Thank you Davide and everyone else. A lot of sense has been spoken here which has helped me clarify my thoughts and arguments. I think the key is to argue for default publication, if not of recordings then a repository for slides. Personally I'm not in favour of an opt-out option but Davinde's comment that his community 'frowns' upon this makes me think that education and experience is the way forward. On Feb 26, 2016 9:44 PM, "Davide Del Vento" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I must be missing something. > > The whole purpose of a scientific conference is to share what you've > found. If you have a proprietary result that you consider a trade > secret, simply don't present that at a conference. Or > say-but-don't-say, if the conference allows that. In fact, anything > you say is recorded in someone's head, even if official or unofficial > recording is forbidden. > > Regarding data being copied and used without attribution, that's even > more puzzling to me. I may copy your data and try to publish a paper. > How is that different from me just making numbers out of the blue? > Aren't people in the medical field supposed to have records of their > "measurements", whatever that is (e.g. patient records of blood > sample)? > > Regarding plainly copying the slides, I find that laughable. First, > making slides from scratch is WAY easier than trying to make slides > from a picture or even worse from a video. Second, if the conference > has an official website, with the videos and maybe even the slides, > and everything is timestamped, it will make life of these "slide > thieves" even harder: anybody with a Google search can find the > earlier author, and shame the thief. Don't referees do Google searches > to educate themselves on the specific sub-sub-field, especially for > rare case stuff? > > In my field (atmospheric and oceanic sciences), the default is to > record every talk and post it online, by the organizers. In some > places authors are required to sign a form, mostly to protect the > conference (e.g. if the author uses a mickey mouse slide and disney > sues, the form plainly states that the author is responsible and not > the conference). Authors can opt-out of the recording, but only a few > do it, and are often blamed by the community. As far as I know, nobody > opts-out for the reasons you mention. The most common reason for > opting out of recording in my field is that the authors are shy and > don't want to have their own face in front of billions of people. The > second most common reason is that they will be bragging too much and > don't want too many records of their possibly erroneous statements. > > Cheers, > Davide > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Tom Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Adam, > > It is a medical field so protection of rare case data is the stated > problem, > > some presenters worry that slides are copied then reused without > > attribution. I strongly feel a blanket ban is an inappropriate response > and > > would prefer to see guidance that presentations are given under an > > appropriate licence. > > Enforcement is a different matter, that I don't think has been > considered. I > > suspect a blanket ban would be impossible to enforce anyway which is why > I > > suspect licencing is a better approach. > > > > On Feb 26, 2016 5:33 PM, "Adam Obeng" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> > >> Do you have a little more background? Are you talking about recordings > of > >> presentations by third parties, by the organisers, or by the presenter? > How > >> would conferences implement a ban on recording? Why do presenters not > want > >> to allow photos of their slides? Is it a security or confidentiality > thing, > >> or something else? > >> > >> I am not a lawyer, but copyright law that applies by default would > >> probably allow the reproduction of a photo of a slide, especially if > it's > >> for academic purposes. Creative Commons licenses are mostly designed to > be > >> *more* permissive than would otherwise be the case. > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, at 05:06 PM, Tom Wright wrote: > >> > >> Apologies for cross posting, looks like something is messed up with my > SWC > >> mailing list contacts. > >> > >> > >> I thought I would post here to elicit experiences and thoughts. > >> > >> The scientific society that covers my field is having a discussion about > >> recording rights for conference presentations. Some people have > suggested a > >> policy that bans recording all together. I'm not happy with this option > and > >> it has got me thinking about licencing options. I would like to see a > policy > >> that places presentations under a formal licence such as a Creative > Commons > >> licence. > >> Does such a licence protect the presenter from derivative copies of > work, > >> such as a photo of a presentation slide? > >> Do other scientific organisations have policies in this area? > >> > >> Thanks for your expertise, > >> Tom > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
