Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements Media Movies

Creative Commons Moving Images Winners 99

Posted by michael from the kudos-and-salutations dept.
ArcRiley writes "The winners have been announced for the contest that Creative Commons launched last fall to deliver their ``some rights reserved'' message with a short video. Congratulations to Justin Cone, Sheryl Seibert, and Kuba & Alek Tarkowski for their winning videos!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creative Commons Moving Images Winners More

Creative Commons Moving Images Winners

Comments Filter:

  • oscars (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 )
    Not to be confused with those other awards being handed out right now... By the way, I just love how the techies get their own little Oscar ceremony, complete with Jennifer Garner. It's almost as if they're teasing us nerds with women of such calibre.

  • Now to get this kind of stuff out in the public (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lavalyn ( 649886 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:44AM (#8426454) Homepage Journal
    Too bad it's impossible considering how television is financed and broadcast. It'd be such an irony to see these videos (they're pretty good) broadcast over HDTV, with the no-copy flag on.

  • Marketing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gid13 ( 620803 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:45AM (#8426457)
    It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens.
    1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow.
    2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.

    I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.

  • Are they actually playable? (Score:3, Informative)

    by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:45AM (#8426460) Homepage Journal
    Before I download the files (over a 56k dialup), does anyone know if the .mov files are actually playable with a Free Software player?

    I'd expect Lessig to mandate that this commons content be in a non-proprietary format - or at the very least, a proprietary format that has been widely reverse engineered. Playing .mov files is hit and miss for me. sometimes no sound, or the picture appears in the top right corner of the viewer, or... Anyway: can someone confirm/deny that these are viewable? thanks.

    • *Confirmed* (Score:5, Informative)

      by (1337) God ( 653941 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:48AM (#8426470)
      They work fine for me (Red Hat Fedora kernel with all critical updates installed, ATI video card, Altec-Lansing sound card, etc.).

      Too bad you don't have broadband though 'cause they're fairly large.

    • The 2nd and 3rd Ones (Score:5, Informative)

      by magnum3065 ( 410727 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:53AM (#8426488)
      worked for me. Unfortunately the 1st place entry crashed both Mplayer and Totem.

      • Re:The 2nd and 3rd Ones (Score:5, Informative)

        by dieman ( 4814 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:56AM (#8426498) Homepage
        You'll need to use '-vc qtsvq3'
        • Hey, thanks it works great now. Ah, the wonderful quirks of OSS. Fortunately there's usually someone who's had the same problem and knows how to fix it.

          • Re:Thanks for the Help (Score:5, Insightful)

            by IgnoramusMaximus ( 692000 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @02:56AM (#8427172)
            Fuck, man, I just double click the file and it opens.

            No you dont. First you download QuickTime and make sure you got up to date codecs. Then you go clicking on things. The poster above, on the other hand, had all he needed but didnt know how to turn it on. That does not make your environment in any way superior. Just different.

            The mplayer is one of the most sophisticated and powerful media players, capable of playing so many formats on so many devices that it makes Windows based playback tools look silly by comparison. But it does require a bit of know-how.

            • First you download Quicktime

              So.. mplayer just appears on your computer automagically? then you make sure you got up to date codecs

              No, QuickTime auto-updates. Can you say the same about mplayer? or do you have to go and download updates when a new version comes out?

              It is true that mplayer is powerful but like you say, it involves considerable knowhow. (and I don't know if things have got better but until recently basically involved compiling yourself whenever you wanted to install it, along with grabbi

              • If you are on Debian its as simple as:

                apt-get install mplayer

                which then goes off and downloads and installs/updates it for you. You just need a right source in your /etc/apt/sources.list. Other distributions have their RPM based packages whith their respective automatic update methods. Some come with mplayer already installed by default.

                In this case I don't see how you can claim it is superiour to quicktime.

                Unlike QuickTime which plays QuickTime formats well and the rest lousilly or not at all, mplayer

              • > "...I don't see how you can claim it is superiour to quicktime"

                *Anything* is superior to a product that subverts control of my system's
                file-assocations without asking me and refuses to relinquish them. I'll
                never install quicktime again in my life.

                I don't even bother downloading quicktime movies any more, and
                I'm *fricking stunned* that the CC people would post
                this stuff using quicktime!!
              • Or for the redhat crowd...

                yum -y install mplayer

                Presto, your done.

    • Re:Are they actually playable? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArcRiley ( 737114 ) <arcriley@gmail.com> on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:17AM (#8426576)
      Got one better for you. The second place video, "Mixtape", is available in Ogg Theora format here [xiph.org] courtesy her brother (who's involved with Xiph). If anyone can get the first video to play please publish how. I've been unable to get it to play with either MPlayer or Xine.
      • This is the first Theora file I've tried, but it doesn't seem to be too hot quality-wise. I sort of hoped for more, but I will grant that it's still alpha.

        I can't get the first one to play at all either.

        • Re:Are they actually playable? (Score:4, Informative)

          by ArcRiley ( 737114 ) <arcriley@gmail.com> on Monday March 01, 2004 @05:39AM (#8427640)
          Note that these are transcoded. That means that you get the loss of the original plus the loss of Theora. A few of us put them together last minute because so many people were having trouble viewing the ones on creative common's website..

          Ogg Theora is actually very close to beta release. It's still VP3.2 with no improvements beyond adding flexibility for future improvements. The goal of this is that files made with Beta-1 will be viewable by any future player, making it suitable for archival use, but as beta's progress more optimisations will be made making it both faster and higher quality.

          Once again, the URL to download the Ogg Theora versions of these videos, for those using Free Software media players, is http://xiph.org/~arc/CreativeCommons-OggTheora.tor rent [xiph.org]

          • Ah, ok. I should have thought it might be something along those lines.

            At any rate, the files in the torrent look a lot better. Well, things like text are blurrier, but there aren't the annoying scanline-like distortions and choppy frames. Thanks!
        • One thing to keep in mind also is that the raw footage was pretty poor quality. We shot this video over the course of 5 days using a very abused DV cam that was one of the cheapest on the market 3 years ago. By all reports in various forums, it should have died a year ago.

          Fortunately, Sheryl won a better camera out of the deal, so we'll see if that improves picture quality in the future. :) (Too bad she didn't win the G5. The Final Cut render time is painfully long on her iMac.)

    • Re:Are they actually playable? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They play without a hitch in Media Player Classic [sourceforge.net].

      -- paper
    • If you're using Windows Media Player, you can download the quicktime codec (as well as Real) from here:

      http://a3.edskes.com/quicktimealt122.exe

      Quicktime

      http://a1.edskes.com/r/realalt111.exe

      Real

      --Xan

    • Free Software playable versions of videos avail. (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArcRiley ( 737114 ) <arcriley@gmail.com> on Monday March 01, 2004 @03:59AM (#8427378)
      We just put together a set of videos (transcoded, so lower quality than origs) for those who don't want to use non-free software to view them. You'll need a BitTorrent client and a fairly recent (post-November) copy of libtheora, as they're encoded with Ogg Theora [theora.org].

      This one .torrent [xiph.org] will download all three videos and a README explaining how to view them.

    • I purposely made the Quicktime files for "Mix Tape" use MPEG4 and not Sorenson for this very reason. As many other people in this thread have pointed out, they work with mplayer as long as you have ffmpeg and faad support linked in (and you don't care about patents).

  • (CC) (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ElliotLee ( 713376 )
    Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?

    • Re:(CC) (Score:4, Informative)

      by magnum3065 ( 410727 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:00AM (#8426508)
      Authority? Well, I guess you could say they get it from the people, and the copyright system. Similar the the GPL and LGPL, these are just licensed drawn up by people with knowledge of the law and an interest in promoting freedom. If you're interested in distributing a copyrighted creation and allowing other people certain freedoms in using your work, these are well-crafted licenses that aim to meet your intentions, so you don't have to learn the legalese to make your own license.

    • Re:(CC) (Score:5, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:13AM (#8426550)
      Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?

      They're a self-appointed authority. But when you think about it, all of the GPL advocates are too.

      They're basically a non-profit that has the main idea that there can be many licenses that exist between full-on copyright protection and public domain, and the GPL is only one of them. Their main licenses are comprised of letting the author make four binary choices and giving them a fully written-out license that matches those decisions, and they have a few offshoot licenses as well such as one called "Founder's Copyright" which is an agreement to release your work under the public domain after 14 or 28 years of full protection instead of the 95 years that the law otherwise grants, and the CC-GPL which is the based on the official GPL with the addition of the metadata and translation features they offer with their other licenses. They also do the same with the LGPL to create the CC-LGPL

      They also advocate a metadata standard for license conditions that in the future will hopefully lead to a contrent-creator-aimed search engine that allows people to search for available works that can be dropped into their own works.

      It's really a group that understands that the GPL isn't perfect, and allows for anybody who wants to splinter from it from any good reason to create a new license that doesn't have that attribute.

    • Re:(CC) (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:54AM (#8426882)
      Wow, I hadn't heard of Creative Commons before. What do they get their authority from?

      GOD

  • obligatory /. joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by NotAnotherReboot ( 262125 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:50AM (#8426476)
    And congratulations to slashdot for giving the winners huge, unexpected bills for bandwidth!

  • Use the source, luke, use the source. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cyt0plas ( 629631 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:50AM (#8426480) Journal
    A number of the clips use clips from (or at least available in the) Prelinger Archives [archive.org].

    All of these videos require you to attribute their work should you build on it. It would be nice if they would provide credit to their sources as well (although, as public domain, they are not required to).

  • Why did they have to pick share-alike? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @12:53AM (#8426487)
    I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.

    One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.

    But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.

    Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...
    • I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants.

      Considering the motivation behind the Creative Commons organisation, I'd be a little surpirised if they didn't.

      Besides, to license the "Mix Tape" video under anything other than a ShareAlike license would have been a little too ironic.

    • From the original poster:

      It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do.

      Minor quibble, but it's important enough to be stated. GPL'd works are under full copyright (to use your phrase). There are simply certain additional, relatively major rights that are granted if you accept certain additional, relatively minor responsibilities.

      You are still welcome and encouraged to ignore the GPL and use the standard rights that are granted

      • Minor quibble, but it's important enough to be stated. GPL'd works are under full copyright (to use your phrase). There are simply certain additional, relatively major rights that are granted if you accept certain additional, relatively minor responsibilities.

        That's not the way that CC defines "full copyright". CC likes to call all of their licenses (of which the GPL is one of them, with extra surronding features in a package they call CC-GPL) as a copyright with "some rights reserved" as compared to some
    • I'm surprised you're upset about share-alike and not at all annoyed by the non-commercial restrictions on the movies. Given the large number of activities that can be interpreted as commercial, it seems like the far more restrictive attribute, one not even found in the GPL.

      I think the true genius of the GPL is that it helped move hordes of developers who were formerly in the "non-commercial shareware" camp into the far more productive and revolutionary "share-alike" camp (with no non-commercial attribute

    • "Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes"

      Actually there are only 11 licenses because some of those binary attributes are incompatible. Like "share-alike", which is what they call copyleft, the "viral" part of the GPL, which forces derivative works to have the same license; and "noDerivs" which forbids derivative works completely.

      If copyleft "infects" derivative works, then noDerivs abort

    • Re:Why did they have to pick share-alike? (Score:4, Informative)

      by volsung ( 378 ) <stan@mtrr.org> on Monday March 01, 2004 @08:44AM (#8428045)
      In our case (Mix Tape), we selected the Share-Alike license because that was the license selected by Jim's Big Ego for the "Mix Tape" song we used. That made our choice pretty straightforward.
      • Guilty here - Jim from the band Jim's Big Ego. We presented our entire cd under - Share Alike Attribution NonCommercial License. Then I think I put Mix Tape up alone under Share Alike Attribution only - I used to think music and software were sort of the same - but as the discussion ripens, I don't think they are any more. I think loops and beats are, but not so much whole songs. - Jim

  • Field order (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hoplite3 ( 671379 )
    It looks like all of the clips have the wrong field order in their interlacing leading to jaggies around moving objects.

    Anyway, I really liked the third place entry more than the second. It had a lot more information, if a bit fast paced. I found the second place entry confusing with loud lyrics and text on the screen simultaniously.

  • MIRROR (Score:4, Informative)

    by parkanoid ( 573952 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:02AM (#8426515)
    Here's a (hopefully) fast mirror for your enjoyment:
    One [onlinehome.us]
    Two [onlinehome.us]
    Three [onlinehome.us]

    (Should finish uploading in a sec, be patient)

  • Bring on the artists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nmoog ( 701216 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:03AM (#8426518) Homepage Journal
    Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter. Art wants to be free. Software wants to be free. What a happy combination.

    Now, we need to get those converted artists and get them making linux a little easier on the eyes! Although, you'd want to be careful about which artists [1111111111...111111.com] helped out....
    • Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter.
      Interesting that this is your experience with artists. My experience with musicians is just the opposite. They can't seem to think outside the Napster/Kazaa box. To them, free==piracy.

      • Re:Bring on the artists (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nmoog ( 701216 )
        Yes, well there are musicians [metallica.com] and there are musicians who are artists [warprecords.com]. You'd have to consider which type of musicians you have encountered in your experience.

        Metallica has spoken out about their views of free==piracy, where has Aphex Twin has spoken out and said he couldnt give a shit if you took his whole album and released it under a different name. Not all musicians are artists. (and to be fair, not all artists are any good :)

      • Re:Bring on the artists (Score:4, Interesting)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:45AM (#8426834)
        The way to explain the Creative Commons system to a music artist is this: There are other artists out there who need source material to use in their works, but don't have the money to pay you right now. If you release your song under a CC Attribution and No Commercial Use license, fans can listen to you and movie makers might be able to include you in their early films. However, if that movie maker finally gets a hit and wants to make money with their early film that used you, they've got to come back to you and buy the rights then. If a radio station wants to play your song, they have to at least contact you to get your permission. It's giving other artists at the same level a way to audition for partners so that a collective work.

        Record labels angle to get their artists into movies not for the royalty money, but because being used in a hit movie can bring attention to an otherwise unknown artist. Artists perform for free on talk shows to promote themselves. If you're not bundled in with something somebody's already paying attention to, how's anybody going to notice you?

        Of course, the closed label-system presently shuns anybody who has already distributed their work by bypassing them because they fear the first recording star who launches into the "big time" without a label contract...
  • The egovos.org site is powered by [egovos.org] Zope [zope.org]. Let's see how she stands up to a Slashdotting. Any bets?

  • Mix Tape (Score:2, Informative)

    by kjoonlee ( 226243 )
    Congratulations, to the winners! Congratulations to Sheryl Seibert for her Mix Tape movie!

    You can download the music for her video, for free, from Jim's Big E-Shop. [bigego.com]
  • Since 2 of the 3 winning images are provided as an Apple QuickTime movie file, does that mean there is now an unencumbered open source QuickTime player?

    Did I miss something?

  • very cool (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sdibb ( 630075 ) on Monday March 01, 2004 @01:47AM (#8426842)
    I watched both of the movies on their website and I thought they were really cool, and explained things very well. I finally "got it" on a lot of points, as far as the effects of a standard copyright, and the flexibility that a Creative Commons License offers.

    Best of all, now when I explain this stuff to someone else, their eyes won't have to glaze over as I try to extol the merits of free (as in freedom) -- instead I can just say "Here, watch these cool three-minute videos" and that does all the work. :)
  • (you know, the dude behind Lindows)

    What better way to try to make yourself look important than by holding your little tiny inconsequential awards ceremony right before the Academy Awards.

    I'll give you points for chutzpah though.
  • I'm having difficulties getting a fast connection from the site (surprise surprise). Can somebody please give in depth summaries of all three so that we can have some idea whats worth downloading? Thanks.

  • ...that commercial outfits [magnatunes.com] are starting to crop up that take advantage of the CC licence's flexibility.

    I only hope we'll start seeing more places like this, and they'll rise in popularity.

  • Wow (Score:1)

    by Agret ( 752467 )
    The winner easily deserved to win, the other 2 were way below the level of quality. I did not not like the third one at all and didn't quite understand the second one.

  • 'Fall' (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zsau ( 266209 )
    Seasons describe weather conditions, and differ around the world. Time is described using words like 'Monday' or 'January', and are constant (at least in secular english-speaking contexts). I shouldn't need to know what continent you're on...

  • Open Media for Linux PDAs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wehe ( 135130 ) <<gro.libomxut> <ta> <ehew>> on Monday March 01, 2004 @05:48AM (#8427662) Homepage Journal
    The CreativeCommons GetContent [creativecommons.org] page contains a huge list of media. But what I am looking for is content, which fits to a Linux PDA [tuxmobil.org] like the SHARP Zaurus series. Are there eBooks, AudioBooks [tuxmobil.org] and movies [tuxmobil.org], especially designed for small computers? BTW: Though there are many sites, which offer free mobile cell phone logos and ringtones, are there any logos [tuxmobil.org] and ringtones [tuxmobil.org] available under the Creative Common Licenses [creativecommons.org] or the GPL [fsf.org]?
  • Catchy song, but I must confess I didn't get the video at all at first. I had to watch it two or three times before I realized the common element in the various scenes was thepair of jeans). So I'm guessing the "message" of the video was something along the lines of "What if music/media was as easy to buy/sell/rip/mix/reuse as old denim"??

    Anyway, I think the message would be much more clear if the video was done in black-and-white with the denim the only thing in color. Then it would be easier to follow
  • Anyone else get the feeling that there weren't many people who entered? I love creative commons, but I do not think that these videos are very impressive.

    -Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
  • Hmm - are these going to be aired as ads or anything? If so, they should probably fix the fact that they meant "lets", not "let's" in the first one...

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close