On Wednesday 17 December 2008 19:06:39 Martin P. Hellwig wrote: > <cut all> > How about that we say something like I this: > > By speaking at the EuroPython conference the speaker agrees that: > - The presentation may be recorded and distributed > - Any submitted paper or other documents may be redistributed
You might want to look at the talk submissions page from last year: http://www.europython2008.eu/Talk%20Submissions The recording policy was given here: http://www.europython2008.eu/Audio%20and%20Video > If a submitter objects to any of the above, he or she is required to > contact the EuroPython organization prior to the submission of the > presentation for an distribution exemption approval by the organization. Yes, this is almost what we wrote in the policy given above. > Furthermore the EuroPython organization like to point out that it can > not be held responsible for individual actions of attendees, including > recording and distributing any materials he or she may have had access > to during the conference. That's a good point to make, however. > This keeps our options open but still dis-encourages it. If we really > don't want to have any NDA like papers we can tell the submitters so in > private. Thus preventing to be to harsh on first sight and if we have a > a very high profile speaker from let's say UK's JARIC (yes I know you > are reading this :-) ) we can make an exception. To summarise the discussion from last year, we had advice from the PyCon people who had spent a lot of time sorting out the paperwork, and their job was complicated by people who insisted on having "for your eyes only" segments in their talks; in order not to get sued, they wanted to just make the non-technical stuff a non-issue. I advocated more or less what the PyCon people have now: a big notice warning people about the policy, almost like a click-through agreement. As a compromise, we ended up still getting everyone's signature because people weren't sure whether the act of submitting a proposal and then turning up to speak was enough "proof" that people agreed to be recorded. We were also sympathetic to those who would rather not make their talks available under fairly liberal licences. In the end, I think Zeth did a great job getting session chairs to talk to presenters. Sadly, we weren't fortunate enough to have an abundance of recording volunteers or hardware, so it was only Christian and Carsten who really had to worry about such things. The paperwork probably isn't and wasn't a problem. What we should really do is this: * Reject people who want to talk under NDAs and stuff: this is a community conference, not some kind of defence briefing. * Insist on the availability of materials; this worked moderately well in 2008, and I was pleased that people were forthcoming in uploading their slides to the Wiki. * Get an absolute "yes" or "no" about recording talks. Having someone say "no" and just not recording their talk is better than having them mess everyone around with restrictions on which parts shouldn't be public (as in "Internet public"). Given that permission can be obtained on the spot, the bulk of the planning is surely in having forms available, given simple enough restrictions on recording. Paul P.S. Having seen the video of another talk on YouTube whose corporate promotion video segment presumably wasn't covered by a "for your eyes only" clause, I do wonder why people even put up with that kind of thing in a talk in the first place. Are attendees supposed to jump up from their seats and punch the air? It's something which only makes sense in America, I guess. _______________________________________________ Europython-improve mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
