=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-779/derive2011_submission_8.pdf
|volume=Vol-779
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/SteinerVH11
}}
==Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos==
<pdf width="1500px">https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-779/derive2011_submission_8.pdf</pdf>
<pre>
     Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

                Thomas Steiner1 , Ruben Verborgh2 , Rik Van de Walle2 ,
                 Michael Hausenblas3 , and Joaquim Gabarró Vallés1
                   1
                    Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya – Department LSI
                                  08034 Barcelona, Spain
                       {tsteiner,gabarro}@lsi.upc.edu
                    2
                      Ghent University – IBBT, ELIS – Multimedia Lab
             Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent, Belgium
                {ruben.verborgh,rik.vandewalle}@ugent.be
          3
            DERI, NUI Galway IDA Business Park, Lower Dangan Galway, Ireland
                         michael.hausenblas@deri.org


       Abstract. Considerable efforts have been put into making video content on the
       Web more accessible, searchable, and navigable by research on both textual and
       visual analysis of the actual video content and the accompanying metadata. Nev-
       ertheless, most of the time, videos are opaque objects in websites. With Web
       browsers gaining more support for the HTML5 <video> element, videos are
       becoming first class citizens on the Web. In this paper we show how events can
       be detected on-the-fly through crowdsourcing (i) textual, (ii) visual, and (iii) be-
       havioral analysis in YouTube videos, at scale. The main contribution of this paper
       is a generic crowdsourcing framework for automatic and scalable semantic anno-
       tations of HTML5 videos. Eventually, we discuss our preliminary results using
       traditional server-based approaches to video event detection as a baseline.


1    Introduction
Official statistics [26] from YouTube—owned by Google and one of the biggest online
video platforms—state that more than 13 million hours of video were uploaded dur-
ing 2010, and that 48 hours of video are uploaded every single minute. Given this huge
and ever increasing amount of video content, it becomes evident that advanced search
techniques are necessary in order to retrieve the few needles from the giant haystack.
Closed captions allow for keyword-based in-video search, a feature announced
in 2008 [7]. Searching for a phrase like “that’s a tremendous gift”, a caption from
Randy Pausch’s famous last lecture titled Achieving Your Childhood Dreams 4 , indeed
reveals a link to that lecture on YouTube. If no closed captions are available, nor can be
automatically generated [20], keyword-based search is still available over tags, video
descriptions, and titles. Presented with a potentially huge list of results, preview thumb-
nails based on video still frames help users decide on the most promising result.
    A query for—at time of writing—recent events such as the London riots5 or the
shooting in Utøya6 reveals a broad selection of all sorts of video content, either pro-
fessionally produced or, more often, shaky amateur videos taken with smartphones.
 4
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo
 5
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_London_riots
 6
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
2       Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

Despite these and other differences, their thumbnails are typically very similar, as can
be seen in Figure 1. These thumbnails are automatically generated by an unpublished
computer vision-based algorithm [6]. From a user’s point of view, it would be very in-
teresting to see whether a video contains different shots. For example, a back-and-forth
between a news anchorman and live images can be an indicator for professionally pro-
duced content, whereas a single shot covering the entire video can be an indicator for
amateur-generated eyewitness footage.




    Fig. 1: YouTube search for “tariq jahan”, father of a victim of the London riots.


     In addition to the information provided by the separation of a video in shots, listing
occurrences of named entities and their disambiguation can help users quickly decide
whether a given video is of interest. For example, if a video about Utøya contains an
occurrence of the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, or a video about the
London riots contains an occurrence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
David Cameron, they can potentially be considered more trustworthy than other videos.
It is up to the user to judge the trustworthiness aspect, however, the more context is
available, the easier this decision gets.
     While the detection of persons and their identification would be possible through
face detection and face recognition techniques, this task is computationally expensive.
As we have shown in [18], however, good results are possible through the analysis of
the available textual metadata with Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques,
especially given the availability of (possibly automatically generated [20]) closed cap-
tions on YouTube. Finally, for videos that are longer than the attention span of a typical
YouTube user, exploiting purposeful in-video navigation data can help determine points
of interest within videos. For example, many users might skip the intros typically con-
tained in professionally produced video content, or jump to spectacular shots directly.
     We define three types of events: visual events in the sense of shot changes, occur-
rence events in the sense of the appearance of a named entity, and interest-based events
in the sense of purposeful in-video navigation by users. In this paper, we report on
a browser extension that enables crowdsourcing of event detection in YouTube videos
                                Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos         3

through a combination of textual, visual, and behavioral analysis techniques. When
a user starts watching a video, three event detection processes start:

Visual Event Detection Process We detect shots in the video by visually analyzing its
content [19]. We do this with the help of a browser extension, i.e., the whole process
runs on the client-side using the modern HTML5 [12] JavaScript APIs of the <video>
and <canvas> elements. As soon as the shots have been detected, we offer the user the
choice to quickly jump into a specific shot by clicking on a representative still frame.

Occurrence Event Detection Process We analyze the available video metadata using
NLP techniques, as outlined in [18]. The detected named entities are presented to the
user in a list, and upon click via a timeline-like user interface allow for jumping into
one of the shots where the named entity occurs.

Interest-based Event Detection Process As soon as the visual events have been detected,
we attach JavaScript event listeners to each of the shots and count clicks on shots as an
expression of interest in those shots.




Fig. 2: Screenshot of the YouTube browser extension, showing the three different event
types: visual events (video shots below the video), occurrence events (contained named
entities and their depiction at the right of the video), and interest-based events (points
of interest in the video highlighted with a red background in the bottom left).
4       Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

    Figure 2 shows the seamless integration of the detected events into the YouTube
homepage. Contributions of this paper are the browser extension itself as well as the
underlying crowdsourcing framework for automatic and scalable semantic annotations
of HTML5 videos.


2     Related Work
Many different approaches to event detection in video exist. A first category is artificial
vision, which tries to extract visual characteristics and identify objects and patterns.
A second option is to reuse existing metadata and try to enhance it in a semantic way.
Finally, using the combined result of collaborative human efforts can lead to data that
is otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain.

2.1   Computer Vision Techniques
Searching through multimedia objects is inherently more difficult than searching through
text. Multimedia information retrieval is still an active research topic with many chal-
lenges left to address [8]. One possibility is the generalization of text-based search to
nontextual information [16], in which the query is posed as a multimedia object itself,
the so-called query-by-example strategy. Another strategy is semantic indexing, i.e., to
annotate a multimedia item’s content using textual or ontological means [9]. In this
context, various feature extraction algorithms can be used, an interesting option being
face detection [23] followed by face recognition [22].

2.2   Semantic Enrichment of Existing Metadata
In addition to automatically available metadata such as recording time and location,
video creators can add metadata to their creations, such as title, textual description, and
a list of tags. Also, YouTube automatically provides closed captioning in some cases.
Unfortunately, these elements are not constrained to any framework or ontology, mak-
ing automated interpretation difficult. Therefore, several efforts have tried to semanti-
cally enrich these existing metadata. Choudhury et al. [2] describe a framework for the
semantic enrichment, ranking, and integration of Web video tags using Semantic Web
technologies. They use existing metadata and social features such as related videos and
playlists a video appears in. Gao et al. [4] explicitly model the visual characteristics of
the underlying semantic video theme. This semantic model is constructed by finding the
common features of relevant visual samples, which are obtained by querying a visual
database with keywords associated with the video. Recently, Bræck Leer [1] also pro-
vided an interesting method to detect events in videos using semantic subtitle analysis.
We previously described [18] a Web application that allows for the automatic generation
of Resource Description Framework (RDF) video descriptions based on existing meta-
data. Textual information is enriched by extracting named entities via multiple Natural
Language Processing Web services in parallel. The detected named entities are inter-
linked with DBpedia concepts. These entities are explicitly anchored to a point in the
video thanks to the closed captions. In combination with a shot detection framework,
entities can be anchored to shots instead, which is context-wise the better option.
                                 Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos         5

2.3   Crowdsourced Annnotation Approaches

A radically different approach is to tackle the plethora of videos with the driving force
behind it: an enormous community of users. The idea of crowdsourcing [3] is that, given
the current limitations of automated vision and semantic analysis, we use human intel-
ligence to perform those tasks in which humans currently excel. The aim is to make
this task as easy and as less time-consuming as possible, in order to avoid disturbing
a user’s experience. Soleymani and Larson describe the use of crowdsourcing for an-
notating the effective response to video [17]. They discuss the design of such a crowd-
sourcing task and list best practices to employ crowdsourcing. The trade-off between
the required effort versus the accuracy and the cost of annotating has been described by
Vondrick et al. [24]. The quality of annotations generated by a crowdsourcing process
has been assessed by Nowak and Rüger [14]. They conclude that a majority vote is a
good filter for noisy judgements to some extent, and that under certain conditions the fi-
nal annotations can be comparable to those of experts. Welinder and Perona [25] devise
a model that includes the degree of uncertainty and a measure of the annotators’ ability.
It should be noted, however, that the usefulness of annotations also depends on their
envisioned functional value, i.e., what purpose they should serve in the application.


3     Crowdsourcing Event Detection in Videos

The term crowdsourcing was first coined by Jeff Howe in an article in the magazine
Wired [11]. It is a portmanteau of “crowd” and “outsourcing”. Howe writes: “The new
pool of cheap labor: everyday people using their spare cycles to create content, solve
problems, even do corporate R&D”. The difference to outsourcing is that the crowd
is undefined by design. For our specific use case, any YouTube user with the browser
extension installed could be part of that crowd.
     Event detection in videos is an ideal candidate for crowdsourcing, as each video is
an independent object in itself, i.e., the whole set of all existing YouTube videos can be
easily split into subtasks by just analyzing one video at a time. We store analysis results
centrally, as outlined in Section 4. In the following, we explain for each event type the
crowdsourced parts: for visual and occurrence events, shots and named entities in the
video are detected once by whatever the first YouTube user that watches the video. Sub-
sequent viewers can directly profit from the generated annotations. For interest-based
events, acknowledging that points of interest within a video might change over time, we
capture purposeful navigation events by all users. This allows for the generation of a
heat-map-like overlay on top of the video shots, which results in an intuitive represen-
tation of popular scenes. Our advancement here is that we do not need write access to
YouTube, but through our browser extension generate that metadata layer on top, while
still creating a seamless and crowd-enriched experience for the user.


4     Implementation Details

We first provide an overview of the background technologies used in the framework and
then explain how our browser extension works.
6       Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

4.1   Background Technologies

Google Chrome Extensions Google Chrome extensions are small software programs
that users can install to enrich their browsing experience with the Google Chrome
browser. They are written using a combination of standard Web technologies, such as
HTML, JavaScript, and CSS. There are several types of extensions; for this paper we
focus on extensions based on so-called content scripts. Content scripts are JavaScript
programs that run in the context of Web pages via dynamic code injection. By using the
standard Document Object Model (DOM), they can modify details of Web pages.


Google Analytics Google Analytics is Google’s Web analysis solution allowing for
detailed statistics about the visitors of a website. The software is implemented by adding
an unobtrusive snippet of JavaScript code on a website. This code collects visitor data
through a request for an invisible image, during which the page and user data is reported
back in the query part of the image’s URL. The snippet also sets a first party cookie on
visitors’ computers in order to store anonymous information such as whether the visitor
is a new or returning visitor, or the website the visitor came from.


4.2   Event Detection Processes

This paper is a first step in the direction of future work outlined in a prior publica-
tion [19]. Therein, we described the visual analysis-based shot detection algorithm in
isolation and noted the potential of combining the visual results with textual analysis
results following a method detailed in [18].

Visual Event Detection Process Our approach is based on HTML5 [12] JavaScript
APIs of the <video> and <canvas> elements and falls in the family of histogram-
based shot detection algorithms. The complete process has been detailed in [19]. We
analyze the video frames’ pixels tile-wise and calculate the local histograms in steps of
one second. We then calculate the frame distances and finally split the video in shots
wherever the frame distance is greater than the average deviation of all frame distances.

Occurrences Event Detection Process In [18], we document an interactive Web appli-
cation that allows for the automatic annotation of YouTube videos in RDF based on title,
description, tags, and closed captions. In the current implementation, we use Factor,
Product, and Agent from the Event Ontology [15] to relate events to factors (ev-
erything used as a factor in an event), products (everything produced by an event), and
agents (everything that can serve as an event agent). Listing 1 shows a sample video
fragment annotated with the Event Ontology.

Interest-based Event Detection Process For each scene in a video, we generate a set of
<img> elements. These sets get injected into the YouTube homepage’s DOM tree, as
can be seen in Figure 2. Each of the <img> elements has a registered JavaScript event
handler that upon click triggers two actions: first, the video seeks to the corresponding
time, and second, the shot is tracked as a point of interest in the video. We therefore use
Google Analytics event tracking [5], logging the video ID and the video timestamp.
                                 Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos          7

<http://gdata.youtube.com/[...]/9oWNcw8dits> event:Event :event.

:event a event:Event;
  event:time [
     tl:start "PT0.00918S"^^xsd:duration;
     tl:end "PT0.01459S"^^xsd:duration;
     tl:duration "PT0.00541S"^^xsd:duration;
     tl:timeline :timeline;
  ];
  event:factor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/David_Cameron>;
  event:factor <http://sw.opencyc.org/2008/06/10/concept/en/←-
       PrimeMinister_HeadOfGovernment>;
  event:factor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plastic_bullet>;
  event:factor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Water_cannon>;
  event:product [
     a bibo:Quote;
     rdf:value """Prime Minister David Cameron authorized police
               to use plastic bullets and water cannons,"""@en;
  ] .

Listing 1: Exemplary extracted named entities from a YouTube video on the London
riots.


4.3   Bringing It All Together

From a Linked Data [10] point of view, the main challenge with our browser extension
was to decide on an as-consistent-as-possible way to model the three different event
types of visual events, occurrence events, and interest-based events. We decided for a
combination of two vocabularies: the Event Ontology [15] mentioned before, and the
W3C Ontology for Media Resources [13], which aims to foster the interoperability
among various kinds of metadata formats currently used to describe media resources
on the Web. The ontology also allows for the definition of media fragments. For this
purpose we follow the Media Fragments URIs [21] W3C Working Draft that specifies
the syntax for media fragments URIs along several dimensions. The temporal dimen-
sion denotes a specific time range in the original media denoted by the t parameter. In
our case, a media fragment is the part of a video spun by the boundaries of the shot that
contains the frame that the user clicked. Listing 2 shows an exemplary semantic anno-
tation of a 27s long video shot containing a visual event (the shot itself), an occurrence
event (the DBpedia URI representing David Cameron), and an interest-based event (a
point of interest spanning the whole shot).


5     Discussion of our Approach

Regarded in isolation, neither of our video event analysis steps is new, as detailed in Sec-
tion 2. Our contributions are situated (i) in the scalability through crowdsourcing, (ii) in
the on-the-fly HTML5 client-side nature of our approach, and (iii) in the combination
of the three different event type annotations. Hence, we discuss our preliminary results
8       Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

<http://gdata.youtube.com/[...]/9oWNcw8dits> event:Event :event1.

:event1 a event:Event;
  event:time [
     tl:start "PT0.025269S"^^xsd:duration;
     tl:end "PT0.05305S"^^xsd:duration;
     tl:timeline :timeline;
  ];
  event:factor <http://dbpedia.org/resource/David_Cameron>;
  event:product [
     a bibo:Quote;
     rdf:value """on camera. DAVID CAMERON, British prime
               minister: We needed a fight back, and a fight
               back is under way. [...] there are things that
               are badly wrong in our society. [...]"""@en;
  ];
  event:product ←-
       <http://gdata.youtube.com/[...]/9oWNcw8dits#t=25,53>.

<http://gdata.youtube.com/[...]/9oWNcw8dits#T=25,53> a ←-
    ma:MediaFragment.

Listing 2: Semantic annotation of a 27s long video shot (visual event) showing David
Cameron (occurrence event) talk about the London riots. The shot is also a point of
interest generated by a click of a YouTube user (interest-based event).



in contrast to a classic centralized approach. For visual event analysis, rather than de-
tecting shots client-side with HTML5 JavaScript APIs, a centralized approach with low
level video tools is superior in terms of accuracy and speed, as the video files do not
have to be streamed before they can be processed. The crowdsourced approach is not
necessarily more scalable, however, more flexible as it can be applied to any source of
HTML5 video. For textual event detection, this is a task that necessarily runs centrally
and not at the client due to the required huge text corpora. Finally, behavioral event
detection by definition is only possible on the client. While most users are not aware
that their navigation behavior can be used to detect points of interest and thus behave
naturally, fraud detection is necessary to filter out spam pseudo navigation events.
    In [3], Doan et al. introduce four questions for a crowdsourced system, the first be-
ing how to recruit and retain users. Our response is by seamlessly and unobtrusively
enriching the user’s YouTube experience. The user is not even aware that she is part
of a crowdsourced system, and still profits from the crowd. Doan’s next question is
what contributions can users make. The response are annotations for the three event
types defined earlier. The third question is how to combine user contributions to solve
the target problem, with the target problem being to—in the longterm—improve video
navigability, searchability, and accessibility. Our response is twofold: for visual and tex-
tual events, we consider only the first user’s annotations, and for behavioral events we
consider the annotations from all users by means of a heat map, as detailed in Section 3.
The last question is how to evaluate users and their contributions. Our response is again
                                  Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos             9

twofold. First, given that visual and textual events once detected are not questioned (as
the outcome will always be the same), here the performance of individual users does not
need to be evaluated. In contrast, the quality of behavioral events will simply improve
by the combined wisdom of the crowd, always given proper fraud detection and future
improvements mentioned in Section 6.


6   Future Work and Conclusion
Future work will focus on several aspects. First, given the streaming video nature, our
approach inherits the speed and accuracy challenges from [19]; the solution here is to
work with lower resolution versions of the video files in the background. Second, more
elaborate interaction tracking for interest-based events is necessary. Facets like play-
ing time after a navigational click can shine more light on the quality of the believed
point of interest. If a user clicks on a supposedly interesting scene but then navigates
away quickly afterwards, this is a strong indicator we need to consider. In the com-
plete opposite, if a user never navigates within a video, this can be an indicator that the
video is exciting from the first second to the last. Third, rather than just enriching the
user experience for the current video, we will explore in how far the crowd-generated
background knowledge gained on videos can be used for a more efficient video recom-
mender system. This can be evaluated via A/B blind tests on clickthrough rates, where
a user is randomly presented with a YouTube-generated related video recommendation,
and a recommendation generated by the browser extension.
    Concluding, our crowdsourced approach has shown promising results. The combi-
nation of textual, visual, and behavioral analysis techniques provides for high quality
metadata that otherwise could only be generated through human annotators. Our frame-
work is a scalable first step towards video event detection, with actionable steps ahead.


References
 1. Bræck Leer, E.: Detecting Events in Videos Using Semantic Analytics of Subtitles. Master’s
    thesis, University of Tromsø (Jun 2011)
 2. Choudhury, S., Breslin, J., Passant, A.: Enrichment and Ranking of the YouTube Tag Space
    and Integration with the Linked Data Cloud. In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2009, Lecture
    Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5823, chap. 47, pp. 747–762. Springer (2009)
 3. Doan, A., Ramakrishnan, R., Halevy, A.Y.: Crowdsourcing systems on the World-Wide Web.
    Commun. ACM 54, 86–96 (April 2011)
 4. Gao, Y., Zhang, T., Xiao, J.: Thematic video thumbnail selection. In: Proc. of the 16th IEEE
    Int. Conf. on Image Processing. pp. 4277–4280. ICIP’09, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA
    (2009)
 5. Google: Google Analytics Event Tracking Guide, http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/-
    docs/tracking/eventTrackerGuide.html
 6. Google Research Blog: Smart Thumbnails on YouTube (January 19, 2009),
    http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/01/smart-thumbnails-on-youtube.html
 7. Google Video Blog: Closed Captioning Search Options (June 05, 2008),
    http://googlevideo.blogspot.com/2008/06/closed-captioning-search-options.html
 8. Hanjalic, A., Lienhart, R., Ma, W.Y., Smith, J.R.: The Holy Grail of Multimedia Information
    Retrieval: So Close or Yet So Far Away? Proc. of the IEEE 96(4), 541 –547 (Apr 2008)
10       Crowdsourcing Event Detection in YouTube Videos

 9. Hauptmann, A., Christel, M., Yan, R.: Video retrieval based on semantic concepts. Proc. of
    the IEEE 96(4), 602–622 (Apr 2008)
10. Hausenblas, M., Troncy, R., Raimond, Y., Bürger, T.: Interlinking Multimedia: How to Apply
    Linked Data Principles to Multimedia Fragments. In: WWW 2009 Workshop: Linked Data
    on the Web (LDOW2009). Madrid, Spain (2009)
11. Howe, J.: The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired 14(6) (2006), http://www.wired.com/
    wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html
12. HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML. W3C Work-
    ing Draft (August 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090825/,
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090825/
13. Lee, W., Bürger, T., Sasaki, F., Malaisé, V., Stegmaier, F., Söderberg, J.: Ontology for Media
    Resource 1.0. Tech. rep., W3C Media Annotation Working Group (06 2009), http://www.
    w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
14. Nowak, S., Rüger, S.: How reliable are annotations via crowdsourcing: a study about inter-
    annotator agreement for multi-label image annotation. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Multi-
    media Information Retrieval. pp. 557–566. MIR ’10, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2010)
15. Raimond, Y., Abdallah, S.: The Event Ontology (October 25, 2007),
    http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
16. Sivic, J., Zisserman, A.: Efficient visual search for objects in videos. Proc. of the IEEE 96(4),
    548–566 (Apr 2008)
17. Soleymani, M., Larson, M.: Crowdsourcing for Affective Annotation of Video: Development
    of a Viewer-reported Boredom Corpus. In: Carvalho, V., Lease, M., Yilmaz (eds.) Proc. of the
    SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation (CSE 2010). ACM SIGIR,
    ACM (Jul 2010)
18. Steiner, T., Hausenblas, M.: SemWebVid - Making Video a First Class Semantic Web Citi-
    zen and a First Class Web Bourgeois. In: Semantic Web Challenge at ISWC2010 (Novem-
    ber 2010), http://www.cs.vu.nl/~pmika/swc/submissions/swc2010_submission_
    12.pdf
19. Steiner, T., Verborgh, R., Van de Walle, R., Brousseau, A.: Enabling On-the-Fly Video Scene
    Detection on YouTube and Crowdsourcing In-Video Hot Spot Identification. In: Proc. of the
    2nd IEEE Workshop on Analysis and Retrieval of Tracked Events and Motion in Imagery
    Streams (submitted). ARTEMIS 2011, IEEE (2011)
20. The Official Google Blog: Automatic Captions in YouTube (November 19, 2009),
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/automatic-captions-in-youtube.html
21. Troncy, R., Mannens, E., Pfeiffer, S., Deursen, D.V.: Media Fragments URIs. W3C Work-
    ing Draft (December 8, 2010), http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-
    fragments-spec/
22. Verstockt, S., Van Leuven, S., Van de Walle, R., Dermaut, E., Torelle, S., Gevaert, W.: Actor
    recognition for interactive querying and automatic annotation in digital video. In: IASTED
    Int. Conf. on Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications, 13th Proc. pp. 149–155.
    ACTA Press, Honolulu, HI, USA (2009)
23. Viola, P., Jones, M.: Robust real-time object detection. In: Int. Journal of Computer Vision
    (2001)
24. Vondrick, C., Ramanan, D., Patterson, D.: Efficiently scaling up video annotation with
    crowdsourced marketplaces. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) Computer
    Vision – ECCV 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6314, pp. 610–623. Springer
    (2010), 10.1007/978-3-642-15561-1_44
25. Welinder, P., Perona, P.: Online crowdsourcing: rating annotators and obtaining cost-effective
    labels. In: Proc. of the 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern
    Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA (Jun 2010)
26. YouTube: Official Press Traffic Statistics (2011), http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics

</pre>