Re: Youtube alternative

From: Nicholas O'Brien (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Dec 28 2009 - 16:45:10 PST

Vimeo has worked for me, sometimes upload times take a long time w/o a Pro
account. I usually find Vimeo to pretty liberal and willing to turn a
"blind-eye" to somewhat iffy content (artist sympathetic)

Or you could also use they seems pretty artists sympathetic, but I'm
not so sure how their compression fairs (although I've seen nicely
compressed thing using their service). You could just embed them as
quicktime and host them on a server somewhere. If you want some advise on
hosting/quicktime I can help out.


On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Jason Boughton <email suppressed> wrote:

> I'm looking for a hosting service, along the lines of Youtube, for a few
> video art pieces for my website. The main reasons Youtube wont work is that
> they are longer (15 min. +), sometimes quite sexually explicit (there's a
> very very long watersports shot in one video...) and almost entirely found
> footage. I might be able to argue fair use as far as the appropriated
> material goes, but the length and perv factor, I don't think so. I think I'd
> have the same problem with Vimeo, but I'm not sure - does anyone use that
> service? Any other suggestions? Is there one that is particularly
> sympathetic to the sort of production Frameworkers do?
> Thanks,
> Jason
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

Nicholas O'Brien
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.