 |
 |
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 > > > > > > > > >