I think this is all good stuff too, but my old Hippy soul cringes at unnecessary paperwork. A consent form means nothing. Situations change. Even a well-intended agreement sometimes needs to be reneged on. I think it's just best that the presenters understand what the best hopes for their presentation are, that they express what their actual plans are and the hosts need to be flexible enough to accommodate changes.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tara Robertson
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 1:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Conference photography policy
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.
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
>>> 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.
>> William Denton ↔ Toronto, Canada ↔ https://www.miskatonic.org/
Accessibility Librarian, CAPER-BC <http://caperbc.ca/> T 604.323.5254 F 604.323.5954 [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
100 West 49th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Y 2Z6