Prince and YouTube, controversy or what?

A strange thing has happened that may eventually offer this blog some coherence. I have been writing about print as if there was a settled view on how music is promoted through YouTube etc. then yesterday following a request from Controversy one of my videos was removed by YouTube. I was warned my channel might be cancelled also. Something must be changing because this video has been there since last summer. The Mama Stone House Band perform i wanna be your lover. Obviously Prince wrote the song but why object now? 

I have been doing some searching and it appears he is trying to relaunch as part of 3rdeyegirl . This group has a VEVO policy so can be found on YouTube. Maybe he thinks his previous name is not going to do much more for him. The Wikipedia shows that for the UK chart a reappearance by Purple Rain was the most recent event, some years ago.

Blog search finds a report that he caused YouTube video from a performance at SXSW to be removed. The odd thing is that the show was sponsored by Samsung to promote a phone with camera. This is not making a lot of sense. Could it be that in future phone companies will choose to sponsor performance with a more relaxed policy on social media?

Billboard seems to be getting away with a performance clip. Maybe because it is similar in content to 3rdeyegirl on VEVO. Not sure about this. 

I have had to do a training course and answer questions on YouTube before being able to get to my admin pages. I would welcome any guidance on what is going on. I sometimes put bits of the Wild Show on YouTube. Often the music is recognised and the advertising claimed by the appropriate company. So I get a copyright notice I acknowledge and then it continues. I sort of assume this is normal. Many local bands do cover versions that appear online. I think most artists don't mind this. So custom and practice may be a bit different to the YouTube course. 

Any comment welcome. Is Prince unique in his view of his exclusive value? Is there a new trend in copyright policy from music management. 

I can't think of any of the artists other than Prince who were recorded at Paisley Park and developed any kind of long term recognition. I guess that 3rdeyefirl will not be very different. Let's hope I'm wrong. But the Prince backlist might be worth promoting as well. Allowing cover versions on YouTube would not harm this. 

Video below from Mama Stones as it starts with introducing the band. As far as I know covering Luther Vandross is still ok.