 |
 |
I would agree with Cary. An Opt-Out policy would be more workable for presenters. As you all know, I have been taking many photos over the years at this conference (see the 6 albums from 2008 to 2013 at https://www.flickr.com/photos/schwartzray/collections/72157604027074852/https://www.flickr.com/photos/schwartzray/collections/72157604027074852/). Though I still take candid photos, (BTW Andromeda has ask to use this one for her keynote https://www.flickr.com/photos/schwartzray/4393750460/in/set-72157623395853351https://www.flickr.com/photos/schwartzray/4393750460/in/set-72157623395853351), generally these days I take candids of people I am somewhat 'acquainted' with. Only on two occasions I do recall that the person photographed later asked to delete/or not take the pic-which of course I did. For photographers, color coded lanyards would be easier to spot. And if any were accidentally caught in a frame, it could be deleted or the portion blacked out. /Ray ________________________________________ From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Cary Gordon [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:00 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Conference photography policy I think that requiring explicit permission from presenters is overly burdensome for the crew that is struggling to get the recordings up. I think that speakers and presenters should be informed that all presentations may be recorded and made available to the public unless they inform the conference committee that they do not want to be recorded before their presentation begins. If they object, the video crew will refrain from capturing their presentation. If we do screen capture again, it is possible that presenter could have the option of allowing us to record their voice and screen. Cary > On Jan 26, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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 ¡ê Toronto, Canada ¡ê 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 >>