wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Milko's suggestion - I agree together is better - nt
Bo Lorentzen 2008-May-27 13:40:00
Sent from my iPhone
On May 27, 2008, at 6:20 AM, "Milko Amorth" <#removed#> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------
> The World-Wide Panorama
>
> For more information:
> -Visit the web site at http://GeoImages.Berkeley.edu/wwp.htmlYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>