wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: new promotional possibility - Fullscreen QTVR site
pedro_silva58 2006-Jul-18 01:50:00
don,
i've been silent (as usual) until now. i think it's time i join (if
briefly).
--- In #removed#, "G. Donald Bain" <dbain@...> wrote:
...
> I have been talking to Marco for two years now on how to publicize
> the WWP through the FullscreenQTVR site.
good. talks are good. publicizing is good. the current proposal is
not good.
> My first concern was to make
> sure that it didn't look like the WWP was just another project of the
> VRWay organization. I think we have enough name-recognition now that
> we needn't worry about that any more.
i think you are wrong. that's exactly what it looks like (as others
have pointed out). to change that, would require radical design
changes. like, just having a short descriptive paragraph, and a link
to the wwp home page.
"enough name-recognition" would mean we don't need this kind of ride
from the fullscreenqtvr.com site. if the wwp does have "enough
name-recognition", those who visit fullscreenqtvr.com also visit the
wwp site, anyway. visitors who would need this kind of publicity to
learn about the wwp, obviously don't know it is fully autonomous
either -- from the current look of things, they would be excused for
mistaking wwp as just another vrway.com project (links to the official
wwp site notwithstanding). bad, very bad!
> The other concern is to honor the promises made to WWP participants
> to prevent unauthorized commercial use from being made of their work,
> and to protect their copyright and their authorship by keeping the
> imagery all on the WWP site. Here are the statements, published on
> the site with every event:
>
> > This is a non-commercial project, done simply to create enthusiasm
> > for VR photography, and provide an outlet for our collective
> > creativity. All images will be copyright by the individual
> > photographers. Use in any way other than viewing on this web site
> > is prohibited unless permission is obtained from the relevant
> > photographer.
i like the wwp -- a lot. i like its spirit as proclaimed. i like
this reassurance, on the front page of the wwp.
but... i'm not a lawyer. i don't want to become one. i don't want to
hire one. i just want to go on participating in the wwp (do i?). i
don't know what takes precedence. but i see an obvious conflict
between "All images will be copyright by the individual photographers.
*Use in any way other than viewing on _this web site_ is prohibited
unless permission is obtained from the relevant photographer*", and
"Thumbnails may also appear on the site FullScreenQTVR.com", now used
by http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wwp/message/6653 to try and force us
to swallow the whole thing. your kind reassurances "to honor the
promises made to WWP participants" are not enough, i'm afraid.
remember, "There will be no commercial use at all" (also from the
rules page). what are the "Tecnology partners" (sic!) (fujifilm,
canon, nikon, apple, etc) on the fullscreenqtvr.com page? what does
"partners" mean to these big corporations? this does not smell
non-commercial to me.
let me be blunt. the general tone of mr nyberg's messages on this
topic is not at all encouraging. he gives the impression of having a
lot riding here, much more than just his proclaimed willingness to
help publicize the wwp.
> VRWay designer Marco Luethi (Shen), who is also a three-time WWP
> participant, has come up with a prototype of how the WWP could be
> featured on the FullScreenQTVR site. Have a look:
>
> http://www.fullscreenqtvr.com/index_test.html
>
> This is not the actual FullscreenQTVR home page, just a proposal for
> the WWP community to evaluate. All of the WWP events will be listed,
> and all the panos on them, with the same information as on the WWP
> site. Clicking a thumbnail or link loads a page from the WWP server -
> nothing is on the VRWay server except the thumbnails (which are a
> different size than ours) and the identifying information.
>
> If it meets with general approval from the WWP members this prototype
> page would be brought up to date (adding Borders and Gardens) and
> then published as part of the FullScreenQTVR site, updated with each
> new event.
how general is "general approval"? clearly there are several
dissenting voices (i add mine). you say what will happen if this
"meets with general approval": what if it does not? what will happen
then?
> I think this will be valuable new publicity for our efforts. Along
> with our evolving presence on Google Earth it will help spread the
> news about VR far and wide.
publicity is good. good is seldom free. in this case, i think the
price is too high (i'm old enough to know that "free" is usually too
expensive).
i don't see how our presence in the fullscreenqtvr.com site "will help
spread the news about VR far and wide" (ge is another matter
altogether). it seems to me that people visiting that site already
know about vr (even if just).
> Two special notes. First, because it might be seen as modifying the
> conditions under which images were originally committed by
> participants, Marco has agreed NOT to list any individual who so
> requests. Secondly, this partnership could be the first step toward a
> European co-hosting of the WWP image files, using the VRWay servers.
> This is just in the talking stages now, but I think it offers much
> promise.
1st note: as said by others, incomplete wwp events are not wwp events.
this is so against the wwp ideals, i don't understand how it can even
be seriously contemplated by you. the only serious action is, if
*anyone* objects, the whole thing should be ditched. if this means
the whole thing is doomed (under current terms), so be it.
2nd note: as pointed out by others this is a very bad precedent.
enough said (i think).
if you are serious about an european co-hosting, let me suggest you
contact a geography department in a big european university (the wwp
team should know enough people and places to start sound contacts).
they would have to convince us of their commitment to support the wwp
project for the foreseeable future, etc. but that would be much
better than fullscreenqtvr.com.
> Please let me know what you think, either by posting to this list, or
> to me personally.
>
> Don
> dbain@...
your intentions seem good (other's i'm not so sure about). but hell
is full of good intentions...
previous messages by other participants show this to be a very
divisive issue, if for nothing else, because there seem to be some
vested interests, that are not the community's. i think the wwp has
enough momentum that it will not go away if this thing goes ahead.
but it will loose a lot of trust and good will. no publicity gains,
or search engine rankings, can ever make up for that.
cheers,
pedro