Tag Archive for 'UGC'

emphermal online video

emphermal media - Internet Attractions: online video and user-generated ephemera

Conference and call for papers:

The first workshop in the series focuses on user-generated ephemera, in particular the proliferation of online video. The emerging digital
media environment has created new opportunities for user-generated content to achieve broad distribution and so create a public of users.
This has been typified, and enabled, by recent phenomena such as YouTube. The fleeting and competing nature of user-generated content
has placed particular emphasis on the role of media performance - what can be understood broadly as a display of communicative competence for assessment by an audience. The workshop will examine the status and significance of user-generated ephemera (in particular online video)
and the kinds of performance inscribed herein.

http://www.beyondtext.ac.uk/

The Beyond Text strategic programme…identified visual communication, sensory perception, orality and material culture as key concerns for 21st century scholarship and the wider community.

Pool notes (lecture John Jacobs)

John Jacobs a co-producer of the POOL did a guest lecture for IM2 yesterday.It was inspiring to hear from one of the producers on this project, which included some of the more specific processes that the ABC as a public broadcasters are going through in order to engage with social media.

Following is my perspective, notes and ideas that where generated by this presentation. The POOL is an R&D initiative for the ABC and is being built around a philosophy of open content and open source.

In relation to specifics I was interested in work being done around licensing and the site default setting of the most restrictive Creative Commons license. Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). It is good to see these license options including all rights reserved and public domain. Blip tv for example runs the same options and is known in the online video domain to be far more respectful of licensing than YouTube for example. Also, the ABC seem to be working hard to create an even playing field with the content providers where any rights over content on the POOL is reduced to a minimum.

The key here seems to be about respecting attribution with the POOL also looking at how they can track content right through to a remix. A process of geotagging which is starting to be reflected in the metadata that is being added to content as it is uploaded. Correcting this geotagging is a concept the POOL would like to look into down the track. The current tracking and tagging of content is included in the drupal upload form. Operating on another level below content tagging there seems to be a method of classification being used to work out what and who uploaded content in terms of the author and specifics of that content. The Drupal system provides the functionality needed to create these types of automated processes with users and very specific forms. In the content tagging on uploading content onto POOL having default categories to chose from creates a delineated type of categorisation in combination with more user-generated type approaches. Drupal signalling may also be worked in over time. A functionality that responds to individual users engagement with the site.

Jacobs pointed out that a remix, a derivative work can in the context of the POOL and further publication on other ABC platforms, be created by as little as adding fade in and outs. It is useful to acknowledge that a subtle change like this to someone’s content could constitute a remix. The POOL has used a .org domain name http://www.pool.org.au/ to reorientate this intiative into the non-proft arena and create some simpatico with open content/opens source communities.

Questioned on gatekeeping and editorial control of content added to the POOL, Jacobs explained that they are working with social media mechanisms that encourage the users to be involved in this process. Where users get to flag what they see as being problem content and at the same time comment on what they consider to be good. The idea is to work on a bottom-up approach where the good material floats forward. There are plans to add a forum, for example.

Also, an aim with the architecture is to create cross-referencing systems that let people see related content. A similar aim in the video blogging community that I have written about in the post hammering vlogs. Jacobs described how the POOL producers had contacted a couple of people who had submitted works, with suggested alterations due to sensitive issues in these pieces. A subtle form of gatekeeping compared to pulling the content off all together.

In fact what I find interesting is the relationship the POOL is setting up with ABC prosumers through specific call outs. People submitting content can get feedback on their work from experienced media producers. From a teirtary education perspective this is where the POOL offers something different, providing a link between the ABC and students/teachers engaged in media training. In the past the ABC as public broadcaster and university media departments generally operate in islolation from each other, apart from traditional work placements. Having the potential to develop dialogue between professional media producers and students around content and social media offers a more level situation for both parties to learn from each other.

The other thing I picked up on is the way the call outs are run to get the public interested in contributing content. Jacobs was reluctant to call these ‘comptetitions’ and I agree with him when you see the way this term has been used and applied by a number of social media sites to generate content and solicit traffic . I also see the competition idea relating too much with the big brother/pop idol mentality of TV where there is always a loser and a winner. I think the idea of there being a best work in a user-generated environment dissolves to a large degree, with the focus shifting to what is relevant for the user and what they are interested in specifically. This goes against the YouTube or Google search process of whatever has the most contact with users rises to the top.

Also, the project ‘call outs’ on the POOL in most cases are targeted around specific ABC programs with the idea that they may generate content for those programs. Like ‘My Street’ for example, the POOL call out and the Radio National program ‘Street Stories‘. Even though this is a radio program the POOL decided to run with all types of rich media in response to these call outs, rather than just audio in this example. I was interested to know whether a photo, writing or a video submitted to this call out was taken up for adaption in some way by the Street Stories producers, as there is the potential to uncover all sorts of stories when a program brief is opened up to the public. There is so many successful examples of user-generated content being driven around very specific constrained briefs. i.e squared circle on flickr.

Another idea is whether the content uploaded around this theme/callout could be curated into other types of public media. For example a short series of videos for ABC 2; A photo gallery of images that shifts to the Street Stories website making a direct connection between the POOL and the Radio National program. In an online environment there are many ways to look at what might constitute public broadcasting and direct publishing. Finally, what might eventuate is scenarios where the public come up with program ideas in reverse. Like what has been happening on open source radio.

XML notes for VD

What did I pick up from the XML Melbourne Lab feedback?

The VD system was described as a “taxonomy of display.” A “recombinant video player.” There was confusion “Is it a content engine or a tag engine? Could we provide clearer context.

Another called it “Anti-TV…the opposite of YouTube…not a lot in the house” and an example that contradicts all the noise on the Internet through its slowness and stripped back minimal design.

Multi-window viewing

The ability for a number of people in different locations to see varying news perspectives at the same time. The multi-window composition creates the opportunity for multiple perspectives to be viewed at the same time. The viewer can make their own judgments on that news item by engaging across a number of perspectives concurrently.

Also, there is the potential to respond to the concept of multi-tasking. Why aren’t there more systems that allow users to view multiple clips at the same time as a way of searching and deciding what they want to watch? Makes sense speeds up consumption. I think people are ready for this type of viewing but we are still locked into the security of one window viewing due to established cinematic and TV paradigms.

In a multi-window format with data increased a combination of stills and video could be used where photojournalistic type images come to life for short periods with audio overlays. An example www.mediastorm.org.

Overall, the multi-window aspect is what made the VD system unique. In comparsion, tagging is something that is growing fast around online video content.

Live streaming

Of course sport also came up. The slow cricket match playing in the left hand screen while other sports stream through other windows. Activities like sports can easily be watched at the same time as viewers wait for highlights the goal to be scored etc. The Olympics to die for in this system. Delayed edited broadcast another option, along with multi-camera curation except you see all the cameras. This tied in with live VJ gigs and music concerts.

References – jw media player; long tail video; bits on the run; mogulus live broadcast; yahoo live; ustream.tv

Granularity - Semantic Video

Following up the idea of fragmenting existing TV programs for web publication the www.abc.net.au/fourcorners TV documentary program provides excerpts with duration times for viewers to access independently. But there seems to be a far as I can tell, no extras like out takes, extended interviews and other background. Also, the material seems to rely on previous program viewing with little focus on taxonomy, classifying under themes and categories.

A viewing platform with thumbnail similarities www.piclens.com a type of fly through viewing image-videowall but the clips remain separate as discrete independent pieces of content.

In a fast moving environment where time is of essence one person argued that time should not be invested in classification - taxonomy of online video content. The approach should be UGC instead where users make their own folksonomy type choices. An example is the vmark system. Here the idea is to leave long duration recordings and let users break the material up into whatever fragments they choose, with the option to embed and share those portions with themselves and others. (I need to try it out to confirm this perception) A Korean example of vmark - http://zzim.kbs.co.kr/section/ . A key objective is to get return traffic back to the original source material using metadata.

Discussions on UCG tagging and machine-enabled automatic tagging on the fly also led to the sphinx-4 and a research project happening at University Wollongong as part of the Smart research group.

But, the concept of the content producer avoiding having to classify video content manually misses the point in relation to VD. Because the idea is to construct specific relationships between text and moving-imagery as way to provide certain types of context for the viewer/user.

UGC content

A UGC idea where individuals capture material around Australai on the premise of classification rather than editing. These are single shots (no edits) but there could be jump cuts in camera, which are categorised and tagged. An approach that ties in easily with amateur online production techniques to shoot and publish directly online. (via a computer or direct from mobile etc) i.e. qik Many amateur producers struggle with more advanced editing but are becoming familiar with tagging and folksonomy practices. There could be themes where the content that is uploaded is synidcated into one central VD system for display under specific categories (themes that have been worked out in advance).

Re-mix is another consideration, particulary across multiple windows. Not only are users open to remix there own version (a standard single-window video) but also users could remix across multiple windows. It becomes more like a DJ turntable combining audio and vision from multiple sources at the same time.

Added social networking functions

How could the VD player become a type of widget that allows a webpage to include other social networking functions like the example www.netvibes.com about:

Netvibes lets individuals assemble their favorite widgets, websites, blogs, email accounts, social networks, search engines, instant messengers, photos, videos, podcasts, and everything else they enjoy on the web - all in one place.

Some people loved the simplicity of the player (as it contradicted the visual overload of most web pages and players). Others where dying to get stuff back in there where the video component is supported with components that develop and maintain community. I discussed this earlier when comparing the motives behind Showinabox and how we stripped most of the web 2.0 blog functionalities out. View2gether is an example of a “social viewing platform” and freebase.

Returning to single window output

There was a number of people who wanted to be able to take away a traditional single edited video clip from the system as an option. This got me thinking about the divide we have created between the VD system and standard viewing practices. LIke creative commons currently considers the established status quo of traditional copyright until things move toward a more open approach. Maybe there is something in providing an additional single-window option. But a part of me also says NO, make the leap.

other reference - limelight networks

ABC Multiplatform

ABC Multiplatform Production is newly created division of ABC TV. The head of this division Dan Fill did the second keynote presentation. Fill manages as described in the program:

four strategic areas: Internet Broadcasting; Convergence Production; the development of ABC TV Communities, and the development of a contextual websites that support ABC TV programs on the Internet, on hand held devices and emerging platforms.

In Fills presentation he introduced of course the new recent ABC iView Player which his team had been working on 24/7 to meet the recent release date. After getting a taste of previous players presenters seemed quick to mention new and specific features. In this example not just catch-up TV but also watch on TV and digital bookmarking, along with the ability to send playlists to a friend. Fill presented 3 key “Me TV” areas:

Me TV - as content creator (mash up tools; collective contribution)
Me TV - as viewer
Me TV - as participant (multi-user creating content yourself; i.e storm hawks; ‘fanging it’)

fanging it is an example of the ABCs push to create UGC content through the creation of distinct communities.

Fanging It is an irreverent, high-energy, up-to-the-minute web/TV project celebrating all that’s unglamorous in the modern travel experience. Funded by the AFC and ABCTV, it’s a website and ABC2 series featuring real footage by real people of wild and wondrous Australian encounters. The on-air date for the series launch is early November.

XML XMedia Lab (Melbourne)

It was a busy 3 days attending the XML Media Lab in Melbourne “DIY TV”: Video, UGC, Mobile and IP TV content and services conference on the Friday and workshopping the Videodefunct (VD) project in the Lab over the weekend. I have taken a number of notes from the conference keynote speakers which I plan to blog soon. Also, there is many people and links to follow up from the LAB workshop which provided a lot of feedback and ideas towards the development of further VD research. Even though the overall focus of the event was commercial, this provided yet again another valuable perspective on VD. The commercial players and invited broadcasters are really aware of developments occurring around online video and how to articulate cleary the varying specificities of each of those areas. This pushed us to work on how we communicate what we are about and where we are heading.

Inteviews and coverage of the XMEDIA keynotes will be posted onto the Adikted ITV site managed by one of the keynote speakers Scott Bradley Pearce.