skyhawk 2 #1 January 16, 2002 this is purly hypotheticalif someone one takes footage of me on ajump then gives me a copy of the tape who has the fight to broadcast it legallyhow about if i payed for there jump but not the video?? Click Me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheMarshMan1 0 #2 January 16, 2002 Uh, I'm not sure but I'll just throw in what I think anyways. I would guess the person who shot the video would have the right to brodcast it or distribute it or whatever.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #3 January 16, 2002 Even if you payed for the video, the person who taped/produced the video of photos could still retain the rights of the copyright, preventing you from broadcasting it. Although, in this sport, I'm willing to bet if you talk to the camera fliers, he/she wouldn't care. Especially if they get some publicity. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.-General George Patton- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 January 16, 2002 Depends.Generally speaking, the photographer retains the rights until they've been transfered to somebody else -- this usually involves a payment of some type and doesn't always transfer ALL rights.For instance, there was a kid at the DZ a couple of weekends ago that went up with OB and had some sitfly 8x10s shot. The kid was wearing Oakley sunglasses and thought he'd be able to resell the photos to Oakley for use in ads. THAT ain't gonna fly. The photos still belong to OB.The only major exceptions to this would be a "work for hire" wherein the photographer is an employee and essentially just doing his job. For instance, a cameraman working for ABC Sports doesn't have any rights to the footage he shoots of a football game.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk 2 #5 January 16, 2002 yer thats what i was thinking just curiose.(o)(o) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyHopper 0 #6 January 16, 2002 Post deleted by SkyHopper Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk 2 #7 January 16, 2002 igonor that post it was my brother thinking he was funny bossman can u delete?(o)(o) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #8 January 17, 2002 Yes, but...The subject has to sign a release if the photographer ever wants to use the photos or video for any other reason than for news production or educational purposes. If he puts a photo or video on a website or in an advertisement, the subject could very well sue.mike...red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 January 17, 2002 QuoteThe subject has to sign a release if the photographer ever wants to use the photos or video for any other reason than for news production or educational purposes. If he puts a photo or video on a website or in an advertisement, the subject could very well sue.Well, model releases are another issue altogether, but yes, you're correct.However, the photographer -still- owns the copyrights even without a model release.I -tried- to attach a copy of my standard model release, but ya can't attach .html files to these posts . . . bummer.quadehttp://futurecam.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vividviews 0 #10 January 26, 2002 There are different laws in each US state that apply to this so you'll need to check.Model releases are a good idea as they aid in dismissing any future lawsuit brought about by the person in question without the need for protracted litigation BUT they are NOT necessarily required. In New Jersey, for instance, the law and legal precedents do not require the permission of the subject for photographs or video captured of the person if they were taken in a public place. In this situation there is no expectation of privacy. A drop zone qualifies under this stipulation as it is considered a public place. Further, the video can be used for a profit making venture with no compensation to the subject. A friend and I were sued by another skydiver in 2000 for using footage of them in a video which we sold for profit. This skydiver sued not only both of us, but also the drop zone, the gear store which sold the videos and the third party person who actually shot the footage in question. The skydiver's claim was that they hadn't signed any release. The suit was thrown out as being frivolous and without any cause or merit.- Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WmLauterbach 0 #11 January 30, 2002 generally... before i can sell MY footage of YOU.... I have to get a release. If you pay me for a video, I sold you the footage... you DONT need a release. Like others have said... it changes from state to state..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
