Great post Bill. I used google cache to see what the ourmedia page was like before it got changed. Because there is no mention of re-vlogging anywhere on ourmedia that I can see, and the site's historical emphasis has been on content uploaded by its members & hosted at archive.org, I certainly do think they need to take care and make some other changes before getting into this revlogging stuff.
And I definately think that re-vlogging is a lot better when some commentary is added, even just a few text sentences explaining why the work is worth highlighting, goes a long way to making it look like a decent thing. Avoid having too many similarities with services that put other peoples popular work on your site to make you look good & attract attention/viewers. Dont rely on your history or reputation or stated goals and objectives as being things that give you any more of a buffer to err in. I look forward to the interesting sounding changes that will be made to ourmedia, if revlogging is to be a common thing then Id suggest a seperate section where other works are highlighted along with some commentary. Is just changing the name of a few buttons enough? I dunno, its easy for me to shout my opinion, Im not the one thats gotta do it. Hows everything going out there in the world of non-commercial entities trying to do their bit for vlogging etc anyways? Hows ourmedia and node101 and freevlog and others doing? I always admired these projects whilst doing bugger all to help any of them myself. My guess as an outsider is that they have been rewarding in their own way but have struggled to get a critical mass of people and resources. Donations alone havent been enough, so either adverts or sponsorship or a reduction in time spent on the projects are other options. Outhink seems to be one of the few commercial entities enlightened enough to have given money & resources to these causes, they seem to pop up all over the place, Im an outsider so I dont know the details or how sustainable this stuff is. Oh I dont really know what I am talking about. But if we have gone past the initial phase where video on the net and citizen media needed evangelising and promoting in order to raise awareness, and on to an era where youtube got the critical mass for now, where videoblogging is now commonly understood but maybe not using any of the terms weve used, but rather simply in terms of 'going on youtube', then does this mean all these helpful services that do their bit, need to change a little or a lot? How does something like ourmedia distinguish itself from youtube and add genuinely useful things that arent delivered by using any of the commercial options, even enlightened ones like blip? If the focus that created a community was 'video' and that no longer leads to a small respectful community, and people miss that, then a new community needs to form around something more specific in its aims? Purists, noncommercialists, anybody who is not overjoyed by the ways video on the web is going, people who think the magic is going or that its been tainted somehow, the solution is not to rage against the youtube or worry about what the masses are doing. Just create the community you want, somehow. The tools are there, just because others may misuse them doesnt mean that anybody needs to let even 1% of their dreams of the potential of vlogging get soiled by what others are doing. Then again thats probably what ourmedia set out to do in the first place, but its easier said than done. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sure. That's just semantics. http://revlog.blogspot.com, which you > mention later, does a much better job of making it clear where they > got their material. They also don't make it look like whomever > originally posted the material has any affiliation with their blog > whatsoever. It looks like what it is... a re-vlog. > > > If you go to http://ourmedia.org/, the AIB video is now gone. So > > that's an easy fix too. > > You can't un-ring a bell, so that's not a "fix". It prevents anyone > that hasn't already seen it from getting the same incorrect > impressions, which is a good thing, but it does nothing for those that > already saw it and gathered their impressions of the situation. It's > still a good idea until something can be decided between revlogger and > content creator... IF that's a goal of the revlogger in the first > place.... > > > if you see something you dont like, definitely complain to that person. > > If they dont do anything about it....then raise a big stink. > > I find that most times things we dont like are just a misunderstanding. > > Since Brian ants to make sure people see AIB as being > > "objective"....he should complain if someone makes him look > > inflamatory. > > > > as far as revlogging...let's look at a couple examples: > > http://revlog.blogspot.com/ (Ryanne) > > http://www.unitedvloggers.com/ (Michael Schaap) > > Do you expect either of them to email people BEFORE they reblog > somebody? > > It depends on what their intent is. > > If their intent is to publicize people that want to be pubclicized, > yes, they should email the content creator to find out if they'd like > to be featured on their site. > > If their intent is to present the content creator's work in a way that > pleases the creator, then, yes... they should email ahead of time. > > If their intent is to report anything they want to report in any way > they want to report it, then, no... they shouldn't email the content > creator before re-posting their content. As you say, you can write > anything you want and spin it any way you want. That's a position. I > suppose the question becomes "what is re-vlogging?" then. > > If a re-vlog is simply "Look everybody! Look at what I find > interesting, and [maybe] here's what I think about it", then nobody > needs to be contacted... AND no videos need to be removed when the > content creator isn't satisfied with how his/her video and possibly > entire group has been represented. That's what many many blogs are, > anyway. It's not people that are actually DOING something. It's > people that are REPORTING on OTHER PEOPLE doing something. :) Of > course, if everyone extended the courtesy to the people they're > reporting on of asking their permission for this or that, nothing > would get done, because the Nokia N95 representatives would never stop > getting emails, and they would never return them and the whole system > would shut down. > > OTOH, if a re-vlog is a social attempt to make a video known or a > group who did that video known, it seems to me that they'd like to > present the featured videomaker(s) in the light they'd like to be > featured in. Of course, this happens to be a special circumstance, > which is what makes this such an opportunity for discussion. There > happens to be a war going on. There happen to be cameras over there. > There happens to be footage coming back that MSM would never EVER > have shot in the first place or aired in the second. There are > already people (I'm sure) taking advantage of this for propaganda on > both sides of the issue. The question is what is whomever trying to > do with their re-vlog? Are you trying to accommodate the person or > group who created the content? Are they _really_ a part of your > group, as "member" suggests? (and I know that issue's being fixed) > How involved are you with whomever you're re-vlogging? If the answer > is "NOT", then no action needs to be taken regardless of how the > content creator feels. > > > And you dont think they have the right to choose the frame of video > > they want to link to? > > hehe They absolutely have the RIGHT to choose whatever they like. :) > My point is the same as above. Are you merely a reporter? Or do you > have some social reason to want to portray the work that you re-vlog > in the light that the content creator would appreciate and feel was > properly representative of his/her work? Do you really want to add to > the propaganda? Or, do you just not care one way or the other? > > I mean, in this particular case, the name of the site is "ourmedia"... > OURmedia... so... who is "OUR"? :D Does that mean "our" as in "thank > you for that media, it's ours now"? Or does it mean "we all did this > together" or some variant that implies togetherness or a group > mentality? I assume the latter, because all of the links went > directly to AiB. The idea seemed to be to showcase AiB with proper > attribution, which is a valiant goal, useful for all parties involved. > We wouldn't even be talking about this if it had been videos of dogs > catching frisbees. :) There are frames of guys throwing frisbees, and > there are frames of dogs catching frisbees. Tough to spin that in a > way that the creator might object to. > > > I find this interesting since a journalist would say....I can write > > about anything with any spin I want. > > Fair use. > > Absolutely. But, is that who "you" really want to be? Is that the > goal, to take people's work and spin it? I think it isn't. On the > site itself, it says "share and discover independent media" and > "connect to a global community". As I look at the page right now with > the Haiku video on the front, there isn't any commentary on it at all. > There's nothing but the representation of the video via the still > frame of the guy walking, a play button and "go to media page" and "go > to member page". There's no attempt to spin the video whatsoever. > > My point isn't what someone has the right to do. My point is whether > or not each revlogger feels ANY sort of social compulsion to > collaborate with the content creator or not. I'm not really talking > about Ourmedia, and I'm not really talking about AiB. MyHeavy didn't > see anything wrong with snarfing blip's entire feed and putting > MyHeavy's Angels ads around it... regardless of whether the videos > were about children or not and regardless of what CC licenses were > included in blip's feed, including "non-commercial". Ourmedia didn't > see anything "wrong" with either allowing or selecting that frame to > be representative of AiB's video. How connected are you to someone > that you re-vlog? Again, if the answer is "NOT", then no action needs > to be taken at all, regardless of what the content creator thinks or says. > > > Do you email anyone you are going to link to? > > > > Jay > > > > -- > > Here I am.... > > http://jaydedman.com > > > No. I don't email EVERYONE I link to. Unfortunately, trackbacks & > pingbacks don't work on all blogging platforms, because that's the > easiest way to deal with it. That may even be how AiB found out about > Ourmedia... because they were getting hits from that site and checked > to find out why. What I DO attempt to do is make it clear what my > involvement or lack of involvement was in the creation of the video > I'm re-posting. Again, I think http://revlog.blogspot.com does a fine > job of indicating where their post came from. The FIRST attribute is > "vlog". :) The first thing you see in the links is that it's coming > from an entirely different vlog... NOT a member of "revlog.blogspot.com". > > Also your question returns me to my point. If I CARE what the person > that I linked to thinks, I'm going to let them know that I linked to > them. If I DON'T CARE, I won't. What difference does it make to me? > They posted something, and I reported on it or posted what I thought > about it. Who cares? I don't think that's Ourmedia's goal, exactly > the opposite. I think they posted AiB because they DO care and wanted > more people to be aware of the work they do. Whether they choose to > take the time to consider how someone they re-vlog feels about it is > up to them. Like I said, this is a unique situation, where people are > reporting on an actual war that's currently going on. Most videos are > about fluff or comedy or nonsense or things that completely aren't > controversial or important at all, so this gives us the opportunity to > discuss something that we normally wouldn't have, and perhaps come to > the conclusion that one of the chances you take by posting videos on > the internet is that even the people that appreciate what you do and > try to help you out may end up misrepresenting you. > > -- > Bill C. > http://ReelSolid.TV >
