Not to complicate things: shall (or *how shall*) we accommodate requests
from presenters who might have a "no photo" preference vis-a-vis conference
webcast? Is webcasting incompatible with the photo policy? Do presenters
tacitly consent to being filmed/broadcast as presenters?

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Mark A. Matienzo <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>