Wouter Verhelst dijo [Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 05:38:24PM +0200]: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 04:56:00AM +0000, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > Furthermore, I would like to see a policy in which BoFs may be > > explicitly choses by the participants to be no-photo zones, on top of > > being marked as "non-recorded". > > No. > > Anything which requires a photographer to check a list at the moment of > the photo just does not work. A good photo often can only be taken in a > split second; to have to check a list if person X is happy with it, or > if the event in room Y at time Z is okay would kill the moment. My take on this? Just take the picture. But, if you take pictures of a group, you have the responsibility to review them, and discard any pictures that have on them people who have opted out. Is your photo a treasure? Well, then it falls upon _you_ to contact all of the pictured people that have a no-photos policy. Show them your great, beautiful shot. And, if they insist on your photo not being public, it has to become private. If they insist on the photo being destroyed, you are not allowed to keep it. > If you do not want to be on a photo, a lanyard idea (which applies to a > small group of people only) seems like a good idea; it allows a > photographer to see, while taking the photo, that there is one person in > that photo who would prefer not to be photographed, and they can > proceed. Obviously this would not work when the group of people is large > (like a photo in the hacklab of everyone in the room; you cannot > reasonably expect photographers to check everyone in a room with 100 > people before taking a photo). Agree. That's why I talked about the small, focused, personal groups vs. the large, impersonal, general photos. Of course, the boundary might not be as clear-cut as we want it... > A room which is explicitly marked as "no photos in this room please" > would work too. You can have signs at the entraces to that room, and > anyone going in would know to leave their cameras at the door (or, at > least, to switch them off). > > But to have some BoFs marked as "photos okay", and then the next BoF in > the same room be marked as "photos not okay" is just unworkable, and > effectively forbids photos alltogether. If people not wanting to be photographed want to be a part of a BoF for which the facilitator is OK with photos, they should be able to. If they want to participate during the BoF, they will either proxy, or allow their voice (but not image) to be streamed. It is, yes, taxing on video-team, and training (even better, explicit technical impossibility if workable!) must ensure that they don't capture the forbidden area of the room. It is not that one BoF accepts photos and another does not - It is about each _person_. > I can imagine people who do not like to be photographed might think that > this is okay, but it is not; photos are an important way to show what > happens at an event to the world, and we do need them, if only for the > sponsorship report at the end of a debconf. I completely stand by this paragraph.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature