Hi,
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Any solution that you come up with is going to be at the discretion
> of the photographers to conform to, because the law is not on the
> side of the photograph's subject where public spaces are concerned.
Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more com
On 10 September 2014 11:37, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more complicated
> as Germany has much more strict "rights to the own image" than most
> other countries (see e.g.
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild, in German). I am
> not a
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> On 10 September 2014 11:37, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> > Note that for the next DebConf the legal situation is more complicated
> > as Germany has much more strict "rights to the own image" than most
> > other countries (see e.g.
> > http:/
Judit Foglszinger writes:
>> I didn't understand the point of the yelling at people to stand-up when
>> they had the microphone. Was this to get a clearer video of the person?
> There is a clearer video of the person
> and it makes it easier for the camera operator
> to quickly catch the speaking
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 10. September 2014, Christoph Egger wrote:
> >> I didn't understand the point of the yelling at people to stand-up when
> >> they had the microphone. Was this to get a clearer video of the person?
I dont get the part with the yelling neither, but standing up (usually) also
helps
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:08:55PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> My reading of the law is that even in a public setting people
> photographed must give some kind of consent before the photo can be
> published in any way. From photography forums I read that in public
> events this is usually hande
On Sun, 2014-09-07 at 22:15 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>
> > I would like to ask to remove the "Do not photograph me" checkbox in
> > Debconf registration form as we do not really have a technology to
> > implement that.
>
> As someone who che
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 10:37 +0200, Mika Pflüger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Any solution that you come up with is going to be at the discretion
> > of the photographers to conform to, because the law is not on the
> > side of the photograph's subject where public spaces are concern
On 10 September 2014 22:50, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> All proposed solution looks like a division by zero error.
There are conflicting requirements - covering Debconf (either with
photo or video) requires a lot of images of people while privacy
concerns require not to take images of people.
> So t
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:25:35PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Even a blacklist is practically impossible to realize while
> maintaining even just a good coverage of the event. Whitelisting?
> Forget about all photo coverage and just have video of just the
> slides. Anything else will be practi
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Wolf (personal) wrote:
> I also think the photo-free zones would not be a solution.
Not fully, especially considering that people need to walk around to
get from A to B and making the hallways no-photo seems like
unenforceable overkill.
Yet, it would be tr
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Rooms that are being videotaped are also to be marked, fwiw.
Valid point. It feels silly, but taping camera warnings to the doors
can't hurt. Unless there are signs at the entrance of the Youth
Hostel, already.
Richard
--
Richard
___
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (Due to the particular room configurations and camera angles in place this
> time, the "do not film" area was "somewhere outside the talk room and watch
> the talk via the stream".
Black cardboard cutouts could work in case DC15 and follo
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> Children should *not* be photographed without prior consent
> from their parents.
Just to re-iterate this point: This makes sense in all cases and no
matter what, if anything, we end up doing, this should be communicated
clearly to every at
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > Children should *not* be photographed without prior consent
> > from their parents.
> Just to re-iterate this point: This makes sense in all cases and no
> matter what, if a
On 09/10/2014 05:56 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> PS: Asking people who do not want to be photographed to wear bright
> colours is somewhat counter-intuitive...
You could have the happy-with-photography lanyards be bright colors, and
hand out dark or black lanyards for the people who have not opte
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> so why do have children "more rights" than other attendees? (and don't get me
> wrong, I fully support that
Both socially and legally speaking, the concept of parents/guardians
exists for the very reason that children need more protection
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> You could have the happy-with-photography lanyards be bright colors, and
> hand out dark or black lanyards for the people who have not opted into
> being photographed.
The issue, to me, is that you need bright colours for people who
Three corner cases I can't get out of my mind:
* What about people who appear to the group photo while wearing
no-photo lanyards? I think keeping the shot as-is, but not tagging
them by name, would be prudent.
* What about people who seat themselves in the normal talk room
audience, or even act a
On 11 September 2014 00:56, Richard Hartmann
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gunnar Wolf (personal)
> wrote:
>
>> I also think the photo-free zones would not be a solution.
>
> Not fully, especially considering that people need to walk around to
> get from A to B and making the hallways
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> Any public presentation which is part of any event, including but not
> limited to keynotes, presentations, lightning talks, addresses, mailing list
> posts and forums, is subject to this code of conduc
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
> safety reflectors)
I actually tried to find those first for exactly that reason, and
settled for neon later. I was only a
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> This is a great idea - if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
> safety reflectors)
now I miss the tags and fear you really think so. besides "uhm, no"
I'm
Second times' the charm...
http://www.chapea.com/Lanyard-Reflectante/en
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Hot-sale-and-promotional-reflector-Lanyard_1104449300.html
So those exist and they should show up on all flash photographs. Of
course they will be more or less invisible to sesse with his
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ok, found my words again: make these the lanyards for people who want their
> pictures taken. (and TBH, I think this years white swirly ones were quite very
> well visible - once again perfect is the enemy of good. ;-)
Agreed; perfect is the
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> It would be nice if questioners would introduce themselves after taking
> the microphone for the first time. At larger conferences (e.g., NANOG)
> this is virtually a requirement, and very helpful for first time
> attendees.
That's not a b
On 11 September 2014 02:22, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Donnerstag, 11. September 2014, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>> This is a great idea - if we can make a no-photo lanyard be double
>> wide *and* light up when exposed to photo flash (like the pedestrian
>> safety reflectors)
>
> now I miss th
On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
good reason" -- we're trying to respect people who are signalling (via
e.g. a black lanyard) that they would rather no
Daniel Kahn Gillmor dijo [Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:52:33PM -0400]:
> On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
>
> i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
> good reason" -- we're trying to respect pe
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:14:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> project. But I do feel strongly the "no photo" group should be opt-in
> (and not the "photos OK" group). I don't have numbers for DC14 (and it
I feel strongly the opposite. Violating my privacy should always
require my active consent.
On 11 Sep 2014 05:52, "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" wrote:
>
> On 09/10/2014 08:16 PM, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > that would take extra days of my work for no good reason.
>
> i understand that it's extra work, but i don't understand why it's "no
> good reason" -- we're trying to respect people who are s
31 matches
Mail list logo
