Great Photo or what?

[e_nevett 0]

http://i.imgur.com/NwfUx.jpg

[topdocker 0]

Someone launched a geek-seeking missile?

top

PS. Very nice shot!

Jump more, post less!

[Sangi 0]

Fucking ace!

That's somekind of shuttle or rocket (satellite) launch?

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[e_nevett 0]

I´ve been said its a space shuttle, but I really don´t Know

[IanHarrop 37]

see this thread
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3810144;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Andy0689 0]

They should have done a high hop & pop so they could have watched it longer

Andy
I'll believe it when I see it on YouTube!

[DSE 3]

Quote

They should have done a high hop & pop so they could have watched it longer

There really isn't a "longer." It's over so darn fast...
We left the aircraft just as the shuttle lifted off. We'd barely covered 2K before it was long out of sight.

Pretty spectacular, and the sound of it is intense.

[sinjin 0]

http://pablo.smugmug.com/Sports/Rocket-Tandem-Jump/6758777_JU9Ud#595225460_yMPR6-A-LB


here is one i took. This was a classified launch so we didnt get word until we were in the air. I happened to be with the 2nd tandem so i couldnt get the shot with the rocket lower. and the tandem student, an actor for a tv thing, jack knifed on exit and made the delay even worse . also, there were multiple launch pads, so we didnt know which one until we saw lift off.. grrrrrrrr

dont let life pass you by

[diablopilot 2]

It's not only bad form, but illegal to publish a photo without the photographers permission.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

It's not only bad form, but illegal to publish a photo without the photographers permission.

Really? So...in the other thread about this same pic you were saying this photo was the property of the tandem passenger, and the passenger is the one who published it on i-am-bored, you were full of shit?

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not only bad form, but illegal to publish a photo without the photographers permission.

Really? So...in the other thread about this same pic you were saying this photo was the property of the tandem passenger, and the passenger is the one who published it on i-am-bored, you were full of shit?

As a general rule, he's correct - the photographer holds copyright until/unless he sells/gives it away. Do you have proof that the tandem pax, dz or vid guy is the one that placed the photo on imagur, or are you just stirring?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Heatmiser 0]

No proof, just stirring. Diablopilot is the TI in the pic, and he said in another thread the pic was the property of the PAX. Just trying to give him shit.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[mnealtx 0]

Carry on, then...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy0689 0]

Quote

Quote

They should have done a high hop & pop so they could have watched it longer

There really isn't a "longer." It's over so darn fast...
We left the aircraft just as the shuttle lifted off. We'd barely covered 2K before it was long out of sight.

Pretty spectacular, and the sound of it is intense.

Wow! I've never seen a launch in person and it always looks like it lasts so long on TV. Must still be an awesome sight!

Andy
I'll believe it when I see it on YouTube!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They should have done a high hop & pop so they could have watched it longer

There really isn't a "longer." It's over so darn fast...
We left the aircraft just as the shuttle lifted off. We'd barely covered 2K before it was long out of sight.

Pretty spectacular, and the sound of it is intense.

Wow! I've never seen a launch in person and it always looks like it lasts so long on TV. Must still be an awesome sight!

Given how fast they climb and how long they're able to keep them in view on the cameras...can you imagine lugging THAT lens around???

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diablopilot 2]

No I wasn't. The photo is the property of the tandem passenger. The photographer also has rights to it in this case because of the contract signed.

Neither one has posted it to this thread.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No I wasn't. The photo is the property of the tandem passenger. The photographer also has rights to it in this case because of the contract signed.

Neither one has posted it to this thread.

The dz's contract with the photographer strips his copyright and assigns it to the customer buying the photo? That's an odd way to go about it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DSE 3]

Quote

The dz's contract with the photographer strips his copyright and assigns it to the customer buying the photo? That's an odd way to go about it.

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The dz's contract with the photographer strips his copyright and assigns it to the customer buying the photo? That's an odd way to go about it.

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to.

Hi Douglas -

Unless the WFH contract specifically states that copyright is transferred, I would think that it still resides with the photographer. If not, the photographers would have to get permission from the DZ to put up shots on their own websites.

I'm basing this on stuff I've read from event/wedding photographers over on POTN, that's why I mentioned the DZ contract. Do they explicitly state that copyright is transferred, in your experience?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The dz's contract with the photographer strips his copyright and assigns it to the customer buying the photo? That's an odd way to go about it.

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to.

Hi Douglas -

Unless the WFH contract specifically states that copyright is transferred, I would think that it still resides with the photographer. If not, the photographers would have to get permission from the DZ to put up shots on their own websites.

I'm basing this on stuff I've read from event/wedding photographers over on POTN, that's why I mentioned the DZ contract. Do they explicitly state that copyright is transferred, in your experience?

Nope. There is no point in having a WFH if copyright resides with the photographer, right?
Our WFH agreement states that photographers give up their exclusive rights to tandem images. FWIW, this is detailed in the Photo forum.
Although photographers give up exclusive rights, they still have ancillary rights (this means they cannot resell the photo, but they can use photos for self-marketing purposes).

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The dz's contract with the photographer strips his copyright and assigns it to the customer buying the photo? That's an odd way to go about it.

Unless the tandem agreement is very, very lengthy, and the contract with the photographer is very, very lengthy, then it cannot be stripped (easily) from the creator of the work. If it's a WFH, then copyright belongs to the DZ, but it's pretty hard (and would be _very_ odd) that the DZ would assign it. By default, copyright remains with the creator or the WFH its assigned to.

Hi Douglas -

Unless the WFH contract specifically states that copyright is transferred, I would think that it still resides with the photographer. If not, the photographers would have to get permission from the DZ to put up shots on their own websites.

I'm basing this on stuff I've read from event/wedding photographers over on POTN, that's why I mentioned the DZ contract. Do they explicitly state that copyright is transferred, in your experience?

Nope. There is no point in having a WFH if copyright resides with the photographer, right?

Disagree - freelance photogs do it all the time with newspapers and wire services.

Quote

Our WFH agreement states that photographers give up their exclusive rights to tandem images. FWIW, this is detailed in the Photo forum.
Although photographers give up exclusive rights, they still have ancillary rights (this means they cannot resell the photo, but they can use photos for self-marketing purposes).

So, your contract with the DZ *does* transfer copyright to them - I remember some discussion about the contracts in the Photog forum, but couldn't remember all the details of it.

Seems like there's some gray area in determining freelance or WFH, based on the following from here:

"Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between an independent contractor and an employee as that term is defined by the Copyright Act. Most employment situations imply a regular, salaried employment relationship between the parties. However, there is no precise standard for determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor under the Copyright Act. A person can be an independent contractor under state law while he or she is an employee under the Copyright Act.

The copyrights to works created under written agreements as works for hire belong to the employer. The law requires that there is a written agreement between the parties. Unfortunately, work for hire agreements can be very simple documents that masquerade as invoices or receipts. Most independent artists, photographers and writers will not operate on a work for hire basis. They feel that to do so, would deprive them of their right to fully exploit their creative talents. Also, they feel they will be treated as employees without having job security or getting any employee benefits."

What a muddle!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sdctlc 0]

It is very confusing..

http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/work_for_hire/

http://sylarena.com/photography-business/work-for-hire-what-it-means/

I think that most skydiving Photogs feel they are independent contractors as they generally don't make much and benefits are not conveyed to them from the Dropzone. I don't know what the answer is on that but I would suspect that if the Photog signed some sort of agreement with a DZ, probably separate then a 1099 IRS form they might loosley fall under the WFH situation..

Interesting discussion though...

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[mnealtx 0]

Isn't it, though?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

http://pablo.smugmug.com/Sports/Rocket-Tandem-Jump/6758777_JU9Ud#595225460_yMPR6-A-LB


here is one i took. This was a classified launch so we didnt get word until we were in the air. I happened to be with the 2nd tandem so i couldnt get the shot with the rocket lower. and the tandem student, an actor for a tv thing, jack knifed on exit and made the delay even worse . also, there were multiple launch pads, so we didnt know which one until we saw lift off.. grrrrrrrr

Haha... that pics is actually hilarious! You can see the student trying to look at the camera flier under the armpit of the TI who appears to be trying to look at the launch. Love it...

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[DSE 3]

No, photogs don't do it all the time with news/wire services. They *license* their work, they own it. Or, they're works for hire. There isn't much middle ground.
Work For Hire means just that. Any work product you make while in my hire, for which you have signed a WFH agreement means that product is mine. There may be stipulations, and when there are, they're minimal because there isn't much to stipulate in general agreements. Specific agreements take on a different tack.
If I'm a photog for the SL Tribune and I catch a photo of a celebrity in a compromising position thats worth 10K, that shot belongs to my employer, unless I can argue that I shot it off my work hours. Tough argument, as it's already been to court more than once. I would have a hard time arguing the point.
Work product not covered under WFH belongs to the creator.
Work product covered under WFH belongs to the employer.

Many WFH accomodate for Portfolio Fair Use or similarly termed stipulations, but "the Work" still belongs to the employer.
Pretty simple, actually.

There is a chasmic difference between licensing a Work for public broadcast and a WFH.
Our DZ uses fairly standard language for boilerplate WFH. The DZ owns "the Work" while the photographer has specific rights.
Doesn't matter if you're 1099 or a full-time employee. One benefit of a WFH is it can sidestep most legal hassles whether you're full-time or contracted.
The bigger issue is being sure everyone knows this going in.
BTW, the _primary_ reason we keep WFH in force is to prevent incident images from making their way off the DZ without recourse.

If you really want to know more, you can pick up a great training DVD on copyright law from VASST or pick up a copy of the GAG Pricing and Ethical Guidelines.