Implement new layout/copy for "ownership proof", in the "Upload Video" page

[felipegaucho]

• [x] Design a field for uploaders to prove/provide info. about the ownership of a given video's rights.
• [x] Handle it on the lib.
• [x] Implement on the portal.

Edited: @pedrocasa has already done the design. https://github.com/Paratii-Video/paratii-portal/wiki/Design-Wiki#upload-video

---> Sidenote: this made me think of something: for crypto-tubers, something they could do to be really serious on this matter is to have, somehow, a public key displayed in their videos (e.g. a nice, framed one, hanging on the wall behind the tuber), and just keep its corresponding pv key safe (e.g. Keybase on audiovisuals) for when whichever ownership disputes arise (e.g. I am claiming to be you, while profiting on your videos over another network). ==> See issue #631

[jrgarou]

Perhaps we should implement this as well: https://github.com/Paratii-Video/paratii-portal/issues/71#issuecomment-375382376

[felipegaucho]

I'd be onbboard, @pedrocasa is it mature? Can we design the "proof of ownership" field already in this layout? What do you think?

[pedrocasa]

It's already on the designs of the upload inside the design wiki

[felipegaucho]

@jrgarou , let's do things one at a time. First the field this issue concerns.

It is here (https://xd.adobe.com/view/ac964a03-32b8-40ed-a868-4a849aecd855/screen/cce54e5b-fcb2-4ad7-9802-f462327eb1bf/upload-1920-2) and here (https://github.com/Paratii-Video/paratii-portal/wiki/Design-Wiki#upload-video).

Transforming the "upload video" tab into a list -> separate issue (less priority, I propose we leave it for next iteration).

[jellegerbrandy]

Ok, we do have this field now, but it probably needs some better copy:

The question is wrong: 'Is this video really yours' presupposes you can only upload content that is "yours", but there is lots of free stuff out there that ppl can upload as they want.

We want to use this field as the evidence field for being in the TCR - i.e. it can be used as evidence for challenges. So perhaps we can to it like this:

• a checkbox "Are you the owner of this video?" (which si by default checked) +
• an optional text field to provide reasons for being on the TCR list ("please tell us why this video should be on Paratii")

@felipegaucho , what do you think?

[felipegaucho]

To stripe away subjectivity, I'd define focal point = is not copyright infringing, nor infringes international laws.

What if we do:

Is this video yours? ( ) Yes ( ) No

If YES,

"Can you, prove it, please 🙏" PASTE / INPUT FIELD (+ the info. icon that opens the notification explainer on top right)

If NO,

"How can one know you're not breaking copyrights? PASTE / INUT FIELD (+ the info. icon that opens the notification explainer on top right)

cc @pedrocasa

[jellegerbrandy]

Excuse me, but what are "international laws"?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:02 PM Felipe Sant Ana notifications@github.com wrote:

To stripe away subjectivity, I'd define focal point = is not copyright infringing, nor infringes international laws.

What if we do:

Is this video yours? ( ) Yes ( ) No

If YES,

"Can you, prove it, please 🙏" PASTE / INPUT FIELD (+ the info. icon that opens the notification explainer on top right)

If NO,

"How can one know you're not breaking copyrights? PASTE / INUT FIELD (+ the info. icon that opens the notification explainer on top right)

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Paratii-Video/paratii-portal/issues/512#issuecomment-394743638, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPuPYkAEco_UXGSE2d3lKcVfeLxIu11ks5t5p2UgaJpZM4Tqy1k .

[pedrocasa]

@felipegaucho just to be clear. Do you mean a regular input by saying "PASTE / INPUT FIELD"?

[pedrocasa]

I discussed with @jrgarou and we talked if it would be easier if we only have one type of form after the "is this video yours?". This will save us from hiding different forms if the "yes" option or the "no" option is activated.

[jrgarou]

@felipegaucho this "no() + 'How can one know you're not breaking copyrights?' field " looks like a "I agree with the terms & conditions" check field. If yes, we could do something like:

• "Is this video yours?" Yes(x) checkbox // no need check for "no"
• If Yes was checked the "Can you, prove it, please 🙏" field needs to be filled(required).
• "I agree with the terms & conditions" (x) checkbox for both cases or not. With (+ the info. icon that opens the 1) notification explainer on top right, 2) a modal or 3)external link).

Am I right? What you think?

[eliawk]

@felipegaucho @pedrocasa we need to implement this new ownership proof?

[felipegaucho]

• @jellegerbrandy should it be called "proof of rights" instead of "proof of ownership"?
• @eliawk, @jrgarou suggested we have a radial button for "Is this video yours?" (so you're either on Yes, which is pre-set, or in No); and then an input field, either next to it or under it, pre-set to "Can you, prove it, please 🙏", but that changes if you switch to "No", to "How can one know you're not breaking copyrights?" - with the info. icon next to both. Then, below, "I agree with the terms & conditions" (x) checkbox for both cases or not.

Makes sense? Is it too abstract? @pedrocasa would you fancy a quick sketch?

[jellegerbrandy]

• What I don't like about the proposed scheme is that is suggests that you are by default guilty, and must somehow prove your innocence every time you upload a video. Which is just the toxic environment created by Big Copyright Corps that we should try to avoid.

youtube simply does this: [image: image.png] that is much much friendlier than what we are proposing here.

• What is "yours"? The uploader is a person, but very few vids have a single individual as its rightsholder. Many are owned by companies or groups. There are vids that have copyright holders but are CC licensed or free. Thre are vids that are digitized movies found in your cellar. In all these cases, the question "is this video yours" is either beside the point, or somewhat difficult to answer.
• Which copyright laws apply? E.g. a Bessie Smith vid may be in copyright in the US, but free to use in the rest of the world.

So, to be more constructive, perhaps the form should look liek this:

• A checkbox that must be checked, which says that you (believe to) conform to the TCR Focal Point: , something like [x] this video does not violate the rights of others [learn more....]
• A optional text box where we say something like "If you think that the above may be controversial or others may not agree, please explain here why. you think the video should be on Partii anyway"

In the TCR workflow, I think the process could become: upload a video - proof of ownership is optional. Someone challenges (and must provide evidence in the challenge). And only at that time, the original uploader is asked for a "defense" or a "proof". This is also much closer to how actual copryight systems (as on yt) work.

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:10 AM Felipe Sant Ana notifications@github.com wrote:

• @jellegerbrandy https://github.com/jellegerbrandy should it be called "proof of rights" instead of "proof of ownership"?
• @eliawk https://github.com/eliawk, @jrgarou https://github.com/jrgarou suggested we have a radial button for "Is this video yours?" (so you're either on Yes, which is pre-set, or in No); and then an input field, either next to it or under it, pre-set to "Can you, prove it, please 🙏", but that changes if you switch to "No", to "How can one know you're not breaking copyrights?" - with the info. icon next to both. Then, below, "I agree with the terms & conditions" (x) checkbox for both cases or not.

Is it too abstract? @pedrocasa https://github.com/pedrocasa would you fancy a quick sketch?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Paratii-Video/paratii-portal/issues/512#issuecomment-395648832, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPuPeauuj18T8O8NZXVu35R6v22Q8hgks5t6gc2gaJpZM4Tqy1k .

[pedrocasa]

Hey @jellegerbrandy, I think we should go with this:

• If the "This video does not violate the rights of others" does not be checked the user shouldn't be able to publish the video ( maybe a notification should appear if he tries to publish without the form being checked)

[pedrocasa]

@jellegerbrandy do you have any final considerations about :point_up::point_up: ?

[jellegerbrandy]

I say :+1:

[jellegerbrandy]

@jrgarou , can you add this to your (long) list of things to do?

[jrgarou]

@jellegerbrandy yes