Party Video 2016

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

ALB wrote:

I don't think there is any danger of TV companies going after us, but the chances are increased as long as we keep publicising this possibility…..

I agree, it should neve have been raised in the first place. Can't think why it should have been.

Oh, but I can.  It was included as one of the "other concerns", expressed by the May 2016 EC, which arose from misleading and selective information given by those with clearly 'an axe to grind'.

[ALB]

The point did need to be raised but a rather more discreetly.

[lindanesocialist]

An AV committee member has shown the Video  to a friend  with 30 years experience with the BBC in  Journalism and commercial video production and sympathetic to our case.He said that he   was very impressd with the production quality, he thought the video was very well put together and that there really wasn't that much he could add to it that would justify the cost of doing it.The EC described the video  as "generally unprofessional and clichéd presentation such as that it is ineffective in getting the socialist case across. For example among other things the use of overly “dramatic” music, the appearance of cartoon capitalists…." I cannot understand or explain such a contrast of opinion. 

[lindanesocialist]

The same questions are appearing on spintcom etc. So I have compiled this list and hope it covers most questions. Feel free to add The Video An Introduction to the World Socialist Movement 1.     Produced while Vin  was a member of the AV committee, and elected by NERB branch to produce videos, open twitter accounts etc.2.     Vin did not request nomination to the AV committee3.     Used material already on Party websites4.     Used free stock photos, hence ‘cartoon capitalists’5.     Used music paid for by Vin was produced  over a long period during which many members were consulted on the party’s various sites6.     There are already copyright videos by BBC etc on ‘official’ party sites that have noy been sanctioned by the EC.7.     Unlike any other video, blog, website, Facebooks, it went through the democratic channels and processes by seeking EC ratification8.     Claims that it is ‘unprofessional’.  An individual with 30 years experience producing videos for the BBC and others said the video was very good and the cost of adding any improvements would not be worth the expense9.     At least 20 members on line have ‘liked’ and have been positive about the video. Including members from  three Companion parties.10.                        The EC first rejected it, then requested change and finally rejected the amended product.  

[alanjjohnstone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGtO60EzC6QA very effective video in my very humble opinion and i imagine not too difficult to make with the right computer software. Probably quite easy in fact. We could do extracts from Marx, Engel, Morris or whoever, suitable short extract of their more flowery speeches or writings But better still, even long dead and gone SPGBers if we have adequate pictures to animate. Fitzgerald and Anderson and the likes alive once more, giving the socialist case. Truly re-animated. We could even improve on the video example by using a few different pictures.  Just require someone with a clear narrator's voice and accent no problem if we know how they sounded. Anderson was a Scot, wasn't he? Surely no copyright issues Maybe even trying matching existing audio tape of late members to their photos. Resurrecting the dead, so to speak. I know i won't follow it up…i know nobody else will…just an idea that will not be acted upon and not even discussed by those with the resources to organise it. I'm sure there are folk who know the ideal articles to narrate…or the exact excerpt from a tape we could re-use…

[ALB]

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but someone has posted in another section here that the BBC are charging £1000 for every minute of material from their archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/dennis-skinner-filmDon't know if it's the case. Hope not.

[lindanesocialist]

ALB wrote:

Don't know if it's the case. Hope not.

Me too. could land the party with a large bill. But the SPGB cant be charged for the Intro Video as it was disowned by the EC. That bill would be sent to VinTell you the truth, I don't think it  refers to a video of yourself. Tim's friend is in a good position to advise the party

[Young Master Smeet]

ALB wrote:

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but someone has posted in another section here that the BBC are charging £1000 for every minute of material from their archives:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/production/articles/archive-rights-clearancesAnd, more relevently:http://www.bbcmotiongallery.com/

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but someone has posted in another section here that the BBC are charging £1000 for every minute of material from their archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/dennis-skinner-filmDon't know if it's the case. Hope not.

If this also applies to BBC footage of party members being interviewed or of candidates speaking at hustings then further investigation may well be prudent.  Material that falls into those categories has been in the 'public domain' for years predating any use by the Audio-Visual Committee.

[ALB]

lindanesocialist wrote:

But the SPGB cant be charged for the Intro Video as it was disowned by the EC.

Lucky they did it then, like we used to disown, for the record, members caught bill-posting

[HollyHead]

“To license any BBC content for education projects, please visit BBC Worldwide Learning.
Contact us for more information.”

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/footage/bbcmotiongallery#

Registration required.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

But the SPGB cant be charged for the Intro Video as it was disowned by the EC.

Lucky they did it then, like we used to disown, for the record, members caught bill-posting

But that's not quite what happened, is it?[quote-May 2016 EC]MOTION 9. (Scholey and McLellan): “The EC disassociates itself on behalf of the Party from the clips off YouTube and elsewhere produced and published by cde V. Maratty for reasons of lack of prior consultation with the EC and unauthorised use of Party emblems.”Carried 8 – 0[/quote] (emphasis added)The clips referred to had, in fact, already been uploaded by party members onto YouTube and elsewhere, some of them as early as 2012, but nobody raised any objections until May 2016.As for the "unauthorised use of Party emblems", just one month later the EC issued the following edict:-

June 2016 EC wrote:

It was agreed to ask the Acting General Secretary to write to branches and committees to ask them to use the Party logo as voted.

(emphasis added)

[lindanesocialist]

 Thanks for pointing that out Comrade. Members appear to be focused on one single video which is basically a compilation of videos ALREADY used by the party.  ALREADY uploaded to party sites. Where do these members think Vin obtained the footage?From the SPGB!  I don't know how many times  this point has to be repeated before it sinks in. 

[lindanesocialist]

Upon further research and investigations : The good news is that the Intro Video has only one branded clip (Adam) which was filmed at head office. The other clips are unbranded and the rest of the Video is in the clear  The bad news is the EC needs to urgently disassociate the party from this website and the party’s Youtube site as they are both packed with branded material and could possibly cause problems for us

[jondwhite]

Branded is not the equivalent of copyrighted. Everything newly created is copyrighted unless declared otherwise whether branded or unbranded.

[Author]

Posts