One thing about blogging is that you can present your case - and I think AiB should do so - using the blogtools available. A great chance to speak to their mission / purpose.
Make it part of the AiB blog. The screenshot. Parts of this discussion. I'd be delighted to vlog it. Jan On 2/18/07, Darren Winkler Darren Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a very interesting thread to me in that I am a member of Our > Media yet have found myself taking issue with the moderators of the > site many times in the past. > I have been "what they call" a guest editor and was charged with > providing the links on the home page of Our Media and I can say that > I like every other person on that site does in fact have a polital > bent. > I have been in a struggle with most of the moderators at Our Media as > I am one of those "neo-con LIBERTARIAN" members who feels greatly > misrepresented and mostly censored at Our Media. > > I realize that the creators of AiB wish to maintain a balanced view > and I must say that it has been my experience that Our Media is not > in any way a balanced site and 99.9% of the users are in fact very > far to the left. "There is nothing at all wrong with that fact but it > should be clearly stated so that viewers can "be aware or beware" of > the site and it's content. > > I beleive that the poster was in fact attempting to skew the content > of AiB to suite their view. It may be legal, but it should be shunned > by our community as no one here would want this to happen to their > work! > > I think that Our Media should hear from all of us that "although > there is likely legal authority to re-post in this way that it is > nevertheless unethical. > > Just my two cents worth. > > All the best, Darren W. > The Driving Blogger > > www.drivingblogger.blogspot.com > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBcriyqJeg > > > > --- In [email protected], "humancloner1997" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I understand Brian's objection to how his AIB has been "revlogged" > as > > if he was part of OurMedia and with a misleading political slant > given > > his video via choice of thumbnail & a quote taken out of context. > > > > I have to admit being technically challenged here. I am just > starting > > to study linking. There is a tutorial called 'Link Love" on > > www.freevlog.org I have to study. > > > > I've had many requests to "swap links" and/or for me to link to > > another site. I know I'm missing traffic by not having done so. > > > > What question arises in my mind is where the dividing line is > between > > a link posted on a site that may have a stated focus. Let's say, in > > this case, it was called "Make Love, Not War" & was devoted to > pacifism. > > > > If such a site wanted to put a link to your content on their site & > > you really didn't want them to do so because you held neo-con views, > > do you have thge right to make them remove your name & link from > their > > page? > > > > And what about all these "embed this video" tags on YouTube & > > elsewhere? Once you have allowed that to be with your video, have > you > > consented to allow anyone to embed your video on their site? > > > > Hope this question doesn't make me seem technically stupid. > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > Hoboken, NJ > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], brian conley > > > <brian_conley2005@> wrote: > > > > > > > > This morning I discovered that the work of one of my projects, > Alive > > > in Baghdad, had been posted on the front page of > http://ourmedia.com. > > > (I have enclosed a screen capture for your reference.) Not only > did > > > noone request the use of our work, or inform us of our inclusion > on > > > this site, but OurMedia presents our work in a way that could be > > > significantly harmful to our project. > > > > > > > > At first glance, the presentation of our work on OurMedia > suggests > > > to the average viewer that AIB has a political, anti-war stance > and > > > that AIB is a part of OurMedia. In fact this could not be farther > from > > > the truth, AiB takes pains to present a balanced view of life in > Iraq, > > > that simply shows the experiences and feelings of Iraqis, without > > > adding a political tone. > > > > > > > > Basicallyin representing AIB, OurMedia selected a thumbnail of > a > > > woman with a translated quote underneath that says "May God Curse > Bush > > > and all those that brought him here." Obviously, this is not a > quote > > > that we would choose to have represent us. We worried about > including > > > that segment at all and feared that, out of context, separate > from our > > > other work, it could cause harm to the public face of the project, > > > bring flamers, etc. However, inside of the entire episode, we > felt it > > > was acceptable and was reflective of the situation in Iraq. We > care > > > deeply about building a project that gives voice to Iraqi > citizensnot > > > towards pushing a political agenda. Such a posting can damage the > > > perceptions of Alive in Baghdad and our future opportunities. > > > > > > > > Additionally, OurMedia indicates that we are a member of their > > > organizationi.e. you'll notice to the right of the thumbnail, it > > > lists a link titled "member page" that links to > AliveinBaghdad.org. > > > AiB is not, nor has it ever been, a member of Ourmedia. Given our > > > experience, we question whether they actually have 125,000 > members.... > > > > > > Jay @ Markus are addressing the issues and clearing up the > > > misunderstandings, but I agree with you that someone reading that > page > > > will get certain incorrect impressions. > > > > > > Until reading the posts here, I didn't realize ourmedia was > revlogging > > > at all. I went to the page, saw the lady, saw the caption, > clicked on > > > "member page" and went straight to AiB. I think there's another > link > > > that says "media page" that goes to the AiB permalink for that > video. > > > I was looking for ANY member list at all, and couldn't find a > list of > > > content creators... you get "sponsors & partners", so that seemed > odd > > > as well. > > > > > > If a group's going to re-vlog material, especially sensitive > material > > > like AiB, thumbnail selection is CRITICAL. Until this situation, > I > > > would have assumed that the thumbnail used would have been the > > > thumbnail supplied by the content creator. For instance, if you > go to > > > a video on blip and select "share", you can select the actual > > > thumbnail that the creator uploaded. I would assume that that > would > > > be used in the revlog as well. You "can't" use some > > > automatically-generated thumbnail, because it's completely out of > > > context. You can have a video about cleaning up the neighborhood > with > > > examples of what NOT to do in it, and the randomly selected > thumbnail > > > is of some guy spraying paint on the side of a wall. People's > > > impression of the video itself, and consequentially, the group > > > responsible for it, is going to be affected by their perception > of the > > > out-of-context image representing the video. > > > > > > Also, Markus has already mentioned the link issue. "member page" > > > makes the person who is certainly not a member of this group > think the > > > group is cheating or trying to gain something by sneaking an > > > affiliation with them that they were never contacted about. It > also > > > gives more credence to the out-of-context still, because it looks > like > > > this entry was created by the group that created the video. > > > > > > The page itself doesn't mention revlogging in any fashion. It > also > > > says not to post other artists' copyrighted works without > permission. > > > I see where Brian would see this as a CC issue, because the > > > implication is that nobody needed AiB's permission to post their > > > material (in this case, revlogging, though it doesn't say that > > > anywhere) because AiB's license allows use of the video under > certain > > > circumstances, including attribution, which the linkbacks took > care of. > > > > > > I think it's an interesting topic that Brian's raised here. The > > > obligation is attribution and whatever else, but attribution > doesn't > > > necessarily mean that the content creator received notice of that > > > attribution. It also doesn't mean that the creator has APPROVAL > over > > > the use of their video... especially before it goes out to the > public. > > > Trackbacks and Pingbacks go out when the post is published, so > by the > > > time that the creator finds out about it and decides they want to > > > contact the site and let them know what they'd like changed, the > cat > > > is already out of the proverbial bag. > > > > > > -- > > > Bill C. > > > http://reelsolid.tv > > > http://blog.fastcompany.com/experts/bcammack/ > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com [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/
