wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: some research
Milko Amorth 2008-May-27 13:20:00
Hi Carl,hi Willy, hi all,
Great data and effort, Carl. Extraordinary effort from you Willy. Thank
you for that.
I had received a letter, 1 guess the 1st draft, about a week ago. I read
it and initially thought it is not such a bad idea. When I read the
"silent agreement option clause" I suspected a coverup. These people know
exactly how media rights should be treated.
They work for an institute in media presentation and creation and teach
others. This clause was an attempt to revert a mistake.
The extent of the mistake became clear just yesterday morning when i got a
second letter , i guess the 2nd draft, from them.
In that letter was mentioned that due to input from others they had
changed the clause. I was planning to read the list later that day to see
if what others have and had to say about that and if it is something to
partisipate in as a whole. I was quite surprised about the activity going
on already. (I guess i have to log on more often from now on.)
During that day Willy skyped me and brought me up to speed on real facts.
So i went ahead and read through this mess.
I am not new to donating artwork usage for a good cause and am usually
open for that under certain conditions. Especially usage, duration and
presentation being top concerns. In a case like this, a stationary
cylindrical projection, a repurposing of media is required. Not every
subject lends itself to do that. The physical image ratio changes
drastcally and changes the the objective of the art creation. It is
imperative in such a case that the creator is involved. If not, it is a
blunt insult and disrespectful beyond measure, in my opinion.
From what i could see from evidence and technical facts all media has been
repurposed to cylindrical projecton and a arbitrary new horizon has been
established. The crop ratio is far to high for equirectangular projects.
Especially for candid close up subjects. The ratio presented (9:1) is less
then a quarter of each EQ panorama. Moving the horizon out of center due
to subject crop will result in a distorted projection. As it is evidend in
some panos from Willys video. Some artwork gets a weird impression because
of faulty projections (curving up or down due to horizon shifts).
I am appalled by their behaviour and attempt to ignore the fact that they
have abused artwork and artist recognition. For some of the projections i
would not be proud to put my name on it, because it has been altered by an
amateur technician obeying to clients demands. This whole project might be
claimed non commercial, but it is clearly not. Suppliers are commercial
and are using this as credit to produce and commercially create a product
with it essentially and eventually, if not already.
Carl's initiation about usage fee use sounds a good idea to me, just to
make a point. This is huge, make no mistake. They have a lot to loose now,
beeing in the media and all. Also suppliers affiliated with this will
suffer from it. Knowing about it or not does not help. WWP content has
been abused before and the latest before that was a russian travel site
using all of the content putting their logo on every movie!
I have written them about abuse, but never got a response and could not
find further evidence, so i thought they desisted from it.
I think it is a good idea to take some action now. First i would propose
to lock up the qtvrs on the site. The kiosk mode beeing "false" invites
many people to download the movie and gives a false impression of its
further useage. This needs to stop.
I know it will not prevent theft, but raises the barrier bar and its
intent to download to a much higher level.
People dont read the fine prints. Abuse warnings need to be with the
credit line, unfortunately.
Further I propose 2 usage fees for settlement to be put in a fund for WWP
issues and donations (like some toys for Don, Landis and Markus for
compensation).
1st: a fee for images used in the past and damages done for a cease and
desist order, or
2nd: fees for images used until to day and in the future for further
presentation.
I would prefer the 2nd option first, just to show good will and give them
the chance to get back out of the corner they are in right now and further
support this technology project, conditions to be applied. Cooperation and
consultations with artists and experts from our knowlege pool is highly
encouraged and recommended. As some evidence shows, they could use it too.
I also would propose an action panel to deal with them on wwp contributors
behalves:
I,ll start with:
Yuval Levy
Carl von Einem
Willy Kaemena
Anybody any thoughts on that?
Thats all for now.
Cheers, Milko