Michael Stipe Calls YouTube 'Disgraceful' Over Removal Of Perfume Genius Clip

Michael Stipe has described the managers of YouTube as "disgraceful and cowardly" after they opted not to allow a Perfume Genius clip.

Michael Stipe Calls YouTube 'Disgraceful' Over Removal Of Perfume Genius Clip
2
Former REM frontman Michael Stipe has described the managers of YouTube as "disgraceful and cowardly" after they opted not to allow a clip, which has been made by the singer Perfume Genius, to run as an advertisement on the site. The video, which advertised the new Perfume Genius album "Put Your Back N 2 It", has been prevented from running as an advertisement across the Google Display Network, which includes YouTube, over fears about its content. The 16 second clip featured Perfume Genius, otherwise known as Mike Hadreas, embracing gay porn star Arpad Miklos, in shots taken from the video to the song "Hood". YouTube took the video down after saying that it "promoted mature sexual themes". Stipe, writing on his blog Confessionsofamichaelstipe.tumblr.com, hit out at the site's decision to take the clip down, which he described as "dumbheaded discrimination". He wrote: "I've been listening to the new Perfume Genius record. It is a beautiful and amazing record and a stunning 2nd album and achievement. But in trying to advertise the record and first video, this short clip has been banned by YouTube. For YouTube to deem this advertisement as 'non family safe' is dumbheaded discrimination; I find their actions in doing so disgraceful and cowardly. YouTube, shame on you. You were born of the 21st Century, now act like it." YouTube sent to following message to Perfume Genius' record label Matador after taking down the video: "The ad has been disapproved because it violates our Adult Image/Video Content policy. Per this policy, video content, audio, static imagery, and site content must be family safe." "Any ads that contain non family safe material are disapproved. I noted to the team that the people in the video are not entirely unclothed, but the overall feeling of the video is one of a more adult nature, including promoting mature sexual themes and what appears to be nude content." Matador's Nils Bernsetin added: "I should note that this isn't a user-uploaded video - the music video itself is on YouTube and not even flagged as 'adult' - this is what's called a 'pre-roll' ad, those annoying ads that we pay YouTube to run before videos you want to watch. So it seems they're worried about upsetting unsuspecting viewers that don't want to see two men looking romantically at each other." A YouTube spokesperson told NME that the advertisement simply violated the site's policies and the decision to remove it was made "without any consideration of the sexual orientation of the content". "Put Your Back N 2 It" is released on February 20.

Perfume Genius ad from nils bernstein on Vimeo.

Thanks for the report to NME.com.

8 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    Eirien
    I'm really glad UG posted this. At least you guys don't censor your site to avoid offending homophobes.
    THE BULGE
    Yeah they would have no problem with Rhiana insinuating feelings towards a man or woman. Truth is there are like a billion Christians and a billion Muslims in the world and the rest of us live by their rules no matter how contradictory. I really like how matadors manager described it as one of those annoying ads we pay for you to watch lol.
    MuyB
    I still support the ban of the ad, but for the reasons they stated, not for their hypocrisy. I would still support the banning of the ad if the little pixie looking guy really was a female. Come on dude, you know you wouldn't. Heterosexuals have a sense of entitlement where they feel their relationships and even sexuality is perfectly acceptable to be on full display...heck, I can't even go to the park without seeing heteros suck face at a bench. If it was a same sex couple showing affection, they'd either be harrased or have the cops called on them. The ad shouldn't be pulled because it's freedom of speech, it's 2012 and this is America....and no, not all of us have kids, and live for your kids, or should have our entire programming censored for your precious little kids. YOU protect and gaurd them. It's not our job to be limited access to footage based on poor little innocent kids who get exposed to far worse in their schools by their classmates. This was nothing short of homophobia, and anyone who think it should have been pulled suffers from a slight bias/prejudice against gays. Tough deal. It's 2012...not everyones straight (even if Fox news reallyyy desperately wants you to believe we all are)
    MuyB
    "I still support the ban of the ad, but for the reasons they stated, not for their hypocrisy. I would still support the banning of the ad if the little pixie looking guy really was a female" This was meant to be in quotes...not my own statement, but a statement slavesskinJACKET wrote and my response in disagreement to it.
    slaveskinJACKET
    MuyB wrote: I still support the ban of the ad, but for the reasons they stated, not for their hypocrisy. I would still support the banning of the ad if the little pixie looking guy really was a female. Come on dude, you know you wouldn't. Heterosexuals have a sense of entitlement where they feel their relationships and even sexuality is perfectly acceptable to be on full display...heck, I can't even go to the park without seeing heteros suck face at a bench. If it was a same sex couple showing affection, they'd either be harrased or have the cops called on them. The ad shouldn't be pulled because it's freedom of speech, it's 2012 and this is America....and no, not all of us have kids, and live for your kids, or should have our entire programming censored for your precious little kids. YOU protect and gaurd them. It's not our job to be limited access to footage based on poor little innocent kids who get exposed to far worse in their schools by their classmates. This was nothing short of homophobia, and anyone who think it should have been pulled suffers from a slight bias/prejudice against gays. Tough deal. It's 2012...not everyones straight (even if Fox news reallyyy desperately wants you to believe we all are)
    It's an ad that runs before videos. It's sexual in nature. The video is still available on YouTube, and it's not even flagged as adult content. Did you even read the article, or did you just stop when it hit on a point that you took interest in? Just because the stereotypes you stated are generally true doesn't mean that I wouldn't support the ban of a similar ad with a male/female scenario. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to be posted, but they shouldn't play before random videos. You should have to find that sort of content yourself. It shouldn't find you.
    slaveskinJACKET
    Salvo416 wrote: I strongly agreed with him... until I saw the ad.
    I felt the same way. The last shot is the problem. To be fair, I wouldn't have even realized that the smaller one was a dude if it wasn't for the last shot. Their argument really doesn't make any sense, though. As THE BULGE said, Rihanna could have (and has) been featured in Google ads being extremely scantily clad and provocative. I still support the ban of the ad, but for the reasons they stated, not for their hypocrisy. I would still support the banning of the ad if the little pixie looking guy really was a female.