Letting the student distract you

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Not saying this to disagree or be a dick, but do you think "grandma" should not have gotten out? As in, the incident should have been brushed under the rug and TI (if you call him that) gets a talking to but carries on?

Ideally the guy is pulled aside and reamed a new asshole, possibly fired, but really how realistic is that?

I'm speaking from the 'best interest' of the DZ point of view. If you take that position, you can see that not having that video out there keeps the bad publicity down, and yes, let the DZ handle the situation internally.

If the DZ is willing to take steps to protect itself in terms of controlling video footage, you don't think they're going to take the much more direct action of protecting itself by not allowing that type of instructor performance go unpunished?

Letting a 'bad' video out is bad press, but if nothing came of the incident (like Grandma), it's more of a 'passive' damage control to keep the video under wraps. Dealing with the instructor is a 'direct' form of damage control, because if they do it again and there is an incident, it becomes MUCH harder for the DZ to take care of things internally.

I would have reamed that instructor a new asshole, fired him, reported him to the USPA, the manufacturer, and did my best to make sure he didn't get work anywhere else as a TI.

[feuergnom 22]

That vid reminds me of a recurrency-jump some years down the road with an I/E in front going fetal and giving heavy input with legs resulting in a good spin - no chance to get a grip to his legs. good thing back then was being "dressed for success" wearing baggy suit with lots of fabric & drag so I could at least slow the damn thing down a bit I remember pulling high on that jump...

I never got the mindset of TI's wearing just shorts and t-shirts - if the shit hits the fan like in that situation, I'd want as much help from a suit as I could get... albeit I know that someone really smart will come up and complain about it being too hot for being dressed properly for the job

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[Andy9o8 0]

DSE

***Mostly being 1099 contractors, I would think the videos are the legally owned property of the DZ and not the vidiot's.

Not unless the DZ specifically has a WFH/Work For Hire agreement in place. Every DZ I've worked with, I've encouraged them to put one in place for this very reason.

^^This.

To recap:

From a DZO/DZM perspective:

1. Always assure, in advance, that the video is the property of the DZ. The DZ retains the only copy(ies) of the video; it does not leave the DZ's premises (or control). Due to technology, this has to be monitored/enforced diligently. This is regardless of whether the videographer is a staff employee or an independent contractor. (It also means don't let anyone outside the DZO's control lurk a tandem while wearing a camera.)

2. Always put this in the form of a contract, signed by the videographer, in advance of the jump(s).

[DSE 3]

Andy9o8

******Mostly being 1099 contractors, I would think the videos are the legally owned property of the DZ and not the vidiot's.

Not unless the DZ specifically has a WFH/Work For Hire agreement in place. Every DZ I've worked with, I've encouraged them to put one in place for this very reason.

^^This.

To recap:

From a DZO/DZM perspective:

1. Always assure, in advance, that the video is the property of the DZ. The DZ retains the only copy(ies) of the video; it does not leave the DZ's premises (or control). Due to technology, this has to be monitored/enforced diligently. This is regardless of whether the videographer is a staff employee or an independent contractor. (It also means don't let anyone outside the DZO's control lurk a tandem while wearing a camera.)

2. Always put this in the form of a contract, signed by the videographer, in advance of the jump(s).

I realize you're an attorney. However, the video cannot be construed as the property of the DZ _unless_ there is a specific (albeit very simple) WFH in place. It needs to be in a written form.
Section 201 of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides the copyright in work product “vests initially in the author or authors of the work.” Thus, in the absence of an exception to the general rule, the copyright for a work product will be owned by the developer/author (the videographer, in this conversation).

The exception is the written WFH agreement.

[Andy9o8 0]

Yes, exactly. That was the point of my Item #2. Thanks for the longer explanation, so people understand exactly why it's a requirement that must be taken seriously.