For the record, I don't really have any issue with Andreas making the manifesto, I will say that like Verdi and Cheryl stated, for the manefisto to come out after soliciting video's etc, put me off. I would have liked to have known that before hand. The manifesto is to a degree trying to define vlogging, which again a lot of people don't like.
And I don't see a different standard, people ask for links to be removed from blogs, vlogs, etc all the time. At the time I asked the question, Andreas did not make it clear if he would remove links, THAT was a big deal to me, because quite frankly I expected more from someone like Andreas....be that as it may.. regardless I am done with this.... and btw, yes you are right, by putting our work out in the public we have to expect and accept certain things, but we should never expect or accept to completely give up our wishes and choices all together. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 18/01/2008, at 3:53 PM, Heath wrote: > > > Taken in context with what is being said before in the manifesto, why > > is it unreasonable to think that someone may read the manifesto and > > conclude that Andreas and Brittany are in charge of the videos or > > have been given the videos to be taken care of. In both cases that > > can imply consent of the participants. That is why the "we" along > > with no disclaimer was bothering me. > > I can't answer that for others but for myself simply because when I > view the video page I see the names of the videomakers and links that > clearly point to external urls. The issue of consent is more > complicated, and what really is interesting here is that we seem to > want to apply (I'm not saying this is right or wrong) a different > standard to these video works than we would to, say, text. > > for example people run lots of reblog sites where content from blog A > is republished, in its entirety, at blog B (you can download software > to run such a site yourself, just Google reblog). Blog B contains a > link back to Blog A and attribution. (Gavin Sade runs an extraordinary > one at http://uber.tv/refeed/out/ ). Similarly we pull stuff out of > blog posts and quote them (in and out of context) as a matter of course. > > This is partly curation and partly the sample remix thing that we all > understand the web to be (and which we all happily use as we stick > soundtracks to our videos that we don't have permission to use). I'm > not getting into is it right or wrong here, but when we use artist Y's > soundtrack under our video we seem to recognise that this does not > mean that artist Y endorses our video (though i guess it does mean we > endorse artist Y). > > Why are we being so concerned about the video works? (I think the > answer is obvious - for as much as we want to use this sample/remix > stuff we are perhaps not so comfortable with it when it happens to > something of ours that we think is of value). But quite outside of the > particular example of the lumiere project I am intrigued how > reblogging appears to go unremarked, but try the same thing with video > and all sorts of dilemmas seem to arise. > > > cheers > Adrian Miles > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > bachelor communication honours coordinator > vogmae.net.au >
