Australian Artists Upset That Australian Tourism Campaign Crowdsourced Images

from the overreact-much? dept

Reader mick writes in to alert us to a group of photographers in Australia who seem absolutely livid that the government's latest toursim campaign sought to crowdsource photographs that could be used as part of the campaign. To me, that seems like a perfectly reasonable idea -- in fact, a good idea in engaging people and getting them to take part in the campaign. But the problem comes from the fact that Tourism Australia asked people to let it use the photographs for free. That's when a bunch of groups went ballistic:

The National Association for the Visual Arts, the Australian Copyright Council and the Arts Law Centre of Australia are protesting the conditions.

They are demanding the agency relicense any photographs used in the campaign to pay royalties to the artists.

Let me get this straight. Even though the whole thing is completely optional, and photographers, who don't like the terms, have every right to just not participate, they're pissed off that others can participate -- of their own free will -- by letting the Tourism campaign use their photographs freely. If the photographers don't mind the terms, why should others? The reality is that these groups are trying to stomp out amateur competition. This whole hissy fit is about limiting the market to professionals, and keeping the amateurs out.

Arts Law Centre of Australia chief executive Robyn Ayres says the copyright rules set a "worrying precedent".

"The creative industries play a huge role in our economy and our culture," she said in a statement.

Of course the creative industries play a huge role in the economy and culture. But what does that have to do with willing participants letting the Tourism campaign use their images for free of their own free will?

"Refusing to license these photographic works in an appropriate way sends a message that it (government) does not value creative work in the same way as it values other economic assets."

No, it shows that the Tourism group realizes that some people are more than willing to contribute their works for free for reasons other than direct payment.

Filed Under: agreements, australia, crowdsourcing, free, royalties, tourism

Crowdsourced Project Relies On Fans For Rotoscoping A Johnny Cash Video

from the I-redraw-the-line dept

Digital artist Aaron Koblin has a fantastic knack for creating innovative, beautiful, fascinating works that merge the worlds of data and technology with art. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, he created The Sheep Market by commissioning 10,000 online workers each to draw a left-facing sheep. Ten Thousand Cents created a representation of a $100 bill, also drawn by 10,000 turkers. Now, he's back with a video project, and is creating a crowdsourced music video for Johnny Cash's song, "Ain't No Grave."

The Johnny Cash Project, as it's named, seeks to have every single frame of the music video redrawn by hand. Contributors can take advantage of the tools on the site, which greatly simplify the process of drawing a frame, though it's a little daunting for those with short-attention spans or limited graphical abilities. The drawn frames are then compiled into a constantly evolving version of the music video.

For true fans of Johnny Cash, it's a great opportunity for them to connect further with the late artist. And Koblin has put a lot of thought into making watching the video much more compelling and engaging than typical YouTube fare -- viewers can direct the video to use different frames based on a number of dimensions: rating, number of brush strokes, or a number of artistic styles like "realistic" or "dotted." It makes for a very rich experience; I've already watched the video a number of times. As we've said many times before, there are many opportunities for artists of all types to connect with their fans in new and interesting ways. In this case, Koblin's creativity has helped him to tap the imagination of and connect more deeply with his own fans, while also offering something compelling to fans of Johnny Cash's music, potentially expanding the fan base of both artists.

Filed Under: aaron koblin, art, crowdsourcing, johnny cash, music videos

Netflix Cancels Plans For New Netflix Prize As Part Of Privacy Lawsuit Settlement

from the careful-what-you-crowdsource dept

Netflix, of course, received tons of attention and (apparently) a lot of valuable research, with its Netflix prize competition, that allowed anyone to take a bunch of Netflix data and try to improve on Netflix's ranking algorithm. Of course, whenever you're dealing with "anonymized data" there are questions about whether or not it can really be anonymous. In nearly every case, someone figures out how to "re-nonymize" at least some of the data. And, of course, that also happened with the original Netflix Prize data. This was especially troubling for Netflix because of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 USC 2710, a special law that was passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork ran into some trouble when his movie rental lists were made public, which made it specifically illegal to reveal movie rental data. And thus... a lawsuit was born, late last year.

Netflix has announced that it has now settled the lawsuit, but as a part of that settlement it is canceling the plans it had announced for additional Netflix prizes. While the company can still do contests in the future, it will need to make sure that the data cannot be reconnected to an actual person, which may be quite difficult in practice. This does raise some interesting questions for other attempts to crowdsource research. There are certainly benefits to opening up data to a community of smart people -- but companies are going to need to be extra careful in those settings in dealing with privacy issues.

Filed Under: anonymize, crowdsourcing, data, movies, privacy
Companies: netflix

Lessons Learned From DARPA Balloon Challenge

from the it's-amazing-what-people-can-do dept

By now, you've probably heard that a team from MIT won the DARPA balloon challenge, whereby DARPA put 10 red balloons in the air around the country and wanted to see what people could do to find all 10 balloons. The rules were pretty loose, and the team at MIT took all of nine hours or so to locate all ten balloons, through an interesting "crowdsourcing" method. They basically quickly set themselves up as a clearinghouse of information, and made it easily shareable across different social networking platforms, and employed something of an affiliate program to encourage people to get their friends to sign up with the MIT team as well. If you signed up people who helped find the balloons, you got some of the prize money according to your friend network, and so on down through the social pyramid. The team claims that what was most important was the recursive nature of the pyramid, which gave people incentive to participate, even if they knew they couldn't find the balloons.

While some other DARPA challenges, like the autonomous vehicle challenge (to get a totally driverless vehicle to drive a few hundred miles with no help), are cool but seem limited in terms of application outside of the core area it was built for, this one actually does seem to hold a lot of useful lessons that can be picked up on right away, and which can be applied across a lot of different business, policy, IT, public good and many other areas. Some of the key elements:

• Recognize that there's power in numbers: Recognize that for certain projects, you need a lot of different minds (and eyes) working on things, and that certain tasks shouldn't just be done by "the one best" individual.
• Make it easy for more people to participate: Once you realize that you need a lot of people, you need to make it easy for them to participate.
• Give people multiple reasons to participate: Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to belong to a successful project or a leading team to bask in the glow. Others need additional types of incentive. The MIT team offered up monetary compensation in addition to recognition for participation.
• Give people a reason to get others involved: Sort of a corollary to recognizing the power in numbers, the MIT team worked hard to give people incentive not just to participate and to promote their participation, but also to recruit others to the team as well. This even made it so those who couldn't help finding the balloons directly could still participate in better finding the people who could find the balloons.
• Align incentives properly: Make sure that everyone is driving towards the same goal, and that the incentives work on top of one another to all push towards that same goal.
• Look beyond your immediate "group": One of the coolest things I thought about the MIT group was that there was nothing in there that limited it to MIT or the folks at MIT. They immediately recognized that it made the most sense to reach out to folks beyond their immediate circle, which is what helped them get the people they needed involved quickly.

Now, a lot of these may sound obvious, but it's often important to remind yourself of these basic concepts, and it's impressive to see how well (and how fast) these worked in the case of the MIT balloon team. I could see these lessons being applied in a lot of other areas as well. There is a separate issue that the team hasn't discussed yet, but promises to eventually: which is that it also had to deal with a number of bogus entries -- including at least some from a competing team trying to throw the MIT team off the scent. Finding out how they got around such problems would also be quite interesting in terms of better managing these sorts of group efforts.

Filed Under: balloons, challenge, crowdsourcing, darpa challenge, incentives, mit, teamwork

Crowdsourcing Doesn't Guarantee Quality... But It Can Be Great Advertising

from the to-crowdsource-or-not-to-crowdsource dept

Earlier this month, BBC Audiobooks America started an audiobook project based on Twitter messages where Neil Gaiman kicked off an exquisite corpse process of stringing together about 1,000 Tweets to forge a storyline. Dozens of Twitter users contributed tweets to be edited into a coherent plot that will be released as a free audiobook download. From this publicity stunt, an approximately 50-page book (or 2-hr audiobook, actually) has been created from Gaiman's fans. And presumably, the collection of tweets could also be remixed and edited -- and improved -- to possibly gain further participation from Gaiman (who contributed the first line of the story and will read aloud the completed audiobook) and the attention of any number of other authors. It's not exactly a brand-new idea to compose a story in this way, but it's a very interesting way to advertise and connect with fans to whet their appetites for more content to come (and even pay for).

However, the crowdsourcing aspect of this particular audiobook has been criticized in detail for exhibiting the worst of literary clichés as well as a meandering plot with too many characters and unresolved arcs. But generalizing this crowd's apparently unsatisfying result to all possible collaborative-author processes seems a bit disingenuous. Perhaps it's one of my pet peeves, but the schadenfreude surrounding crowdsourced works that aren't "as good as Shakespeare" seems to focus too much on some artificial failure, and not the potential or the realized successes. Maybe fiction isn't the best target for collaborative authorship, but the suggestion that collaborative writing won't ever work for good storytelling is far from proven. In fact, many popular stories (TV shows, etc) are written by teams of authors. (So the question could be posed: where does the optimal number of authors arise?) Conversely, the overwhelming number of unsuccessful stories written by single authors should not discourage writers from working alone, either. Bad stories happen.

The real triumph of this crowdwork is that this experiment engaged with its audience and promoted Gaiman and BBCAA for future works. From the BBC's perspective, a ton of content was generated largely for free, and a promotional audiobook was created in just a few days. Had the BBC commissioned a single author to compose a similar work, there wouldn't be any guarantees of a compelling book in the end. And working with a single author might require more complex licensing rights and royalties. So crowdsourcing this project sounds like an advertising coup -- generating a promotion appropriately disguised as free content. It's not Shakespeare, but it's a whole lot better than a banner ad, right?

Filed Under: advertising, crowdsourcing, neil gaiman

Could Redbox Crowdsource Its Way Around Movie Studio Blockades?

from the connecting-with-fans dept

Last week, we wrote about the legal battle Redbox is facing with some of the movie studios. Redbox, of course, rents DVDs at a $1/rental from vending machines that it places all over the place. Some of the studios are upset that (a) they don't get a cut of each rental and (b) that Redbox also sells those DVDs. So they've been trying to force Redbox to sign agreements that would give them a royalty cut and which would put limitations on Redbox -- such as not renting out videos until well after the DVDs are released and also having the company destroy, rather than sell DVDs when they were done renting them. Of course, the labels don't have much of a legal claim here. Redbox has every right to buy DVDs and to then rent them (right of first sale and all that). But, what at least some of the studios have done is to demand that DVD wholesalers not sell to Redbox, which certainly seems like a typical restraint of trade situation. In at least one case, a studio has also told downstream retailers, like Walmart and Best Buy not to sell to Redbox either.

Now, you might think that Redbox could just send employees into those stores without saying where they're from, but those stores probably don't carry enough stock for Redbox to buy enough DVDs efficiently. But what if they did something different? In the comments to that post last week, our rather insightful community started suggesting ways that Redbox could get around the sales blocks from studios by crowdsourcing the acquisition of movies.

There were a few different suggestions on how this could work, but the basic idea, presented by commenter "McBeese" laid out the basics:

• Consumers open online accounts with Redbox. The account contains a Paypal id for deposits.
• Redbox publishes how many copies of each DVD that they want.
• Joe Consumer buys the movie, watches it, and then logs in to the Redbox site and 'pledges' the DVD. Each pledge automatically reduces the amount of a particular DVD that redbox is seeking.
• Joe consumer mails in the DVD with an associated pledge number. When the DVD is received, the agreed amount is deposited into Joe Consumer's account.

A little slower than buying in bulk, but unstoppable.

I'd argue that rather than paying the user for it, Redbox could just credit their account for a certain number of free rentals. Then, not only does Redbox get these movies, but it builds up an even more loyal userbase... with really no significant way for the studios to block this out. There are some things that are tricky about this -- including verifying that the purchased DVDs are what they say they are, and coming up with a way to accurately handle the inventory management, but it is creative, and it shows that as much as the studios want to think they can control this market, there's always going to be some way around their restrictions.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, dvds, movies
Companies: redbox

The Myth Of Crowdsourcing... Or Misunderstanding Crowdsourcing?

from the it's-the-latter dept

A bunch of folks have sent in this silly opinion piece at Forbes, claiming that crowdsourcing is a myth. The reasoning? Because there are individuals in the crowd. Except... um... did anyone say anything different? Of course there are individuals, and the point of crowdsourcing isn't that everyone in the crowd is equal, but that they each get to contribute their own special talents, and something better comes out of it. Every example that the guy dismisses as not crowdsourcing -- Wikipedia, the Netflix prize, open source developing, etc. -- actually does involve crowdsourcing. The problem is that this guy defines crowdsourcing in his own way -- that if any individual contributes a greater amount, there's no more crowd. Say what? The fact that a few determined individuals help craft a specific Wikipedia page, doesn't take away from the fact that it's the overall crowd that made Wikipedia so useful. It's many of those determined individuals together who made the entire Wikipedia so useful. He then goes on to mock the Netflix prize... even though it disproves his entire thesis:

The Netflix contest is a prime example of individual virtuosity at work. One team was clearly in the lead and then a consortium of teams that had worse performance joined together and combined their innovations to create an algorithm that won the contest. For most of the contest, individuals toiled to figure out a solution. At the end, a consortium was formed. None of the invention happened through a crowd.

The problem -- yet again -- is that this guy (a consultant) seems to again be confused about the difference between invention and innovation. Yes, some individuals came up with different ideas. But what made the Netflix prize so interesting was that they weren't able to really achieve the necessary breakthrough until they collaborated. That's what pushed them over the edge. That's what added that real value to take it to the necessary next step. A crowd is always made up of individuals. That different individuals contribute different parts doesn't change the value of crowdsourcing at all.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, individuals, innovation

Michael Robertson Wants To Crowdsource Proof Of EMI's Lies: You Lie EMI Bookmarklet Available

from the have-fun-with-it dept

EMI has been involved in a lawsuit with MP3Tunes for a while now. The whole lawsuit seems weird, since MP3Tunes is about creating a storage locker for the songs you already have. But one of the points that MP3Tunes made in response to EMI's claims is that EMI was lying in saying that it has never authorized MP3s to be available online. Yet, MP3Tunes had found plenty of promotional tracks that EMI had clearly put online, and it was wondering why others were allowed to link to them, but EMI claimed it was infringement for MP3Tunes to point to those same songs. In presenting this point in court, MP3Tunes has been looking for more evidence of authorized EMI mp3s, and Michael Robertson has announced the "You Lie EMI" bookmarklet (found via Hypebot), that lets anyone help MP3Tunes find more authorized EMI mp3s. Basically, as you surf around, if you come across authorized songs that are available, you can click the bookmarklet, and it checks to see if the artists is an EMI artist, and then lets you submit the details. Whatever happens with the lawsuit itself, it's cool to see someone crowdsourcing data for their defense.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, lies, michael robertson, mp3s
Companies: emi, mp3tunes

Facebook Wants To Own Idea Of Crowdsourced Translations

from the some-prior-art? dept

Apparently Facebook is trying to patent the idea of crowdsourced translations of its service. The actual patent application was filed in December of 2008, but the real priority date (I believe) is December of 2007 (when I think the company filed a provisional patent).

This one caught my attention for a few reasons -- with a major one being that way back in March of 2006, some friends of mine were working on a startup called Gabbly, which did online chat, and they had amazing success with crowdsourcing translations. Now, the Facebook patent is a little more advanced, because beyond just asking people to translate, it includes a voting mechanism. But, still, the evolution of crowdsourced translations shows the total silliness of even trying to throw patents in the middle. Almost immediately after Gabbly started doing crowdsourced translations, another online chat provider, Meebo, did the same. Gabbly used a forum. Meebo tried a wiki. Others picked up on the idea and did slightly different variations, and everyone kept innovating, and no one felt the need to own the concept of crowdsourced translations or to prohibit others from doing it.

But now, suddenly, there needs to be a patent on the concept?

I'm confused how anyone could think this meets the criteria of "promoting the progress." After all, plenty of others had figured out how to do crowdsourced translations earlier, and each one improved on the process a bit as they went. It's pretty obvious that including little voting mechanisms is an obvious next step (they were already popular on sites like Digg). So what benefit does the patent provider here other than to slow down innovation? It's difficult to believe that this "innovation" would not have occurred but for the patent system -- or even that it would have taken longer to happen but for the patent system.

Hopefully, the USPTO quickly dumps this, but just the fact that Facebook and its lawyers felt this was worth patenting shows you something about the ridiculous state of the patent system today.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, patents, prior art, translations
Companies: facebook

Once Again, Established Businesses Get Angry At 'Free' Competition

from the welcome-to-the-world dept

It's no secret that established businesses or organizations get upset when they see any form of "free" competition -- even when it's utilizing a new or different business model or social model. We've seen it with taxi cabs and with online mapping services among other things. And, now it's apparently happening with a fun contest that the city of Portland decided to run. Josh alerts us to the fact that Portland decided to try to crowdsource the redesign of the city's website. This sounds like a good idea, but the city's professional designers apparently are freaking out. Of course, this ignores a few key points: first, the city still intends to hire a professional to implement the design, and most of these firms wouldn't have received the business anyway. Besides, what better way to get the actual implementation business than submitting a design idea themselves? The real problem is that these design pros think they have a monopoly on design. There's no doubt that, being professionals, they're likely going to be better at it, but that doesn't mean they get to stop others from jumping in and submitting design ideas. Rather than fighting against the tide, they ought to learn how to surf.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, portland, web design