RkyMtnHigh 0 #1 April 21, 2007 The person taking the video or the person(s) IN the video who the person taking video is profitting from? If you say BOTH..my answer is EXACTLY. ...and for clarification, I'm not talking about tandems or AFFs...I'm referring to random weekend jumps when someone happens to be flying camera and they weren't solicited as a paid camera flyer for the jump _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #2 April 21, 2007 I guees that's why we have to sign video waivers. Man, there's a couple of boogies I wish I hadn't. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #3 April 21, 2007 The person taking the video. You are in "plain view" and are fair game. nuff said Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #4 April 21, 2007 There is a person who has been on several jumps of mine who has decent clips of videos and they won't give me links/copies of the clips but they are profitting from them by making them public on several well known websites...hasn't even offered me a price for me to have my own copy..and no Bolas it's not nudity and nignoggery after hours like you're probably thinking or like your video clips are _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #5 April 21, 2007 Quote There is a person who has been on several jumps of mine who has decent clips of videos and they won't give me links/copies of the clips but they are profitting from them by making them public on several well known websites...hasn't even offered me a price for me to have my own copy..and no Bolas it's not nudity and nignoggery after hours like you're probably thinking or like your video clips are It may fall under public domain...i.e., you're in public, you can be filmed. You knew they were on the jump, you didn't tell them not to film you or don't use this later on..... Tough cookies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peggs82 0 #6 April 21, 2007 Quote It may fall under public domain...i.e., you're in public, you can be filmed. You knew they were on the jump, you didn't tell them not to film you or don't use this later on..... Tough cookies? Ding ding ding! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #7 April 21, 2007 yep.Ding Ding Ding..... the vidiot doesn't have to sell you his vid. Its silly not to. if you are asking for it. another thing is, even though you are in it and you bought a copy you still don't own the rights to it. so if YOU sold your video to someone(I.E. news agency ) and made a profit you would have to pay the vidiot.... ...that shit is hard to prove though and isnt worht the time in small claims court.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #8 April 21, 2007 Its on myspace and I can't make a copy _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shell666 0 #9 April 21, 2007 QuoteQuote It may fall under public domain...i.e., you're in public, you can be filmed. You knew they were on the jump, you didn't tell them not to film you or don't use this later on..... Tough cookies? Ding ding ding! I wonder if that's the case. I work at the UofA here in Canadia (in the student residence) and a few years back, our department was developing a new brochure for the student residence. We took a ton of "candid" shots on the grounds around the rez, in the dining hall, in the hallway, etc. We had to have every person in those photos sign a waiver (including any staff that were in the photos) to allow us to use those photos in the brochure. If any person in those photos refused, we couldn't use them. My guess is that it depends on State (or in my case, Provincial) law.'Shell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #10 April 21, 2007 In the USA your fair game. So remember that when you come down south!Don't worry, I promise the video will not be put on the internet. Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shell666 0 #11 April 21, 2007 Quote In the USA your fair game. So remember that when you come down south!Don't worry, I promise the video will not be put on the internet. Like I'm concerned about that. There's a plaster cast of my boobs above a bar in the middle of nowhere in MONTANA! The internet is tame compared to that! 'Shell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #12 April 21, 2007 Quote Like I'm concerned about that. There's a plaster cast of my boobs above a bar in the middle of nowhere in MONTANA! The internet is tame compared to that! You know, it is post like that........that sacre me and make me happy that I am far away!Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #13 April 21, 2007 Post the link, we'll figure out how. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #14 April 21, 2007 Would LOVE to post a link...but that's the problem..I can't ... _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #15 April 21, 2007 ? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #16 April 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote My guess is that it depends on State (or in my case, Provincial) law. It also depends on whether any of the people in the images are minors. Generaly the photos or video are owned by the photographer. However if the images are used for profit,(or advertising which leads to profit) the subject of/in the images needs to either sign a "model release" or be compensated in some mutually agreeable manner. But as Shell said the fineries are different denpending on local laws.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #17 April 21, 2007 Quote In the USA your fair game. So remember that when you come down south! That's not exactly true... If the photographer or his contracted client is 'profiting' from the use of a photo (or video) without a model release they can be sued. For example: A jury has awarded $15.6 million to a man whose image was used for years without his permission on Taster's Choice coffee labels. Christoff declined the company's $100,000 settlement offer, and Nestle USA turned down his offer to settle for $8.5 million. A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury ordered Nestle USA to pay Christoff $15.6 million for using his likeness without his permission and profiting from it. The award includes 5 percent of the Glendale-based company's profit from Taster's Choice sales from 1997 to 2003. Right of privacy laws give an individual the right to control the use of their image by others. If it is being used WITHOUT your express permission, ie. a release...you can take steps to stop that use. If it's being used for profit, again without your permission, you can reach a legal settlement in court to either halt it's u$e, or '$ell' your rights for the continued use. Bottom line, if you didn't sign a release, tell him to stop or send him a bill. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeForsythe 0 #18 April 21, 2007 Oh I forgot CA, that other country Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #19 April 21, 2007 And the answer is... it depends. A lot depends on the use and whether there is any compensation to the photographer. Model release <-- Based on photography, but a very good read for all the vidiots! Right to privacy <-- another good readMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RkyMtnHigh 0 #20 April 21, 2007 Varience of time zones suck... G'night yáll I'm a sleepy girl.. will do my best MananaThanks! for the replys... _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #21 April 21, 2007 Quote Oh I forgot CA, that other country The right of privacy laws are federal, the Glendale, Ca. instance was only an example. With the Internet and the much more widespread use of cameras, the 'electronic media' act was put in place to 'protect' private citizens that don't care to have their likeness mass marketed. Submissions to You-Tube and other similar venues are pulled off the net all the time if the person (re; private citizen) that's the subject of the video complains. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeForsythe 0 #22 April 21, 2007 Think NEWS!Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #23 April 21, 2007 Quote Think NEWS! Okay....do you think Shana Richardson getting interviewed on something like Good Morning America is news a year after the event...of does she get paid? Read the 'right of privacy' act...that is addressed. Believe it or not, I deal with this quite a bit as a demo performer... What, when, how & for how long...(think News hint) our 'promotional' materials are used for broadcast. I have a drawer full of various types of release and hold harmless forms. Trust me on this, if someone is using your likeness (private citizen) without your permission, you do have a number of possible actions you can take. That being said, I for one...am NOT considered a private citizen while in free fall or under a parachute. (an actual ruling once) Has to do with past marketing & history of media representation. However, in keeping with the aviation adage of 'never being photographed with a drink in your hand'...I've stopped the use of photos of that type for publication. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeForsythe 0 #24 April 21, 2007 Quote Okay....do you think Shana Richardson getting interviewed on something like Good Morning America is news a year after the event...of does she get paid? Don't know but the the news (between the millions made on commercials) shows people without their consent all of the time. And lets take it further to the inside of a court room (more millions made). Don’t forget the recurring OJ, MJ and others. And CA 9thDCA is the most overturned DCA in America. In the end with the internet once you are on it that pretty much ends it. You might get it off of a site or two but it is there forever.....just ask Brittney SpearsTime and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #25 April 21, 2007 Quote shows people without their consent all of the time. Once again..read the right of privacy act. Yes the news shows people without their consent...all the time is a relative term. If they continue to show a private citizen in a context that's no longer news worthy....IT CAN BE STOPPED. It's not really an issue though, because a real news program doesn't have cause (or air time) to do that. OJ, MJ...etc. are NOT considered private citizens, their likeness IS considered public domain. BUT using your example... The OJ trial was televised, did you ever see any camera shots of the jury box or the galley? Right of privacy act. On 60 minutes, investigative reports etc. ~have you ever seen an interview with the face shadowed and the voice changed? Brad & Angelena's baby...They SOLD the rights to photographs, after those were run extensively...ALL photos of the kid are now considered public domain as the munchkin has profited from celebrity status, no model release is required even though the kid's a minor. Skyride's removal of various photo's on websites...it wasn't only the photographers demanding that....as a private citizen, you have the right to direct HOW your likeness is used...if no release has been signed. Certain photo's I've downloaded on this site HAVE to have photo credit attached, and any the photographer uses HAS to list my team name...a contractual part of the release, that is mutually beneficial. I've been to this rodeo, I've stopped the use of MY photo, for publication, on more than one occasion. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
airtwardo 6 #17 April 21, 2007 Quote In the USA your fair game. So remember that when you come down south! That's not exactly true... If the photographer or his contracted client is 'profiting' from the use of a photo (or video) without a model release they can be sued. For example: A jury has awarded $15.6 million to a man whose image was used for years without his permission on Taster's Choice coffee labels. Christoff declined the company's $100,000 settlement offer, and Nestle USA turned down his offer to settle for $8.5 million. A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury ordered Nestle USA to pay Christoff $15.6 million for using his likeness without his permission and profiting from it. The award includes 5 percent of the Glendale-based company's profit from Taster's Choice sales from 1997 to 2003. Right of privacy laws give an individual the right to control the use of their image by others. If it is being used WITHOUT your express permission, ie. a release...you can take steps to stop that use. If it's being used for profit, again without your permission, you can reach a legal settlement in court to either halt it's u$e, or '$ell' your rights for the continued use. Bottom line, if you didn't sign a release, tell him to stop or send him a bill. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #18 April 21, 2007 Oh I forgot CA, that other country Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 April 21, 2007 And the answer is... it depends. A lot depends on the use and whether there is any compensation to the photographer. Model release <-- Based on photography, but a very good read for all the vidiots! Right to privacy <-- another good readMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RkyMtnHigh 0 #20 April 21, 2007 Varience of time zones suck... G'night yáll I'm a sleepy girl.. will do my best MananaThanks! for the replys... _________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #21 April 21, 2007 Quote Oh I forgot CA, that other country The right of privacy laws are federal, the Glendale, Ca. instance was only an example. With the Internet and the much more widespread use of cameras, the 'electronic media' act was put in place to 'protect' private citizens that don't care to have their likeness mass marketed. Submissions to You-Tube and other similar venues are pulled off the net all the time if the person (re; private citizen) that's the subject of the video complains. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #22 April 21, 2007 Think NEWS!Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #23 April 21, 2007 Quote Think NEWS! Okay....do you think Shana Richardson getting interviewed on something like Good Morning America is news a year after the event...of does she get paid? Read the 'right of privacy' act...that is addressed. Believe it or not, I deal with this quite a bit as a demo performer... What, when, how & for how long...(think News hint) our 'promotional' materials are used for broadcast. I have a drawer full of various types of release and hold harmless forms. Trust me on this, if someone is using your likeness (private citizen) without your permission, you do have a number of possible actions you can take. That being said, I for one...am NOT considered a private citizen while in free fall or under a parachute. (an actual ruling once) Has to do with past marketing & history of media representation. However, in keeping with the aviation adage of 'never being photographed with a drink in your hand'...I've stopped the use of photos of that type for publication. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #24 April 21, 2007 Quote Okay....do you think Shana Richardson getting interviewed on something like Good Morning America is news a year after the event...of does she get paid? Don't know but the the news (between the millions made on commercials) shows people without their consent all of the time. And lets take it further to the inside of a court room (more millions made). Don’t forget the recurring OJ, MJ and others. And CA 9thDCA is the most overturned DCA in America. In the end with the internet once you are on it that pretty much ends it. You might get it off of a site or two but it is there forever.....just ask Brittney SpearsTime and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #25 April 21, 2007 Quote shows people without their consent all of the time. Once again..read the right of privacy act. Yes the news shows people without their consent...all the time is a relative term. If they continue to show a private citizen in a context that's no longer news worthy....IT CAN BE STOPPED. It's not really an issue though, because a real news program doesn't have cause (or air time) to do that. OJ, MJ...etc. are NOT considered private citizens, their likeness IS considered public domain. BUT using your example... The OJ trial was televised, did you ever see any camera shots of the jury box or the galley? Right of privacy act. On 60 minutes, investigative reports etc. ~have you ever seen an interview with the face shadowed and the voice changed? Brad & Angelena's baby...They SOLD the rights to photographs, after those were run extensively...ALL photos of the kid are now considered public domain as the munchkin has profited from celebrity status, no model release is required even though the kid's a minor. Skyride's removal of various photo's on websites...it wasn't only the photographers demanding that....as a private citizen, you have the right to direct HOW your likeness is used...if no release has been signed. Certain photo's I've downloaded on this site HAVE to have photo credit attached, and any the photographer uses HAS to list my team name...a contractual part of the release, that is mutually beneficial. I've been to this rodeo, I've stopped the use of MY photo, for publication, on more than one occasion. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
