[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight. This is what I am confused about: If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist? Doesn't matter how I do it, via pen, photo or video. At that point of creation doesn't the protections of journalists come into effect? If I have a body of work - either paid or unpaid that demostrates that I have done this activity for x-amount of time then I should be protected under various journalism protections. Or if your local NBC station had the same video you did would the Fed show up at the station door? What would the news director tell them? The label profesional does not matter. When the early African American journalists of 1800 - 1900's could not or would not be published by the existing media they created their own. They were not thought to be professionals by the mainstream white media at the time. Didn't matter. They were representing their communities that were not being servied by the publications of the time. Are you not doing the same thing? Representing your community? I have to go but this post has me all shook up. This is a good thing. Be safe Josh but do what you feel is right. And to our new federal lurkers, ...well, you know. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@ wrote: Should journalist Josh Wolf be afraid? The Assistant U.S. Attorney, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the SFPD want to get their hands on a video shot by a San Francisco blogger By Ryan Blitstein http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-19/news/news.html At times, Josh Wolf is a journalist. At others, he's a blogger, an activist, or an anarchist. At this particular time, one thing's for certain: He's got a videotape the federal government wants. The 23-year-old San Franciscan possesses a tape that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Finigan deems essential to a grand jury investigation of a protest last July that resulted in injuries to two San Francisco Police Department officers. To Wolf, the government subpoena of his tape represents a threat to his ability to gather news as an independent reporter. He believes it's yet another reel cast in a Justice Department fishing expedition that will stop at nothing to put his activist compatriots behind bars. To the government, however, Wolf is a misguided, self-important young radical withholding evidence without legal justification. Regardless of the outcome, Wolf's predicament raises questions about how
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in what citizen journalism can become and to be honest I don't like what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would consider him a journalist... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena compumavengal@ wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight. This is what I am confused about: If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist? Doesn't matter how I do it, via pen, photo or video. At that point of creation doesn't the protections of journalists come into effect? If I have a body of work - either paid or unpaid that demostrates that I have done this activity for x-amount of time then I should be protected under various journalism protections. Or if your local NBC station had the same video you did would the Fed show up at the station door? What would the news director tell them? The label profesional does not matter. When the early African American journalists of 1800 - 1900's could not or would not be published by the existing media they created their own. They were not thought to be professionals by the mainstream white media at the time. Didn't matter. They were representing their communities that were not being servied by the publications of the time. Are you not doing the same thing? Representing your community? I have to go but this post has me all shook up. This is a good thing. Be safe Josh but do what you feel is right. And to our new federal lurkers, ...well, you know. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@ wrote: Should journalist Josh Wolf be afraid? The Assistant U.S. Attorney, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the SFPD want to get their hands on a video shot by a San Francisco blogger By Ryan Blitstein http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2006-04-19/news/news.html At times, Josh Wolf is a journalist. At others, he's a blogger, an activist, or an anarchist. At this particular time, one thing's for certain: He's got a videotape the federal government wants. The 23-year-old San Franciscan possesses a tape that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Finigan deems essential to a grand jury investigation of a protest last July that resulted in injuries to two San Francisco Police Department officers. To
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in what citizen journalism can become and to be honest I don't like what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would consider him a journalist... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... I would say you can be objective. Science has shown the value of objective observation and analysis. Because objectivity has mostly been incompletely and incorrectly applied in journalistic organizations, does not make a better outcome from abandoning it. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena compumavengal@ wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight. This is what I am confused about: If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist? Doesn't matter how I do it, via pen, photo or video. At that point of creation doesn't the protections of journalists come into effect? If I have a body of work - either paid or unpaid that demostrates that I have done this activity for x-amount of time then I should be protected under various journalism protections. Or if your local NBC station had the same video you did would the Fed show up at the station door? What would the news director tell them? The label profesional does not matter. When the early African American journalists of 1800 - 1900's could not or would not be published by the existing media they created their own. They were not thought to be professionals by the mainstream white media at the time. Didn't matter. They were representing their communities that were not being servied by the publications of the time. Are you not doing the same thing? Representing your community? I have to go but this post has me all shook up. This is a good thing. Be safe Josh but do what you feel is right. And to our new federal lurkers, ...well, you know. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@ wrote: Should journalist Josh Wolf be afraid? The Assistant U.S. Attorney, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the SFPD want to get their hands on a video shot by a San Francisco blogger By Ryan Blitstein
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i would say that no source is 'objective'. all you can do is try to be as objective as you can while acknowledging the biases you know you have and being open to criticism for biases you don't. That's what I would say is being objective. The way objectivity has been used and defined in journalism is missleading and unusable. Objectivity is a standard to reach for, and rarely an absolute that can be applied 100%. i find that the best thing for 'news' reporting is to have as many different points of view from as many sources as possible - including traditional media (from a variety of coroporate/government sources) and 'citizen journalism'. then, you have to put these various points of view together and arrive at your own conclusions. Correct, personal reason and judgment is essentail to the process. of course, this can be a confusing and time intensive way to go about it and most people won't do that. most people will go to the sources they trust (which usually means people who's world view are in sync with there's). Or who demonstrate a high level of objectivity. i think that there was never a time when media creators were not biased. we just know it now. i think what we are nostalgic for is, not so much a lost objectivity as a lost innocence. I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :) -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com On 4/23/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in what citizen journalism can become and to be honest I don't like what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would consider him a journalist... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... I would say you can be objective. Science has shown the value of objective observation and analysis. Because objectivity has mostly been incompletely and incorrectly applied in journalistic organizations, does not make a better outcome from abandoning it. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena compumavengal@ wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight. This is what I am confused about: If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist? Doesn't matter how I
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :) maybe it's just me! I miss the comfort of believing. It was so much easier to have strong opinions (and I love having those:) Now, things are murkier. And cynical. Even if you tried to be 'objective'who would believe you? Who would of believed Galileo? ;) On 4/23/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Anne Walk desperatelymeasured@ wrote: i would say that no source is 'objective'. all you can do is try to be as objective as you can while acknowledging the biases you know you have and being open to criticism for biases you don't. That's what I would say is being objective. The way objectivity has been used and defined in journalism is missleading and unusable. Objectivity is a standard to reach for, and rarely an absolute that can be applied 100%. i find that the best thing for 'news' reporting is to have as many different points of view from as many sources as possible - including traditional media (from a variety of coroporate/government sources) and 'citizen journalism'. then, you have to put these various points of view together and arrive at your own conclusions. Correct, personal reason and judgment is essentail to the process. of course, this can be a confusing and time intensive way to go about it and most people won't do that. most people will go to the sources they trust (which usually means people who's world view are in sync with there's). Or who demonstrate a high level of objectivity. i think that there was never a time when media creators were not biased. we just know it now. i think what we are nostalgic for is, not so much a lost objectivity as a lost innocence. I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :) -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com On 4/23/06, Enric enric@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in what citizen journalism can become and to be honest I don't like what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would consider him a journalist... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... I would say you can be objective. Science has shown the value of objective observation and analysis. Because objectivity has mostly been incompletely and incorrectly applied in journalistic organizations, does not make a better outcome from abandoning it. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena compumavengal@ wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was
[videoblogging] Re: Songs in Vlogs
Creative Commons is a great way to go. There's a lot of good stuff out there, like the entire catalogue of Magnatune Records (www.magnatune.com). They're very supportive of vloggers and podcasters; they gave me a code so I could download high-quality audio of all of their albums. I've probably used a dozen or so albums in the last few months... Just yesterday I finished editing a vlog about the Monterey Bay Aquarium that uses over half a dozen tracks by Drop Trio, so it feels like I've got Steven Soderbergh's composer working for me: http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2006/04/the_monterey_bay_aqu_1.html Andy Carvin www.andycarvin.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, usadutch2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A long list of music and sound links is here http://www.vlogassist.com/viewforum.php?f=24 I used http://www.artistserver.com/ a few times, they have tons of music with different kind of licenses. About the Creative commons licensing you can read more here; http://creativecommons.org/audio/ quote: Creative Commons helps you publish your work online while letting others know exactly what they can and can't do with your work. /quote Blips http://vlogassist.com Videoblogging resources http://vlogmatic.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mgmoon mgmoon@ wrote: I've been watching a fair number of vlogs lately and I want to find out about incorporating music as an overlay. I see it all the time with vlogs have a copywritten song used in them to set the mood. What are the rules with respect to using copywritten media? What can I get away with? What's the unwritten, common sence standard out there? Thanks Mike (No relation to Keith) Moon http://moon.blogspot.com/ SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
And to be honest maybe objectivity was not always applied but I do think there were journalist's out there whom people trusted. I don't feel that is the case anymore. Can you name an organization or News outlet that is not biased? I know that I can't and it is blantent, that to me, is the main issue. Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Anne Walk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :) maybe it's just me! I miss the comfort of believing. It was so much easier to have strong opinions (and I love having those:) Now, things are murkier. And cynical. Even if you tried to be 'objective'who would believe you? On 4/23/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Anne Walk desperatelymeasured@ wrote: i would say that no source is 'objective'. all you can do is try to be as objective as you can while acknowledging the biases you know you have and being open to criticism for biases you don't. That's what I would say is being objective. The way objectivity has been used and defined in journalism is missleading and unusable. Objectivity is a standard to reach for, and rarely an absolute that can be applied 100%. i find that the best thing for 'news' reporting is to have as many different points of view from as many sources as possible - including traditional media (from a variety of coroporate/government sources) and 'citizen journalism'. then, you have to put these various points of view together and arrive at your own conclusions. Correct, personal reason and judgment is essentail to the process. of course, this can be a confusing and time intensive way to go about it and most people won't do that. most people will go to the sources they trust (which usually means people who's world view are in sync with there's). Or who demonstrate a high level of objectivity. i think that there was never a time when media creators were not biased. we just know it now. i think what we are nostalgic for is, not so much a lost objectivity as a lost innocence. I'm not nostalgic for false objectivity. :) -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com On 4/23/06, Enric enric@ wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Just as a point of clarification, I am commenting on the whole of this thread and not just one part of it. And I believe in what citizen journalism can become and to be honest I don't like what is happening to Josh. But I don't know if in my mind I would consider him a journalist... --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... I would say you can be objective. Science has shown the value of objective observation and analysis. Because objectivity has mostly been incompletely and incorrectly applied in journalistic organizations, does not make a better outcome from abandoning it. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com Heath - Batman Geek
[videoblogging] I'm new to videoing, but I found help.
Hey folks, I've been looking into improving my video taking techniques when I saw a show on G4TechTV called Torrents. Torrents is a show made up of different podcasts from around the world. The timing couldn't have been more perfect because today's episode included a video from IzzyVideo, http://www.izzyvideo.com/ IzzyVideo is a vlog of video tutorials that help teach techniques for better video taking through the use of examples and with the simple and straightforward narration by Izzy. There are 26 videoes so far that teach from panning to lighting to filters and more. Anyhow, great site, very helpful and just wanted to share with others that might be looking on improving their video taking abilities. Mike YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Easy way to make mobile videos - and lose your copyright?
Hi Stephanie, I believe, if you read the TOS, they are talking about downloading, where the downloader can't lawfully redistribute work they or their partners own. Presumably, you would be a partner, if you created and uploaded something, that they then redistributed. For the act of distribution and reformatting, they would take some, and pass on the rest to you. The TOS you mention here that is for downloaders and general users of their services: http://www.mynumo.com/general.php?inc=tac is different than the one here which is for content owners who upload stuff to sell: http://www.mynumo.com/general.php?inc=signup (the link is _javascript_.. with a popup window.. really kind of silly for a contract they'd like to be binding.. if there was a dispute.. it's likely a judge or mediator would agree that the popup nature of it meant that it was a very one sided contract, that was hard to link to or save in a reasonable way, and easy to overlook while thinking the TOS you sent to the list was the only TOS, so he would likely side against MyNuMo if he thought it was a onesided contract -- but nonetheless, you'll have to click it to get to this second TOS). This other TOS for uploaders says: 7.1 Mutual Representations and Warranties. You represent and warrant to MyNuMo.com and MyNuMo.com represents and warrants to you: (i) that you or it has the full power and authority to enter into and perform under these TAC, (ii) the execution and performance of your or its obligations under these TAC do not constitute a breach of or conflict with any other agreement or arrangement by which you or it is bound, and (iii) these TAC are a legal, valid and binding obligation of the party entering into these TAC, enforceable in accordance with their terms and conditions. 7.2 By You. You represent and warrant to MyNuMo.com that, in your use of the MyNuMo.com Service, you: (i) will not infringe the copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, right of privacy, right of publicity or other legal right of any third party and (ii) will comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. You further represent and warrant to MyNuMo.com that: (i) there are no claims, demands or any form of litigation pending, or to the best of your knowledge, threatened with respect to any of your Content; (ii) MyNuMo.com will not be required to make any payments to any third party in connection with its use of your Content, except for the expenses that MyNuMo.com incurs in providing the MyNuMo.com Service; (iii) the use of any instructions, formulae, recommendations, or the like contained in your Content will not cause injury to any third party; and (iv) your Content does not contain viruses or any other programs or technology designed to disrupt or damage any software or hardware. In other words, MyNuMo.com is saying that you have to represent to them by agreeing here, that you own your stuff, and don't have lawsuits against it, before they can resell it and split the proceeds. And they are saying you continue to own it in the rest of the agreement. Just because you partner with them to sell content, doesn't mean they own it, because you uploaded it to them. You definitely own your stuff, and you can definitely remove it and sell it elsewhere if you want to. mary On Apr 19, 2006, at 3:11 PM, Stephanie Bryant wrote: Yeah. The problem with these sites right now is that they don't have an interface where videobloggers can aggregate their vlogs to cell phone users for free. My ideal vision: A cell phone MMS gateway that your GP3-format RSS feed is mirrored to, and which includes enclosures as attachments. I haven't seen it yet, but I keep hoping. On 4/19/06, Harold Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone actually buying content for mobile phones yet? I mean, the vast majority of mobile phone users have to pay for bandwidth, right? And then content, on top of that...It's way to expensive for most people right now to both pay for mobile phone data charges *and* for the content itself. I'd rather offer the content for free, being a mobile phone user frustrated with the expensiveness of wanting content but not being able to afford it on my device... Harold Something That Happened: a story presented in text, sound, and video http://SomethingThatHappened.com On 4/19/06, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, William Volk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This free site ... www.mynumo.com ... Automatically converts .mov, .mpg, and .avi files into mobile and lets you sell them to mobile phone users. Check it out. Have you read their user agreement? http://www.mynumo.com/general.php?inc=tac If I'm reading it right, it's worse than most of the ones I've seen. It makes no mention of you holding onto the rights of any content you upload - instead, it talks about them holding onto the rights: Service. You may use the Service
[videoblogging] White screen at end of video
Hello video bloggers, I've been using Videora iPod Converter with some success, but I keep having a strange problem. I usually put a brief end title, white text on black background, on our videos. It displays for two or three seconds - usually just our web address, or a short message. I export an AVI of the whole movie and then use Videora to crunch it. I'm finding that when I play on my PC the file that Videora outputs, the end title is replaced by a white screen. Any clues? I had this problem playing in iTunes and QuickTime, but on my video iPod it played fine ... so is this a playback problem? Or something to do with keyframes? Waz www.crashtestkitchen.com SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] .swf or .flv
Hi Group, Gene here. I'm just getting started with internet video, and was wondering if flash video is the way to go. If so, can someone advise me of the difference, advantage or disadvantage between .swf format and .flv format? Which would you recommend. I have some video software, and can convert .avi files to .swf, but can't convert to .flv. I'd appreciate a little tip. Thanks, Gene YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to videoing, but I found help.
Thanks for the site, I'm such a noob but want to get my VB right. best, Chris mgmoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks,I've been looking into improving my video taking techniques when I saw a show on G4TechTV called Torrents. Torrents is a show made up of different podcasts from around the world. The timing couldn't have been more perfect because today's episode included a video from IzzyVideo, http://www.izzyvideo.com/ IzzyVideo is a vlog of video tutorials that help teach techniques for better video taking through the use of examples and with the simple and straightforward narration by Izzy. There are 26 videoes so far that teach from panning to lighting to filters and more.Anyhow, great site, very helpful and just wanted to share with others that might be looking on improving their video taking abilities.Mike How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] .swf or .flv
hi Gene,welcome to the group!if you want to be able to let people see your vids using an aggregator, flash is not the way to go...although i understand fireANT can read them, most others can't.i'd recommend checking out freevlog.org to find out about how to format your vids.On 4/23/06, Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi Group,Gene here. I'm just getting started with internet video, and was wondering if flash video is the way to go.If so, can someone advise me of the difference, advantage ordisadvantage between .swf format and .flv format? Which would yourecommend.I have some video software, and can convert .avi files to .swf, but can't convert to .flv.I'd appreciate a little tip.Thanks,GeneYahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Anne Walk http://loadedpun.com SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Politics threaten our free Internet
I'd help, too. Brett---Brett Gaylorhttp://www.etherworks.cahttp://www.homelessnation.org YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
Hey, I've been out and about and haven't had the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. As I see it, the situation is as follows: the assault on a police officer is a local (state) offense not a federal one, the federal government is asserting that their involvement in the case stems from the fact that a police car was vandalized and, as the car is paid in part by the federal government, they are seeking to transcend the protections afforded to me under the Califronia Shield law to obtain the footage. I do not have footage of the officer being struck in the head and furthermore, I was filming the injured officers partner when the officer was struck therefore it is impossible that I would have footage of the altercation that resulted in the injury of Officer Shields. In regards to the documentary in reference, I contend that this issue is significantly different from that of the one I am currently facing. For one thing, according to the Officer Shields own report of the incident, he was stuck in the head while attempting to strike the protester with his baton. If it had not been a police officer who was striking someone while struck with a blunt object, the situation would most likely be viewed under an entirely different frame of reference. Josh On Apr 24, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Daryl Watson wrote: Well I'm sure the doctors think the photographic image of the cops fractured skull is 'objective' enough to believe it's real. When the Maysles Brothers made the documentary Helter Skelter, they filmed a stabbing in the crowd. They didn't have a problem turning the footage over to help an investigation. After viewing footage of the stabbing of Meredith Hunter police identified Alan Passaro, a local Hell's Angel, as the man who did the stabbing, arrested him and charged him with murder. At his trial, however, closer examination of the footage showed that Hunter had pulled a gun before Passaro pulled his knife. Passaro was acquitted on grounds of self- defense. Quote: http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0065780/trivia That the Maysles obliged with the cops' request certainly hasn't detracted from the quality of their documentary or their future work. (see Quote: http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0065780/trivia) Josh Wolf may have footage of a guy having his skull fractured by an unknown identity, but by calling the issue a challenge to the fundamental rights of journalists sounds more like the guy who just wants to grandstand and make a reputation as a journalist where there isn't one in the first place. Yeah yeah, it's about the principle... Daryl Yahoo! Groups Links Don't hate the media, become the media.- Jello Biafra YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
Heath, whether or not I am a jounalist is secondary to the issue at hand, as the real question is actually whether I was participating in newsgathering. You've stated yourself that you have not visited my site and by that notion have not likely seen the video in question, until you check out the video (http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=76), I have no issues in discounting what you have to say. Yes, it is true that I have a quote-enquote agenda, but at the same time, the commercial media also has an agenda. The fact that my agenda is pretty clear from my posts and the name of my blog itself, validates my role as a journalist in my opinion. The problem with the media comes down to this fictitious issue of objectivity, no one is objective. Sure we can make valiant efforts to counter our own biases but the fact remains that we, as human beings, as biased by nature, and I have made every effort to disclose my own personal biases; something I feel that the media neglects to do. Am I a journalist? I don't know, but from an historical perspective, it is important to remember that there was no such thing as objective journalism when the inclusion of a free press was written into the constitution. During that time in American history, there was a multitude of advocacy newspapers financed by the aristocratic classes which made up the press. By reading the differing arguments, one could come up with their own views as to how they came down on a particular subject. It wasn't until many many years later that the idea of an objective news media and the notion of journalism schools began to enter into the matter. Josh On Apr 23, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Heath wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh man, I can't think straight. This is what I am confused about: If I am documenting a situation does that not make me a journalist? Doesn't matter how I do it, via pen, photo or video. At that point of creation doesn't the protections of journalists come into effect? If I have a body of work - either paid or unpaid that demostrates that I have done this activity for x-amount of time then I should be protected under various journalism protections. Or if your local NBC station had the same video you did would the Fed show up at the station door? What would the news director tell them? The label profesional does not matter. When the early African American journalists of 1800 - 1900's could not or would not be published by the existing media they created their own. They were not thought to be professionals by the mainstream white media at the time. Didn't matter. They were
[videoblogging] Re: BSP: Should Journalist Josh Wolf Be Afraid? --SF Weekly
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heath, whether or not I am a jounalist is secondary to the issue at hand, as the real question is actually whether I was participating in newsgathering. You've stated yourself that you have not visited my site and by that notion have not likely seen the video in question, until you check out the video (http://www.joshwolf.net/blog/?p=76), I have no issues in discounting what you have to say. Yes, it is true that I have a quote-enquote agenda, but at the same time, the commercial media also has an agenda. The fact that my agenda is pretty clear from my posts and the name of my blog itself, validates my role as a journalist in my opinion. The problem with the media comes down to this fictitious issue of objectivity, no one is objective. Sure we can make valiant efforts to counter our own biases but the fact remains that we, as human beings, as biased by nature, and I have made every effort to disclose my own personal biases; something I feel that the media neglects to do. I think there's confusion on what objective is. I see objectivity as the ability to accurately and usefully model reality based on sensory input. Objectivity is rarely 100% since the sensory data can easily be compromised coming in and memory stored can modify. But for normal people it is usually sufficiently accurate to base good judgements on. To dismiss objectivity completely is to disregard that some people are more accurate than others -- irregardless of personal views and emotions. It is like stating because many people can't run a marathon, that no one can. Obviously some people have better athletic capabilty from their physical state and exercise. Objectivity, like any human capability, is in degrees, rarely an absolute. -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com Am I a journalist? I don't know, but from an historical perspective, it is important to remember that there was no such thing as objective journalism when the inclusion of a free press was written into the constitution. During that time in American history, there was a multitude of advocacy newspapers financed by the aristocratic classes which made up the press. By reading the differing arguments, one could come up with their own views as to how they came down on a particular subject. It wasn't until many many years later that the idea of an objective news media and the notion of journalism schools began to enter into the matter. Josh On Apr 23, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Heath wrote: I am not sure what to think of this...but I will say this I don't think having a camera in hand and recording an event makes you a journalist.To me, the whole problem we have, as a whole, is that we no longer trust journalist's. You can very easily make the case that the era of objective journalism is gone. I know I hate looking at the tradional meadia for the news, I don't believe anyone is just reporting the news anymore. There are moments that it happens but by in large it feels that everyone has an agenda. That is why citizen journalist's concern me (to a degree). I do not know Josh, I have never been to his site or looked at his blogs but he said in one of the previous posts, I have created an excerpted video of what I saw observing the demonstration. I can't really say that it isn't my personal version of what transpired, but in a sense that's what news is, an observers version of what they feel has transpired. That is what bothers me, it IS his personal view of what happened and NO that is NOT what journalist's should be doing. Look I know that your opnion is going to creep into your work, but it doesn't mean that is SHOULD. If there is to be a changing of the guard or a stand so to speak on how traditional meadia reports...then we have to learn again how to be objective and report on the events with no prejudice or bias. Until that happens we are just people with cameras.but that is just my opinon.. PS I know some will say you can't be objective but we have to try, we have to try... Heath - Batman Geek http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena compumavengal@ wrote: Hey Josh, I think the short answer is Yes. I'm quaking with anger just reading this. You might not know who Jack Anderson was but the Feds are trying to do this to him and he's dead. Anderson was a journalist who was able to dig deep and find out top secret infomation. The Feds are trying to go through his documents to obtain his papers and potential classified documents. More to the point, if I observe a situation that requires LAPD attendence and I record it that means I can expect a visit from J. Edgar's Boys? And LAPD? Damnation. I don't like the choices that are presenting themselves. I'm recording no matter what! Oh
[videoblogging] Re: videoblogging event in Queens, NYC 4PM today
I think it was posted twice but i'm not sure about that. Whenever there are events mentionded in this group or discovered in other places it will also be posted here; http://www.vlogassist.com/viewforum.php?f=2 The events forum! It is because of the continued stream of messages I have started this website to collect information people like to have at hand in a organised way, as we all know searching this forum can be tedious. You can take part of this informationstream too. This is also would be a good opportunity to explain the benefits of the vlogassist forums again; Let me say first that it is NOT a replacement for this discussion-forum.!! You have to be a member to; -Post. -Receive email status messages from forums you select. LIKE EVENTS !! in a frequency you select. -Receive RSS feeds from forums you subscribe to. -Quick and easy member list with websites. -Lexicon (still under construction) -Embedded video in post. (USE Firefox !!) -Use your favorite color (7 choices) -Use private messaging. -Sell your obsolete vlogging stuff. Some people like a WIKI, that's fine too, for me it is too static, with a forum you can still have discussions about a topic. I'm not looking for a discussion about the difference and pros and cons between a wiki and a forum please choose your own preference, both way's can live next to each other in my world heck I even link to the wiki in some instances and i'm not competing. Until now we only have 13 members while I know from the statistics that lots of people are reading it. Please become a member so you can add you website to the member list and have all the benefits mentioned above. Also important; IT IS FREE !!! Get your name on the members list now go to http://vlogassist.com THE VIDEOBLOGGING RESOURCE regards blips http://vlogassist.com http://vlogmatic.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dang. I don't think it was posted, or somehow I missed it in a sea of threads... hence my not attending this thing that I would have loved to attend that's 6 minutes from my house. Where are events like this posted, anyway? Bekah -- http://missbhavens.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jonny goldstein spamjonny@ wrote: Just in case no one posted this yet: There's going to be a panel on vlogging at the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens at 4PM today featuring Andrew B, Amanda C, Jakob Lodwick (Vimeo), and Ravi Jain (drivetime). YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] flash code and streaming
I am not sure but I did not use the FlashVars parameter in my code. I would try it as follows: param name=movie value=FLVPlayer_Progressive.swf?MM_ComponentVersion=1skinName=Halo_Skin_2streamName=videos/06_04_07_blake2autoPlay=falseautoRewind=false / Maybe it helps. Greetings, Chris Richard Show wrote: Yesterday I posted a message to the group about problems I was having with my site loading, and I appreciate that people were willing to test it out. I also checked with godaddy support and they sent back the following message *Our server administrators have reviewed the issue with the Flash animation on your richardshow.com http://richardshow.com/ hosting account. They reviewed the server logs and found 206 Errors for the site. These errors will occur when a site attempts to stream data, which is not allowed by our shared hosting servers. *Of course, I tried to set it to progressive download, not to steaming such that it would be expecing some special streaming server or something, and the code, that I copy and paste to wordpress using dreamweaver to generate it, looks like this ... object classid="" codebase="" href="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0">http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0 http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0 width=342 height=291 id=FLVPlayer param name=movie value=FLVPlayer_Progressive.swf / param name=salign value=lt / param name=quality value=high / param name=scale value=noscale / param name=FlashVars value=MM_ComponentVersion=1skinName=Halo_Skin_2streamName=videos/06_04_07_blake2autoPlay=falseautoRewind=false / embed src="" flashvars=MM_ComponentVersion=1skinName=Halo_Skin_2streamName=videos/06_04_07_blake2autoPlay=falseautoRewind=false quality=high scale=noscale width=342 height=291 name=FLVPlayer salign=LT type=application/x-shockwave-flash pluginspage= http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer / /object If there are any flash/code experts out there and have any idea as to why this would result in a site that attempts to stream data would be appreciated. ... thanks ... Richard -- Richard http://www.richardshow.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS * Visit your group videoblogging http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] I'm new to videoing, but I found help.
IzzyVideo is one of my favorite videoblogs. I found out about it on one of the vlog reviews-- maybe Vlog Soup? Anyway-- it kicks butt. --Stephanie On 4/23/06, mgmoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The timing couldn't have been more perfect because today's episode included a video from IzzyVideo, http://www.izzyvideo.com/ IzzyVideo is a vlog of video tutorials that help teach techniques for better video taking through the use of examples and with the simple and straightforward narration by Izzy. -- Stephanie Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blogs, vlogs, and audioblogs at: http://www.mortaine.com/blogs YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] videoblogging event in Queens, NYC 4PM today
Boy did I read that about 40 hours too late.On 4/23/06, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just in case no one posted this yet: There's going to be a panel on vlogging at the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens at 4PM today featuring Andrew B, Amanda C, Jakob Lodwick (Vimeo), and Ravi Jain (drivetime). SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group videoblogging on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
Oh Andrew...please feel free to get your stubby little fingers typing away then. Rather than write back to me though, address whatever it is you have to say to the owners of the Gumby copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
Way to stay off-topic and avoid your dishonest and false statements. None of it is your fault per say, and I assume you can't help it, but I only addressed you to let you know that you were wrong. On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, David Howell wrote: Oh Andrew...please feel free to get your stubby little fingers typing away then. Rather than write back to me though, address whatever it is you have to say to the owners of the Gumby copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
what the heck is going on here... both of you shut up and start talking about the issue at hand here... put your ego's aside and have beneficial discussion,.,On 4/24/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to stay off-topic and avoid your dishonest and false statements.None of it is your fault per say, and I assume you can't help it, butI only addressed you to let you know that you were wrong.On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, David Howell wrote: Oh Andrew...please feel free to get your stubby little fingers typing away then. Rather than write back to me though, address whatever it is you have to say to the owners of the Gumby copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- ---WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
My dishonest and false statements? I posted a link to a site that says they hold all the copyrights on the Gumby character. Fire off an email to them informing them that they are wrong. Go piss up someone elses tree you little twerp. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to stay off-topic and avoid your dishonest and false statements. None of it is your fault per say, and I assume you can't help it, but I only addressed you to let you know that you were wrong. On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, David Howell wrote: Oh Andrew...please feel free to get your stubby little fingers typing away then. Rather than write back to me though, address whatever it is you have to say to the owners of the Gumby copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron andrew@ wrote: David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Trademark/Copyrights Question
Shut up? Thanks for the great advise Josh.The point of the matter is that David last said this:Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. and he also said this: It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty.These statements are false. Let it be known people on the videoblogging list that these statements are not true. If I dont speak up, no one else will.On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:37 AM, Josh Leo wrote: what the heck is going on here... both of you shut up and start talking about the issue at hand here... put your ego's aside and have beneficial discussion,.,On 4/24/06, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to stay off-topic and avoid your dishonest and false statements.None of it is your fault per say, and I assume you can't help it, butI only addressed you to let you know that you were wrong.On Apr 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, David Howell wrote: Oh Andrew...please feel free to get your stubby little fingers typing away then. Rather than write back to me though, address whatever it is you have to say to the owners of the Gumby copyright. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, andrew michael baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, I could add a pretty long rant about knee jerking responses but I'll just suck it up and get right to the point: Copyrights and trademarks can expire, lapse or be changed for a number of reasons. I have found that in fact there are several Gumby cartoons that are a part of the public domain. Here are a few: http://tinyurl.com/p283s On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:45 PM, David Howell wrote: Uhhh...Gumby isnt public domain. The little guy is far from that. http://www.gumbyworld.com/copy.htm It looks like Veoh and their promise to rid their site of copyrighted material was rather empty. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote: I don't know if that's true that Gumby is public domain - it's 60's right? However if stuff is in the public domain, yes one is free to make any kind of derivative work, and then even copyright that work. Hence the development of such animals as the GPL in order to ensure that 'free' works can only be spawned into further 'free' works. joly At 03:24 PM 4/22/2006, you wrote: I noticed on Veoh, they have a complete Gumby video on the home page in the 'featured videos' section. http://veoh.comhttp://veoh.com/ I assume the particular Gumby video http://tinyurl.com/jruf7http://tinyurl.com/jruf7 is public domain because Michael Eisner is featuring it, along with a couple of complete Superman videos that I have seen tagged as public domain on the Archive before. Since I am then allowed to use the public domain video of Gumby to create or recreate my own work, or version, wouldn't that mean that I may also freely refashion Gumby for a contemporary world? In otherwords, if I am able use the video myself to make my own video, I would make a new Gumby out of the old Gumby. I would use the music in the video, mash the likeness, reshape him a bit physically speaking, but would especially make his psyche much different; he would do and say different kinds of things and have different body behaviors, for instance. I might have some plans to add a couple of permeant deformations to his walk and give his a few classic behavioral problems, for instance. Gumby himself could change and evolve instead of be trapped in time, the way he is now. Perhaps I could give the new Gumby away for free and encourage others to take him and develop him. Gumby could be reborn into a global star! Would I be allowed to do all of the above with my public domain Gumby without getting into trouble with the Gumby trademark and other later, non-public domain Gumby stuff claimed to be owned entirely by a private entity? http://tinyurl.com/mgu4qhttp://tinyurl.com/mgu4q I would assume that somehow, I would not be able to reshape Gumby, even if I did it all with the materials that I got from the public domain Gumby video. Surely, there is a conflict here and I would assume there is a simple answer that has already been worked out legally. Does anyone know what that would be? -- --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups LinksYahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
