Re: Photo policy for DebConf
On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 01:35:26PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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.
This is a lot of administration, when it can be made much easier with a
simple lanyard, as was suggested.
I'm not saying people should be taken photos of without consent. Consent
should be given, whether implicitly or otherwise. But having to hunt
down everyone after the fact to request this consent may be a lot of
work, especially for people who take a lot of photos. If it is obvious
whether consent is there *at the time of the photo*, then this will be
better for photographers (because they don't need to worry about hunting
down people for consent), and for people who dislike being on photos
(because they won't be bothered with photos to say "no" to, and can rest
assured that their photo won't be distributed without their consent).
> > 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...
Unfortunately, this is true. I think the boundary would be "people who
would be named by any person when asked 'who is on this photo'". If you
are, then you are the subject of the photo and you should have given
consent. If you are not, then you are in the background and should not
give consent.
This is a difficult decision to make, and I suspect we may have a few
misunderstandings there; but if we can make it work, I would prefer
something along those lines.
> > 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.
I agree with that.
> If they want to participate during the BoF, they will either
> proxy,
I think this is fine.
> or allow their voice (but not image) to be streamed.
In my personal opinion, this is not fine, but I respect that not
everyone thinks the same way about this.
> 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_.
Yes, but that is not what the suggestion was about. The suggestion was
to make a rule that some BoFs accept photos, and some BoFs do not. The
net result of that would be that you would be allowed to take a photo
one moment, and then the next moment -- when the next BoF starts -- you
would not, because... rules? Or something.
This is unworkable, and I don't think we should allow it. Either we say
"this room will not allow photo cameras, ever", or we say "this room
will allow photo cameras if subjects consent". But saying "This room
sometimes allows photo cameras if subjects consent, and sometimes do not
allow photo cameras at all" is a bad idea, in my opinion.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: