supertramp copyrighted material used to get this final image. I did not copy or use any of their material.”
It does not matter how you got the image. You could hold a crayon between your toes and draw something while waterskiing and if you got something that is confusingly similar to the copyrighted image it is infringement. To copy means to copy, the means of making the copy are irrelevant.
|J1994||3/12/14 4:05 AM|
Theoretically, this would be right. However, Evergreen have always claimed videos because they contain copyrighted audio. I have serious doubts that they have copyrights on the album covers. And even if they did: With your kind of argumentation, any caricature of a known image would be copyright infringement. I have never heard of any time when a video was taken down because of an image that was similar to anything copyrighted. Heck, thousands of videos happily use original album covers without being taken down. I would put my money on this theory: Evergreen automatically identified the video through its title. This means they were wrong. The proof would be if the video did not contain any images, or any video at all, just the title that would indicate the Supertramp connection. So I would do a counter-notification. This kind of extreme rules interpretation doesn't help anybody, because these rules aren't taken seriously by users as well as by copyright holders. A copy, by the way, can't be identified by automatic systems. I am pretty sure Evergreen uses automatic ID systems, and the title is the first thing they check. If you upload a Supertramp cover and don't mention title or band in the title, they will not find it. I don't believe they would find a video that contains an image that is similar to a Supertramp cover.
Anyway, just my two cents.
|markimatang||3/12/14 10:09 AM|
“any caricature of a known image would be copyright infringement.”
ABSOLUTELY, it is unless you can prove “fair use” in court.
“I have never heard of any time when a video was taken down because of an image that was similar to anything copyrighted.”
I used the term confusingly similar but at any rate determining the amount of similarity needed to prove infringement is what IP lawyers charge so much for.
|AmY Lojko||4/1/14 1:38 PM|
I posted a video of the Goo Goo Dolls performing "Give a Little Bit" by Supertramp. That same group was responsible for reporting it. It was off within a day of putting it up. That's some serious trolling and Supertramp must really be hard up for money if they refuse to allow any of their music on YouTube. They are lucky anyone is still covering their music.
|Jus'De Gudstuf||5/19/14 5:03 PM|
20th may 2014
Hi everyone, has anyone has any advances with anything to do with this ?
My entire account was taken down 2years ago, or at the end of 2011. I forget exactly!!
I've written to Youtube (waste of time) Evergreen (waste of time) Roger Hodgeson on Facebook, twice (yes a complete waste of time)
What the hell does one have to do to get an answer out of these people?
Last week i wrote to a german company who seem to have bought Evergreen, i wrote the email on their site to contact them...and yes, received zero response.
I had 50 + videos, including one of when my cat died and i sang beatles songs for her.
I think the two strikes i got for supertramp were unfair, as i uploaded under fair use, and made no money out of them. Whatever, they can stay off the air as far as i'm concerned but i would like my other 48+ videos back on youtube.
I've been told on another forum that it's not google, it's the complainer who can give the go ahead. without that google can't do anyting.
I'm really sick of it.
My macbook hard drive broke two weeks after the account was pulled (with no notice) and i hadn't backed the disk up.
My user name was modelverb.
|Copyright infringement; does anyone know anything about an outfit called Evergreen Social Media Associates. I googled th||Flimsy Flower||5/20/14 3:16 PM|
hey there - yes I lost a video they claimed was stolen - and I wrote the song. Luckily I have the song and own it - but got really angry - even published some video telling them how stupid they are! Sorry you lost 50 videos!
|Laura Beattie||6/30/14 3:24 AM|
These clowns took down Supertramp-Brother Where Ya Bound, and Roger Hodgson-Had a Dream (Sleeping With the Enemy). My music on my PC and pictures taken with my camera. Now I have a strike against my YouTube account until December! I guess I can't share Supertramp-from what I have read here, it's only Supertramp videos that seem to be targeted:(
|ChrisGarner||7/29/14 5:54 AM|
They pissed me off too. If you will notice the "Copyright Claimant" below is NOT Evergreen Media Associates (hereinafter "ENEMA"). Should it turn out that ENEMA does own the copyright, they are still without authority to demand crap as they are not on the "Record" as the/a Copyright Claimant. I just filed my Counterclaim and will see how adamant ENEMA is about going to court now. A class action would be welcomed no doubt. Hope this helps. Pass the news please.
Copyright Catalog (1978 to present)
Search Request: Left Anchored Name = Supertramp
Search Results: Displaying 41 of 63 entries
The Logical song / words & music by Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson.
Type of Work: Music
Registration Number / Date: PA0000032060 / 1979-04-25
Title: The Logical song / words & music by Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson.
Appears in: Breakfast in America. A & M Records SP-3708, c1979. 1 sound disc : 33 1/3 rpm ; 12 in. side 1, band 2
Publisher Number: A&M Records SP-3708
Notes: Lyrics on record sleeve.
Performer: Performed by Supertramp.
Copyright Claimant: Almo Music Corporation & Delicate Music
Date of Creation: 1979
Date of Publication: 1979-03-16
Authorship on Application: words & music: Rick Davies & Roger Hodgson.
Names: Davies, Rick, Hodgson, Roger
|Adrian Urdang||8/10/14 2:32 PM|
Check out my Evergreen Social Media Associates protest video.
They tried to ban this too, but it is legal under copyright "fair use" provisions which protect freedom of speech.
|J1994||8/19/14 12:59 PM|
Brother Where You Bound? It gets more and more creepy...that's a song which has 0% to do with Roger Hodgson, as he had already left the band by then.
|Ear Candy||8/20/14 3:27 PM|
And therein is my concern about filing a counter claim. Who is evergreen media association and is it wise to make available to them my personal info? Seems Ytube is not aware that anyone can make such a claim and use the process to gather a persons personal info. Thanks Google, but no thanks! I took all my stuff down thereby everyone is a loser in this cat and mouse game. I call it the Samson option. Hey! Guess what? Youtube is not the only place on the internet to post! Besides, communicating with google is like trying to use sign language without hands. And as such, I have no option but to pull down my pants and show them the moon!
I feel everyone's pain but I am moving on and letting Google solve its own problems.
|Joe Moreg||9/27/14 6:42 AM|