Re: [videoblogging] is this jay??
NOT an attractive look, guys. Incredible ;-) Loiez Le 9 nov. 08 à 11:00, RANDY MANN a écrit : http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Loiez Deniel http://www.loiez.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! new cell phone : +33 06 08 31 96 98 Skype : ultimcodex M'appeler gratuitement de votre PC sur mon portable http://call.mylivio.com/loiez [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Kris gave a great rundown of your options IMHO. You got to take some responsibility here for doing work for free without a contract. This kind of situation asks for trouble. I think going to small claims court would be more trouble than its worth. might feel good for the revenge factor if you want to put in all the time and expense. Here's the blogging way of justice: 1. --Blog about your experience with this company. Write a post that tells the story and provide links to their site. If they wrote you emails saying they would pay you, include them verbatim. Unless they are a fly by night company, they will hate that you're post will show up in their google reputation. 2. --Get your friends to link to this post. Deepen their bad reputation online with more links. Also, this will warn others who may come after you. 3. --It wouldnt hurt sending youtube and other sites an email saying that those videos are your work (especially if they have your name). It's why the shitty DMCA was written. They can of course write back to possible have them reinstalled, but your making them work for it. Sorry to hear you got screwed on thisi job. I bet you wont let it ever happen again. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] is this jay??
that looks like Jays face but the clothes...hmmm not sure I am just used to see Jays face on the videos but not the rest...LOL ;0=)))~ JohnDkar www.youtube.com/johndkar --- On Sun, 11/9/08, RANDY MANN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: RANDY MANN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [videoblogging] is this jay?? To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 5:00 AM http://momgrind. com/2008/ 08/17/top- 10-fashion- mistakes/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
to add a bit to the good advice Kris gave, when you structure your progress payments,include an initial deposit which will cover all your out of pocket costs. if the client refuses, it's a nice early warning that you won't be getting paid. i hope you take Jay's advice - it will transform that nasty feeling ing the pit of your stomach into proof that you are a force to be dealt with. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Kris gave a great rundown of your options IMHO. You got to take some responsibility here for doing work for free without a contract. This kind of situation asks for trouble. I think going to small claims court would be more trouble than its worth. might feel good for the revenge factor if you want to put in all the time and expense. Here's the blogging way of justice: 1. --Blog about your experience with this company. Write a post that tells the story and provide links to their site. If they wrote you emails saying they would pay you, include them verbatim. Unless they are a fly by night company, they will hate that you're post will show up in their google reputation. 2. --Get your friends to link to this post. Deepen their bad reputation online with more links. Also, this will warn others who may come after you. 3. --It wouldnt hurt sending youtube and other sites an email saying that those videos are your work (especially if they have your name). It's why the shitty DMCA was written. They can of course write back to possible have them reinstalled, but your making them work for it. Sorry to hear you got screwed on thisi job. I bet you wont let it ever happen again. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Make.tv
New site that supposedly give creators more options around making live TV. Jay __ Tornado Insider: German IP-TV startup receives funding to enable online broadcasting The German start-up company make.tv is looking to shake up the web-TV sector with new cash from High-Tech Gründerfonds and existing shareholders. The second round follows an initial investment just after the company's creation in November last year. The backers in that early round were: Andrin Bachmann (co-founder of Glocalnet, venture partner of M/C Venture Partners and investor in QXL), Greg Lockwood (former chairman of betfair.com) and other private investors. Dr. Schwarz-Schilling Partners advised in the deal. make.tv enables users to produce their own live show on the Web without the need for conventional broadcast technology. They can do this either alone or in a team, use multiple cameras and air whatever they want: be it music concerts, news shows or presentations. The virtual studio is operated from the user's computer, running in the Internet browser. TV networks are increasingly launching special-interest channels and using the Internet as another distribution channel. But the make.tv team are not impressed with strategies that only use the Internet as a medium for the downstream exploitation of existing content. According to them, the Internet requires new formats that are produced specifically for it and use the possibilities of the medium. And now they provide the tools to do just that. make.tv's allows producers to decide for themselves whether they want to charge an entry fee or offer their shows for free. The service also enables products or electronic media to be sold during online shows. make.tv was founded by Andreas Meyer (also founder of fotocommunity.de) and Georg Lenzen. The company launched the service late September 2008, after it had already been confronted with some unusual pre-launch inquiries, including a renowned opera company that wanted to broadcast every performance on the Internet, anti-nuclear activists looking to set up a channel to broadcast their demonstrations live, and an international special interest channel for graffiti artists. -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] is this jay??
http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] is this jay??
http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ That is me at #4. shorts with dress shoes. wow, what a life to be called out by a mommy blogger! I guess he didnt see the photos where Im wearing a thong and my loafers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
Hi, I'm brand new to the list. Located in Brisbane, Australia. For the past few years I've been a podcaster and I produce a few podcasts on various topics. I also have recorded a few public gatherings for web sharing While I used to deploy slideshows and digital presentations in my blogs as well as sharing a selected range of videos grabbed from all over, it was only very recently I switched to video mode in my out and about. While I'm waiting for my mini dv camera to come back from the shop, my main tool has been an Olympus FE-270 digital camera. I stuck a bit of windsock to the inbuilt mic to suppress wind turbulence and started shooting. The irony is that despite all the drawbacks I rather appreciate the ease of this little digital camera as I could plug in into any usb port to upload the files.(I half think I should have got one of those digital camera hybrids like the Canon Powershot!) So I'm still interested in video shot on digital cameras. I'm also interested in sound recording options using minidisc recorders. I see where there has been some exchanges on that matter here. Already , out and about, I'm starting to run my Minidisc recorder at the same time as I shoot video so that I get a separate audio AND a visual record of the event(which I can podcast two --either/both -- ways)*. But I'm hoping to use the MD as a unit between my microphones and the mini dv camera when I get the thing back from repairs. But there's one thing that strikes me vis a vis video podcasting/blogging and audio podcasting/blogging: editing video is so much easier to do (and do well) than editing audio because there's these easy to follow visual markers. I find it a bit amazing actually: video editing is a breeze compared to all the reviewing you have to do with audio tracts alone. Video is another language of course and you need less in the way of orchestrated inputs to 'set the scene' or advance the narrative. Now I thought that audio podcasting covered a lot of options in way of themes -- from the personal monologue, to interviews, to whatever really. I'm not too keen on the audio podcasts that package the views of one person talking as so often they don't have much of value to say unless it is carefully pitched to explore a set topic. But video -- vlogging -- is strangely intimate, and so much more engaging than one voice over the web. It's a very different type of communication -- different again from what you are exposed to on television. (And if you want to get into this topic, what stimulated me the most was the work of Iranian film director, Abbas Kiarostami, whose 10 changed my perception of video completely). It is a very personal medium and I find it much easier to relax in front of a video camera than I can with a microphone stuck under my nose recording just audio. I also never thought that video would take off on the web the way it has. The side effect of that, it seems to me, is that there is still a lot of respect paid to being succinct and to the point -- if only to keep file size down. The other difference is that video lasts longer -- has a longer shelf life -- on the web -- than audio. This is partly due to the fact that video is easier to locate, but it is also a medium than is not treated as something esoteric, maybe even archaic, as audio seems to often be. While I may respect audio and radio especially as a medium it doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to listen as I do to 'x' number of podcasts each and every week. So I'm in the process of moving from podcasting blogging -- text plus audio -- to a setup where I utilize more vlogging ad I reckon there is magical wisdom in the multimedia mix. dave riley *I run the audio recoding all the time and select what I want to shoot.
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I second this... and...you should never underestimate your work but if you are doing videoworks to promote your skills or build up a brand name ...hmmm just do it for free...take it as an investment lesson learned... sharks are all around...then ... JohnDkar www.yotube.com/johndkar From: Kris Boustedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 1:23 AM First of all, I'm not a lawyer. Secondly, that is a crappy (and all too familiar) situation. Thirdly (and sadly), I don't think your chances are good to get any money back. I once found myself, like you, battling against a company for whom I created videos on the promise of back-end reimbursement and further employment once they had more stable cash-flow. We never had a written contract in place...it was all based on handshakes, smiles and good faith. Needless to say, I lost out on that deal. It did, however, teach me two very valuable lesson: 1) always have a contract, 2) always make sure the contract stipulates and outlines project phases and a payment structure. First, without a contract, it's nearly impossible to get money from someone -- at least, much to my fiercely principled dismay, so says my attorney. Secondly, if you break up the project into several phases with partial payment due at the beginning of each phase, you can cover yourself if all of a sudden the client starts reneging on the agreement. If you don't get paid at the start of Phase 2, for instance, you have a contractual right to stop working. And if the client refuses the final delivery payment, at least you're not out the ENTIRE amount. Don't get me wrong, it still stings to get stiffed (and always will), but at least you probably won't LOSE money on the deal. But, and here's the extra sad part, if you do need to legally enforce a contract the legal fees can make it all worthless. If you're going to spend more on attorney and filing fees than you would make from the job, you may want to consider just chalking it up to life experience and keying the deadbeat client's car (no, wait, that's not legal -- dang!). Unless you're wealthy enough to prove a point, of course. That would be the life. :-) On the other hand, if you threaten to take someone to court, there will be legal fees on their end as well, and that might encourage them to settle (after all, they'll be using the same logic as you -- will going to court to defend ourselves cost more than just paying for the videos?). So, that's my $0.02 in general. Hopefully it helps save someone the same pain that you and I (and, I'm sure, most of the other members on this list trying to make a living with this crazy video stuff) have experienced. With respect to your specific issue -- ultimately, who owns the work: you or them -- I don't think you could win. You gave them the videos without a contract stipulating that they could only use them if they paid you. And, as they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law...insofar as you now have the burden of proof on this one. They'll argue, he gave us the videos for free...and NOW, after we've done *all this work* to put them online and have been using them to promote ourselves, he's telling us that we have to pay! That's not fair! Whine, whine, whine! And then the judge will look at you and say, Ok, so...do you have a contract? Honestly, I feel for you and I'm certainly not trying to make your day worse than it already is. I wish I had a sunnier perspective. :-( Hopefully there is an actual lawyer lurking on the list somewhere who can fill in with more precise advice, but based on my experience I think you're stuck. Good luck, though!! And keep fighting the good fight. -- Kris Boustedt | First Sight Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] uctions.com | 206.354.5031 Filmmaker | Editor | Apple Certified Trainer Associate Faculty, Shoreline Community College http://www.firstsig htproductions. com On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] com wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
I don't understand why there is an attitude where bandwidth is treated as infinite and not a finite resource. It is a finite resource. Data and digital duplication of our material is trivial, but transferring that to other places is not. For example, even in Australia the majority of our schools have quite poor bandwidth, and if I want my work to be viewed in regional Australia (and for that matter parts of rural United States) then I have to be aware that bandwidth is constrained. Now bandwidth might be fast or slow, but it does have a width, and it is a material infrastructure with its associated costs. Just as with telephony there are international, national, and local agreements about how much a byte costs, and while the telcos might make lots from it (or not), the pipes are not infinite. Limiting the size of my video is NOT like polluting less with a gasoline car. It may be nice to keep videos small so anyone around the world can watch it, but this is NOT a proper scientific comparison. in the US, we've been spoiled by advertised unlimited bandwidth...and now that we're taking full advantage of it, the broadband companies are crying crocodile tears. The real issue is the relationship between broadband customers and the broadband companies here in the US. it is one of distrust, fear, and anger. The Comcast incident where they just started filtering bit torrent secretly is a great example. No conversation. In the US, we are not talking about a situation where there are many small broadband operators locally who talk to their customers. We have 3 faceless broadband conglomerates. If they have real limitations, then they need to open up and be transparent. What it feels like is a creation of false scarcity, like the diamond industry purposely keeping shiny shiny objects off the market to raise their value. Here are some good arguments to consider: http://stopthecap.com/talking-points/ Think of this. Comcast is an internet provider AND a cable TV provider. Timewarner is all of these AND a content creator (HBO, CNN). They are worried that more and more of us are canceling our cable TV because we can watch TV (and other better stuff) on the web with our unlimited data packages. So what's the solution? Create a new business model. Cry broadband scarcity and charge people for downloads. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] The Death of the internet as we know it....
Think of this. Comcast is an internet provider AND a cable TV provider. Timewarner is all of these AND a content creator (HBO, CNN). They are worried that more and more of us are canceling our cable TV because we can watch TV (and other better stuff) on the web with our unlimited data packages. So what's the solution? Create a new business model. Cry broadband scarcity and charge people for downloads. Here's a good blog post describing US broadband companies and their vertical monopolies: http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2008/09/bandwidth-caps-comcasts-silver-bullet/ It's also conceivable that Comcast might help their customers avoid penalties by offering Free HD Video Over the Internet that could be viewed without incurring any extra bandwidth usage. It would be a natural move for the cable giant, and would also fly in the face of the net neutrality principles that have succeeded in shutting down their Bittorrent filtering. The free bandwidth would no doubt be subsidized by the content creators or other sponsors. It would give Comcast an unprecedented influence over what sort of high-resolution video their customers actually watched, and it reeks of cable television. The above Free HD Video Over the Internet is a riff on Tim Wu's termination monopoly, which he describes as an ISP leveraging their subscriber base giving preferential access to the highest bidder (be it Google, Amazon, or ABC). The internet has demonstrated time and time again how awesome and unexpected things can happen, especially when people aren't solely motivated by profit. When ISP's begin leveraging their termination monopolies, it really alters the egalitarian landscape of the internet, especially with regard to HD video. -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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/
Re: [videoblogging] Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
I also never thought that video would take off on the web the way it has. The side effect of that, it seems to me, is that there is still a lot of respect paid to being succinct and to the point -- if only to keep file size down. The other difference is that video lasts longer -- has a longer shelf life -- on the web -- than audio. This is partly due to the fact that video is easier to locate, but it is also a medium than is not treated as something esoteric, maybe even archaic, as audio seems to often be. While I may respect audio and radio especially as a medium it doesn't mean that everyone is going to want to listen as I do to 'x' number of podcasts each and every week. So I'm in the process of moving from podcasting blogging -- text plus audio -- to a setup where I utilize more vlogging ad I reckon there is magical wisdom in the multimedia mix. welcome dave. Its funny to read your statements because for a long time, people said online video was difficult to search. Also, people talked about being able to listen to audio podcasts while dong other things (driving, etc) I agree that circumstances have changed. I actually listen to a handful of podcasts that give good information and dont waste my time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] REBELRAVE
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:49 AM, David Terranova [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, I¹m emailing you guys about the reason why I joined this mailing list a few months back: REBELRAVE. It¹s a video series that I started making at the beginning of the year for a leading techno label: the Crosstown Rebels. Over the course of the year my client and I have developed the initial idea more and more for each episode, and are hoping to develop the concept further into something that could be appealing for a large brand to sponsor. http://www.rebelrave.tv/warehouses-toilets/ Looks good. Awesome quality. I am always wary when people talk about making a certain video series hoping they will find sponsors. I think this promotes self-censorship because you are making it for this invisible executive who may call you one day and offer you money. Money will come because you are so fucking kick ass. So unless you have a paid contract and you are doing work or hire...go completely balls out. Make videos that you and your friends will want to watch. I bet there would be many more internet friends who want to see the same thing. This is when opportunity comes a knocking. Just keep having fun with it. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] audio out of sync with video when using iSight and QT Pro
I recently noticed that when I shoot a video using the built in iSight camera with QT Pro that the audio is out of sync with the video. You see it mostly when you upload to youtube or import it into Final Cut Pro. It doesn't seem out of sync when just played back in QT. But if I shoot video from within iMovie, it's fine. Anyone else seeing this issue? I'm thinking it may be caused by an update to QT or the iSight firmware.
[videoblogging] Re: is this jay??
Thank Gawd. I'm glad he didn't find the thong loafer picture. Eeek. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ That is me at #4. shorts with dress shoes. wow, what a life to be called out by a mommy blogger! I guess he didnt see the photos where Im wearing a thong and my loafers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Twittervlog Guide To Videoblogs
VloMo has prompted me to finally do what I've been meaning to do for ages - do a regular slot talking about and showing the videoblogs I subscribe to. You can watch the first episode here: http://twittervlog.tv/?p=501 I'm using the Blip player to play a playlist of my links followed by episodes of the shows I'm talking about. You can press play, lean back and watch it all through, even in Full Screen if you want. This first week, I've covered the regular high-production-value weekly/daily videoblogs I watch regularly - Epic Fu, Beachwalks, Lo- fi Saint Louis Lo-fi Sessions, Wreck and Salvage Ryan Is Hungry. From next week, I'm going to move onto individual artists - well known and less well known. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv
[videoblogging] One week into VloMo...
...and we've made over 250 videos between us. Contrary to people's concerns earlier in the year about the activity on this list and the decline in posting rates, it seems videoblogging is alive and well in 2008. Vlog on! Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I agree with Jay's suggestions. But try to use reasonable language when you're blogging about them. And give them a right of reply in the comments - actively ask for it. Writing about it will get you worked up, and will make you want to say inflammatory things. Instead, try to make yourself sound like the most reasonable person on earth. It'll still show up as negative on their Google searches, and you'll be calling them out for bad behaviour which they'll hate, but people reading it will side with you more if it's not a raging flame. It makes it harder for them to rebut. And it puts you in a better position for negotiating with them later. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 On 9-Nov-08, at 4:32 AM, Jay dedman wrote: On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Kris gave a great rundown of your options IMHO. You got to take some responsibility here for doing work for free without a contract. This kind of situation asks for trouble. I think going to small claims court would be more trouble than its worth. might feel good for the revenge factor if you want to put in all the time and expense. Here's the blogging way of justice: 1. --Blog about your experience with this company. Write a post that tells the story and provide links to their site. If they wrote you emails saying they would pay you, include them verbatim. Unless they are a fly by night company, they will hate that you're post will show up in their google reputation. 2. --Get your friends to link to this post. Deepen their bad reputation online with more links. Also, this will warn others who may come after you. 3. --It wouldnt hurt sending youtube and other sites an email saying that those videos are your work (especially if they have your name). It's why the shitty DMCA was written. They can of course write back to possible have them reinstalled, but your making them work for it. Sorry to hear you got screwed on thisi job. I bet you wont let it ever happen again. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I've done lots of work for free over the years and some that wasn't supposed to be free but ended up being free. My rule is kind of like the lending money to friends and family - don't do it unless you are completely ok with not being paid back. If I'm going to do some work for free I try to make sure it's a fun/interesting/cool project. - Verdi
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Thanks everyone so much for the wisdom shared here. I just filed a DMCA Youtube complain hoping that they honor my request. Here is what I wrote; * Dear Youtube, I am the creator of the following 3 videos (shot and edited). It took me at least 3-4 10-hour working days to create each video without pay from the user (StadjDjModels). I no longer permit this user to use my videos due to the loss of relationship between us. She refused my kind request to remove them, that is why I have no choice but to contact you. Should you need further proof of ownership of these videos I would gladly provide them. Thanks so much. Sincerely, Renat Zarbailov * Yes it is a sad situation and at this point all I want is to remove these videos off the web, I don't care much for them paying for my work done for them. I wonder if small claims court allows initiation of a claim that doesn't seek monetary reimbursement. As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. Lesson learned. Next time, no free rides, and heavy research about who I am about to deal with. At the end of the day it all comes down to trust. Thanks again everyone!!! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Great post Jay... I thought the same thing. It's a small world for us independent content creators. I'm constantly running into folks from this list all over the place. Take it to them, Renat. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jay dedman wrote: As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I agree with you. I guess I was in the heat of the moment with this situation, calling blogging - whining... :) My apologies... I will make a post on my personal blog. I guess google will crawl for this company's name and will bring up this page anytime someone makes a search on them. Thanks again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great post Jay... I thought the same thing. It's a small world for us independent content creators. I'm constantly running into folks from this list all over the place. Take it to them, Renat. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jay dedman wrote: As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
- Original Message - From: RatbagMedia (snip) But there's one thing that strikes me vis a vis video podcasting/blogging and audio podcasting/blogging: editing video is so much easier to do (and do well) than editing audio because there's these easy to follow visual markers. I find it a bit amazing actually: video editing is a breeze compared to all the reviewing you have to do with audio tracts alone. Video is another language of course and you need less in the way of orchestrated inputs to 'set the scene' or advance the narrative. (snip) I think you are making a mistake here. Audio is *still* important. Just because it's the soundtrack on a video does not make is less important. The soundtrack on a video is a *major* part of that video. You still should be talking into a microphone rather than using the mic built into your camcorder. It really makes a difference in the end product. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Re: is this jay??
hahaha jay and ryanne are my fashion icons because they wear what they want to wear! On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank Gawd. I'm glad he didn't find the thong loafer picture. Eeek. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ That is me at #4. shorts with dress shoes. wow, what a life to be called out by a mommy blogger! I guess he didnt see the photos where Im wearing a thong and my loafers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
welcome! very much so the audio is very important in video video can be barely viewable but if the audio is crisp then its still ok if the audio is bad, the video is unwatchable! irina -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with Jay's suggestions. But try to use reasonable language when you're blogging about them. And give them a right of reply in the comments - actively ask for it. Writing about it will get you worked up, and will make you want to say inflammatory things. Instead, try to make yourself sound like the most reasonable person on earth. It'll still show up as negative on their Google searches, and you'll be calling them out for bad behaviour which they'll hate, but people reading it will side with you more if it's not a raging flame. It makes it harder for them to rebut. And it puts you in a better position for negotiating with them later. True. A clear, sober blog post about your experience will be more effective than just these guys are fucks. why are they fucks? Include any emals they sent they prove it. I think Lan Bui had one of the most effective efforts publicizing being ripped off. http://lanbui.com/2007/05/14/creative-commons-podtechnet-doesnt-respect-my-copyright/ It was blogged about, picked up and discussed...and finally met with a respectable outcome. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7573 As Rupert mentioned, what you ultimately want is an open conversation with the company. We can now use public shame since they seem to think they can ignore you. Ultimately, if you write about an issue in a way that others can empathize with...they ll take it on as their own. These nightclub dudes could just be shady as fuck. pick your companies carefully. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Introduction: newbie -- being intimate
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I actually listen to a handful of podcasts that give good information and dont waste my time. For what it's worth there are two other differences between the two media in way of delivery: (1) For producers of content, file hosting is much easier and generally more accessible for video than for audio. That's a Web.2.0 anomaly I'm sure. (2) I don't think audio is as well served with portable flash options as video is. I mean that a flash video player is so often built to be ported throughout the web, whereas flash audio players are at best aggregators. While both value the RSS component, audio podcasting tended to be satisfied with the subscription option and tends more to be theme driven programming offering episodes. Usually you can select any video on the web and share it by a number of ways. There is one big difference that I'm very aware of and that is that the option to locate audio and video enclosures on the one feed can annoy your subscribers -- esp those who expect smaller audio files that can be played only in mp3 players. So I'm keen not to add video to my podcast feeds but to offer a subscription link separate from that. Other than that, I know diddly squat about video blogging aside from what I'm learning DIY. (And I gotta say I that I've learnt so much of what I may know from what is shared by folk such as yourself -- Jay Dedman.) dave riley
Re: [videoblogging] Re: is this jay??
the mommy blogger also broke one of the rules of fashion criticism which is you NEVER show the face of the person you are calling out for a mistake unless they are a celebrity oh wait jay is a celebrity! On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mike Moon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank Gawd. I'm glad he didn't find the thong loafer picture. Eeek. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://momgrind.com/2008/08/17/top-10-fashion-mistakes/ That is me at #4. shorts with dress shoes. wow, what a life to be called out by a mommy blogger! I guess he didnt see the photos where Im wearing a thong and my loafers. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
People stealing videos is a big problem on the Internet. It's a habit that I originally had when I started doing YouTube because I did a lot of video responses and wanted people to know what I was responding to. However when I say that this was done to a more negative light against me, I really started not to like doing that. Places like YouTube don't exactly make it easy to take down a video with your footage included, nor do they make it easy to take down videos stolen from you and uploaded by someone else. Getting a public reaction from YouTubers on stuff like that is even harder considering that they believe any promotion good or bad brings more attention to them, so your situation goes on def ears doublely so. I would suggest, despite the hurdles, to email YouTube and spell it out for them. Or blog about it. Matthew From: Renat Zarbailov Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 10:11 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Defending Videographer's Rights in Court Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
