[Linux-aus] Photos at conferences

Russell Coker russell at coker.com.au
Wed Jan 22 11:29:10 EST 2014

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Bianca Gibson <bianca.rachel.gibson at gmail.com> wrote:
> After seeing some photos of me at LCA that I didn't know were taken I've
> been thinking about whether LA should encourage it's conferences to adopt
> an Adacamp inspired photography policy. I'm personally not bothered, but
> there have been times when I would have been.
> From the Adacamp policy*:
> "Most attendees will have different colored badge lanyards showing their
> preference for photography:
>    - Green: Photographs always okay
>    - Yellow: Ask before photographing
>    - Red: Photographs never okay, don’t ask"


One thing that I think should be noted is that the photography policy isn't 
new or unique to Adacamp.  The Autscape conference about Autism has a similar 
policy that involves using a black dot to indicate that someone should not be 
photohgraphed, the above URLs are for the conference and for a blog post I 
wrote about it.

There has been some discussion about whether something on a badge can be seen 
clearly enough etc, well apparently it's seen well enough for Autscape.  I 
guess the issue is not how visible the badge is but how much the photographer 
cares to look for it.

> Lanyards are visible from front and back unless people tuck it in to
> collars. It's not a perfect solution. It'd be a pain for photos of a wide
> area, such as of the audience in a talk. I think it would reduce close
> shots in which people are very easily identifiable without permission.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Mark Ellem <mark at colmiga.org> wrote:
> Coloured lanyards at conferences like LCA are used for other designations
> so using them for photography preference is not practical. 

I had a lanyard which supposedly indicated that I was a "professional" 
delegate at LCA2014.  It seems that the process for allocating them isn't that 
accurate and that it doesn't matter much.

Do we have a big problem of people trying to sneak into events that they 
didn't pay for?

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Andrew Ruthven <andrew at etc.gen.nz> wrote:
> Perhaps if people feel strongly about it, they could also wear another
> completely different lanyard in addition to the coloured one - if
> coloured ones are used again in Auckland.

That would be a reasonable option.  There shouldn't be any need for someone to 
wear two lanyards though.  If the number of people who don't want to be 
photographed is small then any security checks which might involve lanyards 
could be done with the paper.  If many people don't want to be photographed 
then we should consider making other changes to the way things are run.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Michael Davies <michael at the-davies.net> wrote:
> So I disagree with this perspective - it's not feasible to yell out to
> 200 people saying "Can I photograph you all now?".

When someone uses their phone to take a photo of a crowd this probably won't 
be an issue due to phone camera quality.  If they use a DSLR then they can 
photograph 200 people in a way that makes them clearly distinguishable.


I documented a sign erected by the Banyule city council with their photography 
policy.  It seems that something similar could be done with DSLR pictures of 
crowds at LCA.  Anyone who's going to publish pictures that permit recognising 
people in the crowd could submit them for review if they aren't taken in a way 
that allows people to opt out.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Steve Walsh <steve at nerdvana.org.au> wrote:
> If you think you can get a great shot of people doing things, but it 
> contains a person wearing $pick_random_colour lanyard, then you need to 
> work something you. One option might be to take the photo, then approach 
> the person and explain that you took what you thought was a great photo, 
> but they're in the shot, and do they mind if you still publish the photo.

I expect that anyone who wants to wear a lanyard to opt-out of photos also 
doesn't want to have people asking them if they can be photographed anyway.

I expect that part of the demand for anti-photography policies is the problem 
of men standing over women and demanding that they consent to photography.

> the flip side to this is where a person picks up a $pick_random_colour 
> lanyard from rego, then places themselves in photos to "police" who can 
> and can't take photos, but that can also be dealt with by the conference 
> organisers if they become a problem.

Has anything like this ever happened?

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal at eyal.emu.id.au> wrote:
> Just playing the devil's advocate here: "I want to see photos and want
> to be photographed myself, and I am next to the person who does not
> want this".

So you move away from them when you see someone holding a camera.  It's not a 
difficult problem to solve.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Bret Busby <bret at busby.net> wrote:
> Oh, and, regarding people who may be willing to provide presentations, 
> but do not, because they want to be not photographed, could provision 
> not be made for these people, simply by, at the start of each 
> presentation, the presenter stating "I am / am not willing to be 
> photographed in my providing this presentation.",

Has this happened?

However it should be possible to ban photographs during a lecture, especially 
flash photographs.  It might even be worth making that the default except for 
unusual situations (EG the time I mentioned the name of an audience member in 
one of my slides and he wanted to get a photographic record).  Usually 
photographs during a lecture provide little benefit except when some URLs are 
on a slide and just distract other delegates.

It would be good if it became standard practice to include QR codes along with 
URLs in lecture slides, that should reduce photography during lectures.  Using 
a camera to get a URL is much less disturbing than taking a photo.

My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

More information about the linux-aus mailing list