Re: [videoblogging] Online video editing sites
Thanks for these, JD. I haven't used them - interested to check them out. There's also Kaltura: http://corp.kaltura.com/technology/editing_and_annotation Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 8 Jun 2010, at 07:24, JD Lasica wrote: > Hi folks, > > Haven't popped in here for a while. We're running a story on video > editing for nonprofits. I wanted to make passing mention of some > online alternatives, except most have bitten the dust in the past 3 > years: > > Eyespot folded. > > Yahoo purchased Jumpcut and then closed it. > > Cuts is gone. > > Videoegg went into the advertising game. > > Onetruemedia is more about dumbed-down video montages. > > So what's left? > > 1. Jaycut.com > > 2. Motionbox.com > > 3. Moviemasher.com > > That sound right? Anything else that's easy to use and smartly done > (and isn't simply an entertaining mashup tool)? > > thanks! > > jd lasica > founder, socialbrite.org > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage
I want to share all the clips that I shot yesterday so that people can reuse them in whatever way they want. I'm interested to know what you would use to do this: To organise them in a group in the cloud, and make them easily viewable and downloadable. As I mentioned in the iPhone post, I spent yesterday videoing scenes from The Wicker Man with a whole load of people, shot on my phone in a London park. My video's going to end up being very short. I'll do a "making of" vlog post as well. But as always, there are a lot of shots that won't get used. Seems a shame to waste them if they can be recycled. And obviously it'd be nice to see what other people could do with more time & talent. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv cc: Artists In The Cloud Google group
Re: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage
Could you put the clips in their own playlist on blip, then embed the playlist on your blog? On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: > > > I want to share all the clips that I shot yesterday so that people can > reuse them in whatever way they want. > > I'm interested to know what you would use to do this: To organise > them in a group in the cloud, and make them easily viewable and > downloadable. > > As I mentioned in the iPhone post, I spent yesterday videoing scenes > from The Wicker Man with a whole load of people, shot on my phone in a > London park. > > My video's going to end up being very short. I'll do a "making of" > vlog post as well. But as always, there are a lot of shots that won't > get used. Seems a shame to waste them if they can be recycled. And > obviously it'd be nice to see what other people could do with more > time & talent. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > cc: Artists In The Cloud Google group > > > -- Chad F. Boeninger libraryvoice.com - blog libraryvoice.com/videos - videoblog twitter.com/cfboeninger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage
Sounds like it could be a flickr set? Depends on how big they are. Or a widget built on Blip or Vimeo API? You upload all clips into a set/playlist, then you plop the embeddable widget in your post that has all the thumbnails of the clips in a little javascript div, each thumb embiggens on hover, and is linked to the original individual source files for download. Call it Sourcebox or something. Project, anybody? AQ Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Rupert Howe Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:42:58 To: Subject: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage I want to share all the clips that I shot yesterday so that people can reuse them in whatever way they want. I'm interested to know what you would use to do this: To organise them in a group in the cloud, and make them easily viewable and downloadable. As I mentioned in the iPhone post, I spent yesterday videoing scenes from The Wicker Man with a whole load of people, shot on my phone in a London park. My video's going to end up being very short. I'll do a "making of" vlog post as well. But as always, there are a lot of shots that won't get used. Seems a shame to waste them if they can be recycled. And obviously it'd be nice to see what other people could do with more time & talent. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv cc: Artists In The Cloud Google group Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage
Now that I think about it, I doubt either vimeo or blip would be interested in hosting a bunch of raw footage. Maybe a filesharing service or hosting service like S3 would be a better bet. Not sure. Or maybe dropbox could do this. Sent via dynamic wireless technology device -Original Message- From: Rupert Howe Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:42:58 To: Subject: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage I want to share all the clips that I shot yesterday so that people can reuse them in whatever way they want. I'm interested to know what you would use to do this: To organise them in a group in the cloud, and make them easily viewable and downloadable. As I mentioned in the iPhone post, I spent yesterday videoing scenes from The Wicker Man with a whole load of people, shot on my phone in a London park. My video's going to end up being very short. I'll do a "making of" vlog post as well. But as always, there are a lot of shots that won't get used. Seems a shame to waste them if they can be recycled. And obviously it'd be nice to see what other people could do with more time & talent. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv cc: Artists In The Cloud Google group Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Best way to share clips/footage
You could create a public folder in something like dropbox or google docs... David On Jun 8, 2010, at 3:42 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: > I want to share all the clips that I shot yesterday so that people can > reuse them in whatever way they want. > > I'm interested to know what you would use to do this: To organise > them in a group in the cloud, and make them easily viewable and > downloadable. > > As I mentioned in the iPhone post, I spent yesterday videoing scenes > from The Wicker Man with a whole load of people, shot on my phone in a > London park. > > My video's going to end up being very short. I'll do a "making of" > vlog post as well. But as always, there are a lot of shots that won't > get used. Seems a shame to waste them if they can be recycled. And > obviously it'd be nice to see what other people could do with more > time & talent. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > cc: Artists In The Cloud Google group > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [videoblogging] Online video editing sites
> Haven't popped in here for a while. We're running a story on video > editing for nonprofits. I wanted to make passing mention of some > online alternatives, except most have bitten the dust in the past 3 > years. Editing online has yet to catch fire. Either the interface is too clunky, the quality of the clips is poor...and there hasnt really been a good use case. As Rupert said, http://corp.kaltura.com/technology/editing_and_annotation is really the only big active one left that Ive seen. They're use case is getting people to edit/post video for Wikipedia entries. Editing video collaboratively like we currently edit text collaboratively. Jay
[videoblogging] Re: 720p HD and video editing on the iPhone 4
I didn't see this thread before I posed mine... Couldn't one use a blue tooth headset as a wireless lapel mic for interviews??? I notice the iPhone 4 also has two mics, i wonder if that will help audio capture for the video? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe wrote: > > Was just coming here to write the same post. > > I love mobile video. I've just spent the day shooting a remake of the > ending of the Wicker Man on my Nokia N93 phone, with about 40 > people. The lofi video quality will have its own charm, but I can't > help feeling the irony of it being on the same day as this announcement. > > I'm so frustrated that it's taken Apple so long to introduce something > that I've wanted since the iPhone first launched. Especially since > Nokia have killed the editing in their N Series phones, and - as you > say - the UI is so poor on Nokia. But this has tipped the balance > for me. I'll be getting one as soon as I can afford it. > > Can't wait to play with it. Wish I had a bit more cash to splash on > it right now. > > Rupert > http://twittervlog.tv > > On 7 Jun 2010, at 21:16, elbowsofdeath wrote: > > > OK so finally the iPhone reaches a stage where it can start to live > > up to our expectations for what a powerful mobile device should be > > able to offer for video. > > > > Obviously not the only device in the world that can do these things > > but if Apple have designed the editing app very well and the camera > > quality is good enough, it should be quite a lovely experience. > > > > I held off from getting a 3GS and stayed with my no-video 3G iphone, > > so Im really looking forward to upgrading - Ive long missed the > > video that the Nokia N95 offered me before I got the iphone, but not > > the UI & workflow of Nokia etc phones, and now I should finally be > > able to have a much better device on all fronts. > > > > I look forward to some clever video editing capabilities on the iPad > > too at some point, but it may take some time for this to be done > > really well. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
Re: [videoblogging] Free and frozen...will the iPhone 4 video capabilities unfreeze?
For phone service, I prefer Page Plus Cellular unlimited talk and text for $44.95 per month no contracts and works on Verizon network. $29.95 for 1200 minutes and texts https://www.pagepluscellular.com/Online%20Store/Minutes.aspx I am using an unlocked Samsung i760 phone with it. It works great with wifi and has a nice camera, and qwerty keyboard. Windows Mobile, not Android... However, I had the same reaction as you in terms of the new iphone! However, I don't want to be under any contract. So what about the new ipad with the $30 a month no contract fee for 3gs service? Could that be an alternative? It's bigger and doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the new i phone though. Other ideas? I would love to get an unlocked new iphone and pay for just data, but don't know if that is possible... --- On Mon, 6/7/10, Caleb Clark wrote: From: Caleb Clark Subject: [videoblogging] Free and frozen...will the iPhone 4 video capabilities unfreeze? To: "videoblogging" Date: Monday, June 7, 2010, 8:49 PM I am off my contract at AT&T. Finally, I breath the airwaves of a free man. Freedom's great responsibilities descend over me as I behold the daily onslaught of new smart phones. I know not what to do. Frozen, I keep my Nokia flip phone, held together with black duct tape. It soldiers on, and come what may, will someday be heralded as a very smart phone in its own right. But I just watched the glitzy iPhone 4 ad, http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#design-video and read through that design page. It's typical Apple. I'm now lusting irrationally...but amid the hype, I think this iPhone may be a guerrilla docu/human rights advocate/vlogger's dream!? and of course only for the next few minutes. - 720p 30fps - Bigger battery - Camera's flash will double as a fill light for video. So you could conceivably get an interview in pitch black if you're right up close to someone.I've lit someone's face with a cell phone screen... - Front and back cameras for pic in pic reporting and switching between the two in the fly for reactions and subject...maybe? - On board basic editing in iMovie - Geolocation tagging - Anything else? Will the iPhone 4 unfreeze me? Thoughts? Or are their any Android phones on the horizon like it, but with a mic input and removable batteries!!!??? Oy... -- ~ Caleb Clark - Program Director, Marlboro College Graduate School: http://gradcenter.marlboro.edu/academics/mat/faculty - Portfolio: http://www.plocktau.com "The problem with communication is the assumption it has been accomplished." - G. B. Shaw. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Shooting In Public
All: Thought I might bring this up for discussion (the issue having recently made national news), as some may not be fully aware of their rights while shooting video in or on public lands and places. The ramifications of this story are chilling, but not insurmountable if one knows their rights. On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the police stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was in plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never seen one). After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of his stop by the policemen. This apparently rubbed law enforcement the wrong way, who on April 7th showed up at Graber's door with a search and arrest warrant for "wiretapping" under Maryland State law (resulting from Anthony's video post on YT). Maryland wiretap law mandates two-party consent for electronic recording. Police seized all Graber's computers, cameras and electronics as purportedly containing or constituting evidence. ...Problem is Graber broke no wiretap laws! If you'd like to discuss WHY Graber broke no wiretap laws, post accordingly. Otherwise, lacking that interest, one gets what they get should the wrongfully cite of "wiretapping" ever come up, after shooting footage in public. ;) Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
Thanks for the heads up on Maryland. I have a Contour HD helmet cam that I ride my bike with and do sail my boat in Maryland. Will be extra careful. Jimmy CraicHead TV Video Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Craic and Cocktails www.jchtv.com --- On Tue, 6/8/10, Mark Villaseñor wrote: From: Mark Villaseñor Subject: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 11:20 AM All: Thought I might bring this up for discussion (the issue having recently made national news), as some may not be fully aware of their rights while shooting video in or on public lands and places. The ramifications of this story are chilling, but not insurmountable if one knows their rights. On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the police stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was in plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never seen one). After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of his stop by the policemen. This apparently rubbed law enforcement the wrong way, who on April 7th showed up at Graber's door with a search and arrest warrant for "wiretapping" under Maryland State law (resulting from Anthony's video post on YT). Maryland wiretap law mandates two-party consent for electronic recording. Police seized all Graber's computers, cameras and electronics as purportedly containing or constituting evidence. ...Problem is Graber broke no wiretap laws! If you'd like to discuss WHY Graber broke no wiretap laws, post accordingly. Otherwise, lacking that interest, one gets what they get should the wrongfully cite of "wiretapping" ever come up, after shooting footage in public. ;) Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
John Coffey: “I have a Contour HD helmet cam that I ride my bike with and do sail my boat in Maryland. Will be extra careful.” Hey John: (LOVE the Contour, BTW. We’ll be replacing our VIO-POV’s with several Contours in the near future.) Actually, there is little to be “extra careful” about -- but do what you feel is best. Given federal precedent, fact pattern and mirroring law; I believe the (Maryland) state court judge who issued the subject warrant, and law enforcement, will be tending back-sides with that paper at some point. ...Squeezable-soft aspects, notwithstanding. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Online video editing sites
Avid is also working a cloud based tool. They talked it up @ NAB and recently did a demo at a LA Editors lounge. see link: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/nabrealtime/story/avids_web_based_editing_demo/ C Hastings WGBH Lab http://lab.wgbh.org From: Jay dedman To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, June 8, 2010 9:04:22 AM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Online video editing sites > Haven't popped in here for a while. We're running a story on video > editing for nonprofits. I wanted to make passing mention of some > online alternatives, except most have bitten the dust in the past 3 > years. Editing online has yet to catch fire. Either the interface is too clunky, the quality of the clips is poor...and there hasnt really been a good use case. As Rupert said, http://corp.kaltura.com/technology/editing_and_annotation is really the only big active one left that Ive seen. They're use case is getting people to edit/post video for Wikipedia entries. Editing video collaboratively like we currently edit text collaboratively. Jay [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
- Original Message - From: "Mark Villaseñor" (snip) > On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, > until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber > wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the > police > stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was > in > plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never > seen > one). > > After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of > his > stop by the policemen. (snip) So the paragraph above is misleading. " ... recording his antics prior and after the police stop." By "after the police stop" I took it to mean after the stop was finished and done and he was on his way again. I could also mean after the police stopped him, which is what happend as we read the next paragraph. Despite being in plain sight, and very obvious, how "obvious" was it that it was in 'record" mode? Unless he stated verbaly that his conversation with the officer was being recorded (giving the officer the chance to order him to stop recording) they may certainly have a valid case (depending on state law). You *can* photograph and video record from the public ways. You (in many states) cannot record the audio of conversations without permission despite the location. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
Richard Amirault: "Despite being in plain sight, and very obvious, how `obvious' was it that it was in `record' mode? Unless he stated verbaly that his conversation with the officer was being recorded (giving the officer the chance to order him to stop recording) they may certainly have a valid case (depending on state law)." Howdy Richard: Irrespective your critique of my prose (so sorry I confused you, my bad), I respectfully disagree. Please bear with me while I explain..? 18 USC §2510 and related parts define what "wiretapping" is and is not, and Graber's actions do not appear to meet that criteria. Subsequent federal law also defines the common term, "Single Party Consent" in relation to subject matter; and, in Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in part, that states have no right to abuse the Fourth Amendment (even when a Search Warrant is otherwise lawfully granted) when other Constitutional elements are in play (and they are here; Graber is a YouTube video blogger, which is also protected conduct as "PRESS" under the First Amendment). Graber had no obligation (whatsoever) to disclose whether or not he was recording, both parties were in a public place not providing any "expectation" of "privacy" as supported by relative case law. Moreover of the thirty-eight (38) states and D.C. that have wiretap laws on the books, few have sought to test issues beyond Constitutional limits (because most fail miserably in the doing). In Sussman vs. American Broadcasting Company, for example, the Ninth Circuit held that ABC's Primetime undercover taping of employees at the Psychic Hotline (remember those guys?) was lawful because no "further impropriety, such as blackmail" was in play by the press. (Again, of which Mr. Graber is a member.) Graber began recording his adventure for his YT purposes, as he had trick riding (speeding, wheelies, etc.) on several prior occasions without incident. He simply did not stop recording. The latter can hardly be construed as improper, as Graber had every right to speech using visual media. Holding under the Mapp case, any evidence of the alleged "crime" is inadmissible because it was obtained by use of an abusive warrant. Therefore, any contention that law enforcement has a "valid case" is error. It CANNOT without evidence of purported crime, among several compelling factors. Although I could go on, hopefully you get the gist of my beliefs. Regards, Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
[videoblogging] Re: Online video editing sites
Thanks for the insights and feedback, everyone! jd lasica --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, C Hastings wrote: > > > > Avid is also working a cloud based tool. They talked it up @ NAB and recently > did a demo at a LA Editors lounge. see link: > http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/nabrealtime/story/avids_web_based_editing_demo/ > > C Hastings > WGBH Lab > http://lab.wgbh.org > > > From: Jay dedman > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tue, June 8, 2010 9:04:22 AM > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Online video editing sites > > > > Haven't popped in here for a while. We're running a story on video > > editing for nonprofits. I wanted to make passing mention of some > > online alternatives, except most have bitten the dust in the past 3 > > years. > > Editing online has yet to catch fire. Either the interface is too > clunky, the quality of the clips is poor...and there hasnt really been > a good use case. > > As Rupert said, > http://corp.kaltura.com/technology/editing_and_annotation is really > the only big active one left that Ive seen. They're use case is > getting people to edit/post video for Wikipedia entries. Editing video > collaboratively like we currently edit text collaboratively. > > Jay > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Mark Villaseñor wrote: > > All: > Thought I might bring this up for discussion (the issue having recently made > national news), as some may not be fully aware of their rights while > shooting video in or on public lands and places. The ramifications of this > story are chilling, but not insurmountable if one knows their rights. Even if you know your rights, they can still take you for a ride on the legal merry-go-round. Those who have the power will always abuse it. > On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, > until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber > wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the police > stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was in > plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never seen > one). > > After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of his > stop by the policemen. This apparently rubbed law enforcement the wrong way, > who on April 7th showed up at Graber's door with a search and arrest warrant > for "wiretapping" under Maryland State law (resulting from Anthony's video > post on YT). Maryland wiretap law mandates two-party consent for electronic > recording. Police seized all Graber's computers, cameras and electronics as > purportedly containing or constituting evidence. > > ...Problem is Graber broke no wiretap laws! Apparently some judge judge didn't think the same way, but he may have been duped. I do believe that's called a technicality. The cop(s) got pissed off so they pressed it, spun it a certain way to the judge for the warrant and found a (tenuous) technicality in the law. See the video here: http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/photographer-charged-for-recording-traffic-stop This article quote pretty much sums it up: "It seems certain that even if Mr. Graber is convicted he will win on appeal and have the verdict thrown out because of the state’s overbroad reading of the wiretapping statute. The deterrent to recording police is still established. Mr. Graber faces long hours and thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees. Even if he sues the police for violating his civil rights and wins monetary damages, he has been put through the wringer enough to make citizens pause before pushing the record button. In short, you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride — the ride to the station house and into court." > If you'd like to discuss WHY Graber broke no wiretap laws, post accordingly. > Otherwise, lacking that interest, one gets what they get should the > wrongfully cite of "wiretapping" ever come up, after shooting footage in > public. ;) If I was an American I'd be more concerned with those freedoms Bush stole from you under the disguise of protecting you from "terrorism", that's a whopper... BTW, Mark, you still haven't told us your story about how you make a living online... Dave. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
- Original Message - From: "Mark Villaseñor" > Howdy Richard: > Irrespective your critique of my prose (so sorry I confused you, my bad), > I > respectfully disagree. Please bear with me while I explain..? > > 18 USC §2510 and related parts define what "wiretapping" is and is not, > and > Graber's actions do not appear to meet that criteria. Subsequent federal > law > also defines the common term, "Single Party Consent" in relation to > subject > matter; and, in Mapp vs. Ohio (1961) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in > part, > that states have no right to abuse the Fourth Amendment (even when a > Search > Warrant is otherwise lawfully granted) when other Constitutional elements > are in play (and they are here; Graber is a YouTube video blogger, which > is > also protected conduct as "PRESS" under the First Amendment). > > Graber had no obligation (whatsoever) to disclose whether or not he was > recording, both parties were in a public place not providing any > "expectation" of "privacy" as supported by relative case law. Moreover of > the thirty-eight (38) states and D.C. that have wiretap laws on the books, > few have sought to test issues beyond Constitutional limits (because most > fail miserably in the doing). > Well, I'm no lawyer .. but I do know that the law is (can be) different in various places unless superceded by federal law. The following is a partial quote from a website I found: === In Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, police officers conducted a warrantless search of Paul Pechonis's home. (1) Unbelmownst to them, the search was audiotaped and videotaped by a "nanny-cam." Pechonis later gave the recording to Mary Jean, who posted it on her Web site with commentary criticizing the local District Attorney. The officers claimed that Jean had violated state law by willfully disclosing the contents of a recording made without their prior consent. (2) They ordered Jean to remove the recording. (3) The district court granted Jean's request for preliminary injunctive relief and the First Circuit affirmed, concluding that the First Amendment likely protected Jean's disclosure of the recording. (4) However, the First Circuit implied that Pechonis had violated the Massachusetts recording law. (5) Massachusetts and at least twelve other states criminalize recording a communication without the knowledge or consent of all parties to the communication. (6) While some of these states' laws could be construed to exempt some recording of police, (7) others offer no textual basis for such an exemption. (8) Citizens in several states have been arrested, (9) and in some cases convicted, (10) for taping police conduct. This Comment argues that citizen tape recording provides a necessary check against police abuses of power and furthers privacy values underlying the Constitution and other laws. But police officers' interests in privacy and safety must be balanced as well. Therefore, states should permit citizens to record police officers in the line of duty without those officers' consent, as long as their recordings are made in a physically unintrusive manner and do not capture police communications that police could reasonably expect not to be recorded. I. THE STATUS OF STATE RECORDING LAWS Massachusetts and a number of other states prevent citizens from recording police officers' conversations, even within citizens' own homes. Massachusetts itself broadly prohibits the willful "secret[] record[ing]" of "any wire or oral communication" by any citizen without the consent of all parties to the communication. (11) Accordingly, Massachusetts's highest court has refused to exempt citizens who record police officers, even when the recording captures alleged police misconduct. (12) As the First Circuit recognized, the First Amendment protects individuals like Jean who distribute recordings of illegal police conduct. But it probably does not protect individuals like Pechonis who produce the recordings. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court suggested that disclosure is protected when it constitutes "the publication of truthful information of public concern." (13) The Court explicitly declined, however, to protect "obtaining the relevant information unlawfully." (14) Furthermore, "[t]he First Amendment [does not become] a license ... to intrude by electronic means ... simply because the person subjected to the intrusion is reasonably suspected of committing a crime." (15) Thus, the Amendment does not excuse citizens from state liability for recording police, even where citizens allege police misconduct. === I remember a case (which I could not find on-line just now) where a man recorded, with a visible audio cassette recorder, the police stopping him for something or other. As far as I remember he was later convicted of some sort of "wiretap" violation because he did not get the officers consent. This was in my
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Richard Amirault wrote: > > I remember a case (which I could not find on-line just now) where a man > recorded, with a visible audio cassette recorder, the police stopping him > for something or other. As far as I remember he was later convicted of some > sort of "wiretap" violation because he did not get the officers consent. > This was in my state of Massachusetts. Based on the endless episodes of "world's wildest police chases" we are subjected to it appears that everything the cops do is recorded by their own cameras. I wonder if they are breaking the law too? If it's ok for them to film you, why isn't it ok for you to film them too? Reminds me of the "Border Security" programs we have here in Australia. They shoot these people in the customs area at the airports and make everyone look like a criminal on national TV. But if you shoot something (or even use your phone) in the customs area of the airport you will be arrested and fined. Crazy. > I don't necessarily agree with this law, but I would not have the funds to > fight it should it be me who was accused. Do you have the ability/right to defend yourself without a money sucking lawyer? Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
I think the crazier bit are all those people who at some point sign releases for this material. Or if in the airport shows there is some chance that they don't have to if they get deported/have committed criminal offence and this somehow suspends their rights (anyone know?) then am intrigued. If they go to court then their stories can not be broadcast before the court case is completed, if they get turned around, then would have thought there would still be something potentially illegal without a release? an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 9 June 2010 12:30, David Jones wrote: > Reminds me of the "Border Security" programs we have here in > Australia. They shoot these people in the customs area at the airports > and make everyone look like a criminal on national TV. But if you > shoot something (or even use your phone) in the customs area of the > airport you will be arrested and fined. Crazy. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Shooting In Public
This is not unexpected when you consider the number of times citizen have recorded police officers using excessive force. Those same videos that will wind up on YouTube to dispute the official findings. It depends on the local laws and where you are doing at the moment. If this is correct for Maryland residents: "a person may not "willfully intercept" what it calls "oral communications." It defines "oral communications" as "any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." Then to record the conversation would be illegal but recording the visual images would not be illegal. So if I was across the street and I see a police action but I can't record the sound I'm ok? It makes no sense. Equally makes no sense that there is not a clear or specific policy that can be communicated to the public. You certainly do not want police officers interpreting their own understanding of the law. There is a Gizmodo post about this: http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor wrote: > > All: > Thought I might bring this up for discussion (the issue having recently made > national news), as some may not be fully aware of their rights while > shooting video in or on public lands and places. The ramifications of this > story are chilling, but not insurmountable if one knows their rights. > > On March 5th of this year Anthony Graber drove his motorcycle recklessly, > until being pulled over by a Maryland State plainclothes policeman. Graber > wore a GoPro HD helmet-cam, recording his antics prior and after the police > stop. He was on a public highway, in clear daylight and the camcorder was in > plain sight (GoPros are rather bulky and VERY obvious, if you've never seen > one). > > After the incident Graber posted his vid on YouTube, including scenes of his > stop by the policemen. This apparently rubbed law enforcement the wrong way, > who on April 7th showed up at Graber's door with a search and arrest warrant > for "wiretapping" under Maryland State law (resulting from Anthony's video > post on YT). Maryland wiretap law mandates two-party consent for electronic > recording. Police seized all Graber's computers, cameras and electronics as > purportedly containing or constituting evidence. > > ...Problem is Graber broke no wiretap laws! > > If you'd like to discuss WHY Graber broke no wiretap laws, post accordingly. > Otherwise, lacking that interest, one gets what they get should the > wrongfully cite of "wiretapping" ever come up, after shooting footage in > public. ;) > > Mark Villaseñor, > http://www.TailTrex.tv > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm > http://www.SOAR508.org >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Shooting In Public
not sure why a conversation between an officer of the state and a citizen would be deemed private. But hey, I'm on the other side of the planet an appropriate closing Adrian Miles School of Media and Communication Program Director B.Comm Honours vogmae.net.au On 9 June 2010 13:50, compumavengal wrote: > "a person may not "willfully intercept" what it calls "oral > communications." It defines "oral communications" as "any conversation or > words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
David Jones: “Even if you know your rights, they can still take you for a ride on the legal merry-go-round. Those who have the power will always abuse it.” The former being true enough, only the repercussions for abuse of authority under color of law pursuant to U.S. federal code (and many state statutes) carry criminal sanctions AGAINST law enforcement who are later found guilty of abuse (negligent or willful). Remember the Los Angeles cops who beat Rodney King? THAT’S what they got nailed on, in part, law prohibiting abuse of authority under color of law. So while your contention is certainly possible in the context of power equating abuse, it is of little consequence upon Graber prevailing (as I believe he will. AND defense will likely cost him nothing, or very little, as the ACLU has taken on his defense). The more he suffers as a result of erroneous charges; the greater monetary damages recoverable later -- and when he is found innocent, a presumption of ABUSE by the police is somewhat automatic. What you’re suggesting is that a violation of one’s rights does not adversely affect all (who video blog), and that we should collectively be good little chickens and take whatever is dished out because fighting is impractical. So sorry, truly I am, but you are in gross error. I suspect (speculative on my part) the ACLU will first file a motion to suppress evidence gathered through the Graber Search Warrant, for reasons already stated (see the Mapp cite in my prior post). If successful (and such has a high probability of being so) the wiretap case is moot, done, fineto, kaput, in the archives! And in the latter event, that nasty presumption thing (see above) kicks in against the cops. David Jones: “The cop(s) got pissed off so they pressed it, spun it a certain way to the judge for the warrant and found a (tenuous) technicality in the law.” There is no information to support the above, it is conjecture. David Jones: “Do you have the ability/right to defend yourself without a money sucking lawyer?” Yup, here in the states at least (can’t speak for down-under). It falls under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution; a right, “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” The US Supreme Court has long held that “Counsel” need not constitute a “lawyer,” if the accused chooses no representation by one. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Shooting In Public
Gena: "You certainly do not want police officers interpreting their own understanding of the law." Which is precisely why I brought this to the groups' attention, considering our collective interest (video, often shot in public places). When folks are aware of their prevailing rights, there is no need for concern about how law enforcement interprets. After all, an informed populace thwart tyrants and scoundrels. Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
Richard Amirault: "Well, I'm no lawyer .. but I do know that the law is (can be) different in various places unless superceded by federal law." But the topic entails outside, Richard, events in public settings. Thus your reliance upon case law such as JEAN are disconnected. The interior of a private home cannot remotely be considered a public venue; therefore state law would apply, in similar fact-patterns within a private dwelling. Step outside the door of that residence, however, and one enters the public space (even while still on one's own property). Recall the issues leading to Obama's "beer summit?" Officer Crowley began his recording of Professor Gates, AFTER stepping just outside the door of Gates' home in compliance with Massachusetts wiretap law. Moreover Gates had no REASONABLE EXPECTATION of PRIVACY, given the volume at which he spoke (in part because he knew Crowley was recording outside -- as he later admitted -- but continued in loud tones). Richard Amirault: "If this `helmet cam' incident happened in Massachusetts it would seem that it would be a violation." Under the same fact pattern, no it would not. Graber's video recording was not surreptitious, done with sinister motive, posed no public harm and was a continuation of lawful conduct engaged on public lands BEFORE the police officer stopped him. Consequently criteria established under Mapp vs. Ohio make the evidence worthless; there are no two ways about that. Yet again without evidence, even though a factual event might normally constitute a crime in a location not public, there can be no conviction. That ain't happen-in, Capin. Never has and hopefully never will. Correspondingly in United States vs. Knotts 460 US 276, 281 (1983), as a recent example, the Supreme Court expressly opined that expectations of privacy are not reasonable at public places such as streets, highways, etc. And in order for application of ANY wiretap law (irrespective the state) to sustain (hold as applicably enforceable) the element of reasonably expected privacy and invasion thereof must be an inherent component. No "expectation of privacy," no violation of wiretap law. ...Cut, dry, blown away like dust! Hence; why I maintain the fuzz in Graber's case have a problem, a mighty large one! This is even more so now that the ACLU has agreed to represent Graber; and, one may surmise the police hadn't expected THAT happening. (Hmmm; I wonder how many Crotch-rocket bikes Graber will buy, if not a Rolls, with the money from his inevitable wrongful prosecution case -- or settlement.) :D Mark Villaseñor, http://www.TailTrex.tv Canine Adventures For Charity - sm http://www.SOAR508.org
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Shooting In Public
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mark Villaseñor wrote: > > Gena: "You certainly do not want police officers interpreting their own > understanding of the law." > > Which is precisely why I brought this to the groups' attention, considering > our collective interest (video, often shot in public places). When folks are > aware of their prevailing rights, there is no need for concern about how law > enforcement interprets. > > After all, an informed populace thwart tyrants and scoundrels. How did Bush Jr get away with everything then? :-> Dave.
Re: [videoblogging] Shooting In Public
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Mark Villaseñor wrote: > David Jones: “Even if you know your rights, they can still take you for a > ride on the legal merry-go-round. Those who have the power will always abuse > it.” > > The former being true enough, only the repercussions for abuse of authority > under color of law pursuant to U.S. federal code (and many state statutes) > carry criminal sanctions AGAINST law enforcement who are later found guilty > of abuse (negligent or willful). Remember the Los Angeles cops who beat > Rodney King? THAT’S what they got nailed on, in part, law prohibiting abuse > of authority under color of law. > > So while your contention is certainly possible in the context of power > equating abuse, it is of little consequence upon Graber prevailing (as I > believe he will. AND defense will likely cost him nothing, or very little, > as the ACLU has taken on his defense). The more he suffers as a result of > erroneous charges; the greater monetary damages recoverable later -- and > when he is found innocent, a presumption of ABUSE by the police is somewhat > automatic. > > What you’re suggesting is that a violation of one’s rights does not > adversely affect all (who video blog), I said or implied no such thing. > and that we should collectively be > good little chickens and take whatever is dished out because fighting is > impractical. So sorry, truly I am, but you are in gross error. I said or implied no such thing. *DELETED* I just wrote a little spiel, but seeing as this seems to be a real pet hobby horse of yours I realised I probably shouldn't give you any more ammunition, so I've deleted it. > I suspect (speculative on my part) the ACLU will first file a motion to > suppress evidence gathered through the Graber Search Warrant, for reasons > already stated (see the Mapp cite in my prior post). If successful (and such > has a high probability of being so) the wiretap case is moot, done, fineto, > kaput, in the archives! And in the latter event, that nasty presumption > thing (see above) kicks in against the cops. > > David Jones: “The cop(s) got pissed off so they pressed it, spun it a > certain way to the judge for the warrant and found a (tenuous) technicality > in the law.” > > There is no information to support the above, it is conjecture. Of course! What gave you any idea it would be anything but my own personal opinion? Would still love to hear your story about how you make a living online! Dave. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: videoblogging-dig...@yahoogroups.com videoblogging-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: videoblogging-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
