Formatting to Optimize Vlog Remix Potential

The video blog creator wants to be properly attributed for their work, while the remixer would ideally want to have footage that can be seamlessly used in their productions.

So not including any watermarks or titles is in a vlog entry could encourage remixing. But at the same time, the original content creator wants to maximize the attribution for their work.

I sent the following two questions to Ryanne Hodson because she is in the process of remixing this vlog entry for the Rasiej campaign for Public Advocate in NYC.

I eventually decided to experiment with my second video blog entry by publishing two different versions -- the original version with titles and a more remix-friendly version without a watermark or any titles.

For future episodes, I'll probably chose to only publish versions with watermarks and titles until my film is completed -- at which time I'm open to releasing more remix-friendly versions.

Below are some more thoughts on finding the best balance between what's in the best interest of the creator and remixer...

QUESTION #1
Do you think that I should identify everyone with their name & affiliation everytime they appear in a video?

To prevent being redundant in my own piece, I only identify people the first time they appear. But if you remix the second sound bites of people, then you have to either verbally identify the person, add your own titles that are different, or not identify them at all.

So I'm thinking that it might go ahead and identify everyone each time they appear even though it might be redundant.

The upside is that each clip would ID people so that the remixer wouldn't have to worry about it.

But the downside is that it may make it more difficult for shortening the length of the soundbites.

QUESTION #2
Which of the following options do you think makes the most sense when thinking about how to handle the attribution aspect of the CreativeCommons-Attribution license.

A URL link in the blog posting is simple enough, and I think makes sense for the linklove incentive of sharing.

But I see four different options for how to handle attribution within the video.

[1] I place a EchoChamberProject.com watermark in the corner throughout the whole video.
[2] I add fake 16:9 black lines with the watermark in the bottom or top black area
[3] Have the remixer credit that they used clips at the end of the video.
[4] Have no attribution in the video, and only attribute in the blog posting.

I leaning towards a watermark like [1] or [2] since it's the best guarantee for the creator that his/her clips are properly identified if the remix is remixed.

[1] and [2] are the most annoying for remixers who want to create seemless videos, but it's also the easiest option for them to take care of the attribution responsibilities.
The black lines in [2] could provide a visual cue that footage originated from someplace else, but the remixer may want footage that is more seemless less jarring -- in which case [1] would be better.

Credits at the end w/ [3] is less good for the creator since this type of attribution may be lost once the remix is remixed. It makes it harder to track the origin of clips. [3] is better for the remixer, but not all vloggers are in the habit of doing credit sequences.

[4] No attribution in the video sucks for the creator since it provides less incentive to share. It's bad karma for the remixer, but it's the best option for them.

So I think that putting a watermark in the corner in option [1] would be the simplest for the originator to implement to ensure proper attribution, the easiest for the remixer to properly attribute, and the best option to ensure that further remixes accurately track the originator. The originator just has to remember to add watermarks to their vlog entries.