UPDATE: JULY 26
The debate continues. Joe Clark has an alternative view. Here’s his comments from Chicken Test.
Joe Clark Says:
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am I think you all need to understand what a public meeting is. It’ll get recorded and reported if people feel like it. Do not say anything at a public meeting you would not want reprinted on the front page of the New York Times or read back to you on the witness stand. There’s nothing for Eli to negotiate or wrap his head around; he just needs to accept reality. No “implicit understanding” is required; you shoud all explicitly understand that what you say at a public meeting can be and will be reported.
My response to Joe’s comments:
While the meeting was public it doesn’t mean you have the right and license to video tape without informed consent. The content producer could be sharing confidential information, intellectual property and copyright subject matter. There will be varying opinions on this but in the case of the presenters they are the publishers of content. They have a right to know that they will be videotaped ahead of time. They should decide to what extent they want their content recorded and published. Check out the Creative Commons discussion boards as this debate has occurred before and the general sense was that the presenters had copyright rights.
UPDATE: July 22
Kudo’s to the author of The Chicken Test! My contribution to the debate has been added to his blog. Perhaps this helps in the record, publish and promote debate regarding DemoCamp content. See the authors comment below. All comments are left as is and barring getting caught in a blog SPAM trap are automatically posted.
ORIGINAL POST: July 20
A very interesting debate is shaping up regarding the recording of a recent case study presentation at CaseCamp in Toronto. The debate can be read on The Chicken Test blog so I won’t repeat the details. I guess what confuses me a bit is the apparent lack of judgement of this person and what appears to be a double standard. (To his credit, he has apologized, sort of, in a recent post. I’m not too keen on his using the word “heard” instead of “listened”. Minor/Major distinction?)
So back to the lack of judgement and double standard “accusation”.
Lack of Judgement
- Good marketers (business professionals in general) respect their profession and their peers. When they share information there is a tacit agreement in place that one should be respectiveful of the sensitivity of what is being shared and to act accordingly.
- Good marketers seek to build relationships in their industry and with each other.
- Good marketers ask their customers if they can reference them in any form of communications and sharing of the experience they have had together.
- Just a few reasons!
- The Chicken Test blog has an editorial policy which is wrapped up in a quote of someone I’ve never heard of (excuse my ignorance if this person is highly respected), this “policy” is as follows:
Because I value your thoughtful opinions, I encourage you to add a comment to this discussion. Don’t be offended if I edit your comments for clarity or to keep out questionable matters, however, and I may even delete off-topic comments. – WR Johnson
I humbly suggest that the folks who were videotaped covertly should be offended because they weren’t asked, didn’t have the opportunity to explain their point of view. This blogger chooses what he wants on his blog when it comes to others but others can’t choose to freely express themselves on his until he’s decided!
Below is my comment on his blog that is “under review’. Enjoy the read and I’ll keep you posted as to whether The Chicken Test “approves” it. =)
MY COMMENT POSTED ON THE CHICKEN TEST BLOG:
Chris Herbert Says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.July 20th, 2006 at 3:29 am
This is a very healthy and interesting exchange! We are all human and this case we are learning what is the better way to communicate and extend the nCamp physical experience to the web. I guess a good starting point is to ask everyone, perhaps a poll on CaseCamp, to what extent
to[do] the values of social media (open source, sharing, collaborating etc.) apply in a [private]setting like nCamp? I don’t know but clearly setting guidelines from the beginning is ideal and communicating them consistently and often. Look at the bottom of this page and you’ll see that my post will be reviewed, edited and maybe deleted if the blog owner decides. Shouldn’t the same approach be used for nCamps?
- Apologize and come clean
- Practice what you preach
- You will be forgiven if you learn and share the experience for others
- Use this as a Case Study at the next CaseCamp
- Tell people on your blog who you are. I’m Chris Herbert and you can reach me via email