We would definitely want to both give notice to the presenters that the
plan is to record and to get consent (or dissent) ahead of time, so that we
can plan AV appropriately if someone does not want to be broadcast. It
would be awful to broadcast someone who didn't consent to it; nor would we
want to have to disrupt things in progress to adjust for an "unexpected"
dissent that should/could have been expected.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Tara Robertson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I love this conversation.
>
> WRT presenters, I think it's good to be explicit that the plan is to
> stream and record. It would be good practice to have presenters sign a
> consent form agreeing to this.
>
> Tara
>
>
>
> On 26/01/2015 10:42 AM, Andreas Orphanides wrote:
>
>> Sounds like we've got an established practice in place, then. Awesome.
>>
>> Wouldn't hurt for us to clarify any policy we decide on to state that
>> presenters are welcome to not consent to webcast.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, William Denton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  On 26 January 2015, Andreas Orphanides wrote:
>>>
>>>   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?
>>>>
>>>>  A few years ago a speaker didn't want to be filmed, and someone turned
>>> off
>>> the camera and put a paper bag over it for the duration.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>> --
>>> William Denton ↔  Toronto, Canada ↔  https://www.miskatonic.org/
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Tara Robertson
>
> Accessibility Librarian, CAPER-BC <http://caperbc.ca/>
> T  604.323.5254
> F  604.323.5954
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:Tara%20Robertson%20%
> [log in to unmask]>
>
> Langara. <http://www.langara.bc.ca>
>
> 100 West 49th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Y 2Z6
>