Who's property?

[Zoltan 0]

Hello cameraflyers,

I have a question in my head for a long time and I hope that you might have the answer.
Please do not take it personal I'm just a simple european skydiver not even a cameraflyer :) I love camera people, you show the points to the judges and you make it possible to enjoy the dive virtually again and again.

So the question is that who's property is the picture made of me during the freefall, or the video data recorded on the tape?

I pay his/her slot, I pay some extra over the slot and then I might have the chance to buy the paper copy of the photo or a reduced quality video usually for a fortun.

Note that I am not talking about the tape nor the film. Just the data, the row data.

I understand that some of you make your living from camera job. But still what rights (morally and not legally) we have, we who actually appear on the video or on the photo?

So how it is going, what can i expect?

z

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I don't know about Finland Zoltan, but in the UK the footage and image copyrights belong to the cameraflier.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Zoltan 0]

Finland is OK. Here if i ask a cameraman he/she happily copies the row data or makes me the best quality paper photo he can and charging only for the expenses he has.

What I was writing is mostly about the commercial skydiving over the big water :)

z

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Hello cameraflyers,

I have a question in my head for a long time and I hope that you might have the answer.
Please do not take it personal I'm just a simple european skydiver not even a cameraflyer :) I love camera people, you show the points to the judges and you make it possible to enjoy the dive virtually again and again.

So the question is that who's property is the picture made of me during the freefall, or the video data recorded on the tape?

I pay his/her slot, I pay some extra over the slot and then I might have the chance to buy the paper copy of the photo or a reduced quality video usually for a fortun.

Note that I am not talking about the tape nor the film. Just the data, the row data.

I understand that some of you make your living from camera job. But still what rights (morally and not legally) we have, we who actually appear on the video or on the photo?

So how it is going, what can i expect?

z

My understanding (The Netherlands):

If I take a picture of you in a public place, and you don't immediately or beforehand object, is my property to do with as I please, provided it doesn't hurt you (definition of that seems a bit fuzzy).

If I take a picture of you in a private place (ie your home), I have to ask your permission before publishing it.

If I take your picture because you hired me to do so, you payed for it, so it's yours (the original + publishing rights).


I may be off base here, but these are the rules I use, myself.

I'm not real particular about handing out originals (mostly I shoot digital stills, and a bit of DV). You can print the pics if you want, or I can do it for you, probably cheaper too. For vid, just hook up a camera or vcr.
I only charge a little bit, because I payed a lot for the equipment, and it costs a lot of time shooting and dubbing and mailing and burning etc.

I don't jump with camera yet, but when I do, the same will apply. But hey, if someone'll cover my slot, that someone can have the originals no problem.

I do want credit if published on a website/in a compilation video etc.


Keep in mind, I don't make a living shooting pics/vid, it's just a hobby, and one that's a bit cheaper (usually) then skydiving.....

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Zoltan 0]

"If I take your picture because you hired me to do so, you payed for it, so it's yours (the original + publishing rights)."

I have very much the same feelings. The problem is that I'm too european so my personal opinions upon legal/moral issues are a bit different then in the New World :) If you know what i mean :)

The problem with commercial cam jobs at some DZs is that there is no exact contract you hire the cameraman... at least i do not remember if there is any.

I'm happy to pay camera folks. They do an incredible valuable work with expensive equipment and they even take some extra risk in the sport. It worth the money.. The problem is that i do not have the data.

I tell you an example... We were jumping on a great DZ with great organizers and great camerajumpers. We made wonderful jumps and on every jump we paid the camguys in cash... and all i got is the right to see my jump on a bad quality TV from an old VHS tape. Which is perfect for briefing but some of the camerapeople refused to copy the row (i.e. digital) data.

z

[CaTo 0]

Quote

My understanding (The Netherlands):

I don't jump with camera yet, but when I do, the same will apply. But hey, if someone'll cover my slot, that someone can have the originals no problem.

if you do it by the book, he can have a copyof the originals, because you will have to keep your originals for some 5 years, in order to show to the ministry of defense (again: if you do it by the book, you also have to register yourself with this ministry...) (I'm talking about the netherlands here)

Caren

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Quote

My understanding (The Netherlands):

I don't jump with camera yet, but when I do, the same will apply. But hey, if someone'll cover my slot, that someone can have the originals no problem.

if you do it by the book, he can have a copyof the originals, because you will have to keep your originals for some 5 years, in order to show to the ministry of defense (again: if you do it by the book, you also have to register yourself with this ministry...) (I'm talking about the netherlands here)

True. I also really wouldn't be willing to part with negatives anyway But all the digital stuff is easy to copy.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[ltdiver 3]

Not sure if this will help the discussion here, but thought I'd toss it in.

Copyright was discussed at nauseum back a few months ago, with quade's explaination here

Enjoy,
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Zoltan 0]

Yes, i understand the legal points and i understand that without contract nothing has even happened :)

I am talking about the fairplay side of this coin.

z

[motherhucker 0]

In the US, the images captured by the camera flyer are the Cameraflyer's own intellectual property, and legally, they can do with them what they choose. Morally, though, It's common practice for a camera person to make a reasonable effort to contact the subject in the video/picture to ask if they would mind if that image is used in "xxxx" manner.

[Zoltan 0]

yes, but why the same camera person refuses to give a copy of the data even with the note that the data is still legally belongs to the camera flyer?

Anyway i feel the legal part of the issue a bit shaky since as i know most of the cameramen do not have a proper contract with the person they film and usually the payment is more like a personal action then a business.

z

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Zoltan, if its any consolation, as long as the footage or images I record on behalf of any skydivers who request my services aren't used for commercial gain, publication etc, then I am more than happy to hand over digital copies, or even negatives. Unless of course there is something stunning in there. Which sadly is all too rare.
But then again, I'm lucky in some ways, my camera flying isn't my livelihood.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Zoltan 0]

Yes,

I believe that all hobby camera flyers has the same attitude as you have. But those who make their living from camera jobs do it on a different way.

[Deuce 1]

Zoltan, that's patently incorrect.

I have a horrible cold, and I'm in a pissy mood, so am I wrong in reading a certain condescension in your use of the term "hobby camera flyer"? I'm a part-time camera flier. It's not a hobby, it's a part-time job. If I don't protect the income potential it has, I'll never realize my dream of cutting off my tie and skydiving full-time.

Quade is another part-timer. Take some time to read his advocacy of professionalism standards and of fees for service and maybe you'll rethink your "belie(f) that all hobby camera flyers has the same attitude as you have. But those who make their living from camera jobs do it on a different way."

[Zoltan 0]

"I have a horrible cold, and I'm in a pissy mood"

tell me about cold... it is 39F outside and raining :(

"If I don't protect the income potential it has, I'll never realize my dream..."

I absolutely respect your dream and believe me that I'm happily paying all the fees camera flyers charging me. All a wish that for my money I receive a good quality stuff.. and a VHS dump of a high quality digital material is not a good quality stuff according to my measurements.

And according to my experiences do non professional camera flyers are always ready to copy the video in digital format and make a good quality photo without ads on it and the professional (who make their living from it) usually just gives a vhs tape (if) and sells me a photo with their name on it :)

I think what you call "income protection" in some cases just unnecessary lack of trust. Why do not they just copy the digital version of the video and tell me how badly they kick my ass if a distribute it without their permission?

[Deuce 1]

OK Zoltan, when you buy video from me, I'll firewire the original digital copy from my Sony PC120 to your firewire enabled device.

If you buy video from my DZ's video concession, you will get digital quality from my camera to your DVD.

Finally, if you buy stills from me, and want digital, you'll get highest quality 6.3 megapixel JPEG's out of my sparkly new Canon 10D. Otherwise I'll give you the exposed roll of 36 exposure film out of my Nikon N70, 200 ASA, shutter priority of 500th/sec.

No ads.

My name isn't anywhere on the stuff.

If you sell the images, I want a cut, but we can work something out. Maybe I'll just want credit for the work.

Come out to Byron. I'll make you a star.

(And when I refer to having a cold, I mean influenza, not the temperature. And thanks for converting to fahrenheit)

[Zoltan 0]

Thnx for the offer, I wish to have the same offer from all cameraflyers around the world :) and i wish that all jumpres respect the camera flyers.
And i wish sometime i will hav the opportunity to jump at Byron

The exposed roll of film i would not expect since it is the only data carrier in analog photos.

About the cold... ;) you know we damn foreigners are just stupid.... and get well, drink vodka and eat garlic and go to a sauna :) it works


z

[Deuce 1]

Z-dog! It is our standard practice to give the roll of film to the buyer!

If you purchase video and stills at my dropzone, and you purchase the DVD option, you will get the exposed roll of film (I will retain nothing) and a cool edited DVD with music (two tunes, one for the ride up, and one for the jump) With the DVD the editing is digital, so there is no drop-off in quality.

If we do a deal directly, like if you want to get video of your hundredth jump or something, I'd ask for a roll of film from you, you to cover my jump, and give me a jump ticket or $20. I'd give you a firewire of the jump, or a VHS, and the exposed roll of film.

I think you'll find that pretty common in the US. Some super-dynamite camera fliers will want more $, but not a whole lot more.

[hoym 0]

I found the following to be an interesting article on photography copyright and ownership.



Not As Easy As Point and Shoot; Copyright In Photography
by Holly A. Parrish

ABC Company hires a photographer to take a picture of one of its employees in a spiffy uniform to be used on the cover of a new brochure. ABC chooses the uniform, picks the setting, poses the employee and does everything else to set the content of the photograph. The photographer does little more than snap the shutter on the camera. ABC also pays for all the film and other materials the photographer uses and pays the photographer a day rate, and when the shoot is done the photographer delivers all negatives to ABC. ABC uses one of the photographs on the cover of its new brochure and the photograph is a big hit. ABC now wants to launch an entire advertising campaign around the photographs, including ads in magazines, billboards, direct mail pieces and more.

ABC can do this, right? WRONG! Why not? Because under the federal Copyright Act the photographer owns the copyrights in the photographs and thus controls how they may be used. Copyright law is slanted in favor of the "creator" of the work and vests him or her with the copyright. Once the photographer takes the picture, a copyright vests in him/her for the rest of his/her life plus 50 years. 17 USC 201(a). Copyright ownership stays with the creator of the work unless the creator assigns the copyright in writing to someone else. According to the Copyright Act, any original creative work is protected from the moment it assumes tangible form. The photographer does not have to register his copyright, nor does the work have to display that little circular "c." Copyright protection is automatic and exists from the moment of inception in a tangible medium. Registering the copyright with the U.S. Copyright office and displaying the little "c" only serves public notice of the copyright.

If ABC has nothing in writing and has only told the photographer that the photographs were to be used on the cover of the new brochure, then ABC probably only has an oral or implied license to use the photographs for that purpose. If ABC wants to use the photographs in its advertising campaign, it must obtain from the photographer a written assignment of ownership of the copyrights in the photographs or a license to use the photographs in the advertising campaign. If ABC uses the photographs in the advertising campaign, without obtaining either an assignment or a license, then it has infringed the photographer’s copyrights and may be liable for substantial damages. Leigh v Warner Bros. 10 F.Supp. 2d 1371, 1998.The prudent course to take is to have a written agreement outlining the various uses for the photograph that the parties have agreed to. Without it, there are bound to be misunderstandings and unnecessary litigation.

Publishers, business owners, web site designers and others often see photographs they like and the issue then arises as to whether or not those photographs may be used for either a book cover, internal art within a book or on a web site or for any other purpose. When you see a photograph in a magazine or book, it is unlikely that that magazine or book owns the copyright in the photo. It is more likely that the magazine is merely a licensee for some limited use and that all other rights remain with the photographer. Thus, the interested user should not be dealing with the publication in which the photograph appeared since they most often will not have the rights to grant. You may only obtain clearances by negotiating with the photographer. The nature and extent of the license granted by the photographer should be extremely important to a publisher of a photograph. One can "buy" the copyright from the photographer. In copyright language, the purchase of a copyright is done through an "assignment of copyright." Therefore, if the publisher wants the unfettered use of the photograph, she should obtain an assignment from the photographer of any and all rights in the work.

Another area of caution arises if individuals are contained in the photograph. In the event that there are people who are identifiable in the picture, releases must be obtained from those individuals. It is generally the responsibility of the photographer to get the releases. However, as the person who will be using and disseminating the image, the publisher will also be held liable if a proper release was not obtained by the photographer. Therefore, it is imperative that the user of the image obtain a copy of all releases secured by the photographer. If an assignment is acquired, obtain the original releases from the photographer as part of the transaction. This is true in both fine arts photography as well as in photographs used for purposes of advertising. One interesting case dealing with model releases involved super-model Christie Brinkley who posed for the pictures, approved the pictures, knew that they were going to be distributed, but did not provide a written release. After the posters of her image came out, she successfully sued the photographer and publisher because, under New York law, releases must be in writing.

There are only two exceptions to the rule that the creator of a photograph owns the copyright in it. First, if an employee (as opposed to an independent contractor) creates a work within the scope of his or her employment, then the employer, not the employee, owns the copyright in the work. This is known as a "work for hire." A key factor to remember is that creating the work must fall within the employee’s normal job responsibilities. For example, if George, the Janitor at ABC is an amateur photographer and ABC asks him to take the photographs, Jack will still own the copyrights in the photographs because taking photographs is not part of his normal job at ABC. The second exception to the rule that the creator owns the copyright applies when an independent contractor agrees, in writing, before the work is created, that the work will be a "work for hire" owned by the hiring party. However, this prior designation of an independent contractor’s work as a work for hire can only be done when the work falls into one of the following nine categories: (1) contributions to a collective work; (2) parts of a motion picture or other audio visual work; (3) translations; (4) supplementary works; (5) compilations; (6) instructional texts; (7) tests; (8) answer material for a test; or (9) atlases.

So what’s a business to do? Before hiring a photographer, a business should consider carefully all future uses it may want to make of the work and negotiate with the photographer for either an assignment of the entire copyright or at least a license to make such future uses. Failure to do so could be very costly later. It is always the best approach to obtain written permission to use any photograph, both from the photographer and, if the subject is a person, from the subject or that person’s estate -- if the subject is now deceased. Each situation must be analyzed independently to determine what rights, if any, exist, who may own such rights, and the steps required to protect the usage of the photographs.