host_committee++

Re: policy, it seems like the AdaCamp policies are a good match to follow
(e.g. <http://montreal.adacamp.org/policies/#photo>).

It appears Evergreen has a policy based on AdaCamp's policy, with more
detailed guidelines: <
http://evergreen-ils.org/conference/photography-policy/>

Mark


On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Tom Johnson <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> This conversation moved fast!  The host committee is purchasing colored
> lanyards (red, yellow, green) which can be used as photography consent
> indicators.
>
> Maybe someone can help us nail down a good policy and approach for
> communicating it?
>
> - Tom
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Sarah Shealy <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > I see your point, nothing is 100% effective. Especially anywhere more
> than
> > 4 or 5 people gather. I would think the first year of implementation
> would
> > be more of a 'let everyone know' type deal. And the MC can also point out
> > any changes in policy (not just this one) during breaks.
> > However, with the lanyards/whatnot, the instances of unwanted photographs
> > should go down. If you don't wear a badge/lanyard/etc you won't really
> have
> > to worry about it. I'd suggest we have an addition to the policy that
> > basically reads "We understand that many people will not know about this
> > policy, and on a first incident someone taking an unwanted photograph is
> > told about the policy. Afterwards, the case(s) will be handled as
> > determined by x." There should also be a part that says "If the
> > lanyard/badge/whatnot is not clearly visible, the picture taker should be
> > informed of the issue and remove the image from the phone/camera." No one
> > can control what happens to participants outside of the venue,
> > unfortunately, but hopefully other Code4Libbers would still abide by the
> > policy.
> > This isn't meant to restrict your freedom or get people in trouble. It's
> > to protect those who feel they need protection. I wouldn't use a
> > lanyard/badge/whatnot personally (if voluntary - if you have to choose a
> > color on registration, obviously I would), but I'm not going to make
> others
> > feel as though they're in the wrong for choosing to do it.
> > Did all of that make sense?
> > Sarah
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:52:18 -0800
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Conference photography policy
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Galen Charlton <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would like to propose that C4L adopt a policy requiring that
> consent
> > > > be explicitly given to be photographed or recorded, along the lines
> of
> > > > a policy adopted by the Evergreen Project. [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > > As a practical matter, this is functionally equivalent to prohibiting
> > > photography except for arranged photos which will need something simple
> > > (like pictures of  cameras and mikes with slashes through them posted
> > > throughout the venue) to communicate the policy. Differential badges,
> > > lanyards, etc will not always be visible, and not all people will
> notice
> > > them, be aware of what they mean, or can be assumed to be familiar
> with a
> > > written policy. On an aside note, a lot of activity occurs outside the
> > > official venues and it is in these areas where people might be most
> > > vulnerable to unwanted photos.
> > >
> > > kyle
> >
> >
>