who has the publishing rights? cameraman or tandem master?

[davidpanal 0]

Hi, I am new in skydiving photography, I started to work this tandem master this year and I do not like to talk good about my self but I can say I did a good job as many people told me so. But question is I wanted to send some photos to skydiving magazines and tandem master told me that he has all the rights on these photos as his website says. But I have no contract with him, also I use all my equipments. Do I need his legal approval to send any of these photos? Can anyone help with that. Thank you

[thelem 0]

What country are you in? That is kinda essential when dealing with anything legal...

In the UK you do not need permission to publish photos of other adults, but you might have problems if someone has explicitly told you they don't want the pictures published.

In terms of copyright, you are being paid to make the video, and that payment may or may not include a fee for the copyright of the video. Unless there is a contract though, I don't see that the tandem master could make any claim on the copyright (he didn't make the video, and he didn't pay for it).

[davidpanal 0]

Thank you for your answer, I am in France. I have no contract with the tandemmaster but sometimes passengers pay him and he pays me. But do I need to ask skydivers if I can puplish their photos? Thank you.

Quote

• Quote

[vdschoor 0]

If you are working for him, your pictures COULD be his, it all depends on your agreement.

With regards to sending in pics to magazines.. if you want to be completely in the clear, get a model release.
Here in the US a lot of the waivers already have it in there that your picture might be taken and used for publications... I don't know about France.

[davidpanal 0]

yes but I have no contrac with him, nothing writen. So if I just jump with people and takes sone photos do I need their aprovel to send the photos to a magazinee. Thank you

Quote

If you are working for him, your pictures COULD be his, it all depends on your agreement.

With regards to sending in pics to magazines.. if you want to be completely in the clear, get a model release.
Here in the US a lot of the waivers already have it in there that your picture might be taken and used for publications... I don't know about France.

Quote

• Quote

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

yes but I have no contrac with him, nothing writen. So if I just jump with people and takes sone photos do I need their aprovel to send the photos to a magazinee. Thank you

Officially? Yes.. most dropzones here in the US have it in their waiver as I said earlier so it's not an issue.
AND most skydivers love to have their picture taken,... so its not an issue there either.
If you want to do it official though, get a model release from your subjects..

Iwan

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Thank you for your answer, I am in France. I have no contract with the tandemmaster but sometimes passengers pay him and he pays me. But do I need to ask skydivers if I can puplish their photos? Thank you.

Quote

where in France ?? Did you ask the people if it's OK for them to be published ? 99% will say yes anyways. I know a friend of mine here in Switz now asks you to sign a waiver when he takes pictures of you. ...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

• Quote

[dragon2 0]

Don't know about France, but in The Netherlands if you're doing work for hire, ie the passenger pays you to do a tandem video/photo's, that passenger also has copyright. Meaning that passenger can publish photo's as long as he gives credits to the photographer, but you cannot publish without asking the passenger. AFAIK this is not usually practised, I see tandem photos published by passenger without credits and I see tandem photos published by photographer without knowledge/permission from passenger.

In our country at least, model release is not applicable since they didn't object to you taking pictures at the time and the cannot be discredited by those pictures (different story if pics were taking of someone visiting hookers etc as this can potentially get them into trouble, or if pics were taken in a privat setting ie in a house). So tandem master cannot object (well, not legally, however if you still want to jump with him.....).

Bottom line, if someone ask you to take pics and pays you to do it it is work for hire and they have a very big say in what happens with those pictures. If not work for hire, then they have no say in it. So, are you shooting pics for a DZ, for the tandemmaster, for the passenger or for yourself? And, do the same rules apply in France? Did you give away your pics to the tandemmaster while signing away all your copyright (unlikely!)? And do you still want/need to be friends with this guy?

You may want to google up the copyright legislation in your country to be sure.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[DSE 3]

According to NOLO, France does not honor work for hire agreements, which would mean that if you were a freelance photographer (working for yourself, hired to do work for another person), then unless you had a specific agreement, the negatives for a photo would belong to you.
France (again according to NOLO and FindLaw) has a law specifically prohibiting artists from signing away all rights to their works, and it would be logical that you'd fall under this scenario. Therefore, by implication, you likely own the rights to any/all photographs taken by you, even if given to others for their use. Their use does not diminish your rights, but rather allows them to enjoy your works as you grant them right to your work. In the US and other countries, moral rights are not inaliable like they are in France.
Search for "French Copyright Law +Work For Hire" on a subscription legal site (you can buy limited access) and you should find enough information to bolster your position.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not offering legal advice, I've just paid enough lawyers to the point I should have become one.

• Quote

[Squeak 17]

The only way the TM could have any say over the use of the video is if he wants to exersice his MODEL rights, unless he has signed a waiver to allow you to uses his image in a publication, he can say no you can't use his image.
The image will be used for profit or gain, so a model release is required befrore publication

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?

[DSE 3]

In concept, you're right. But French law is different than many other countries. They almost didn't sign the Berne Convention, because they have a different view of "rights." For example, if the tandem master is using the images on his own website, it could be argued that he was not only willing to have his image recorded, but willing to use said image for personal or professional gain.
Again...David really should make a couple phone calls and chat with an attorney. Normally, this scenario might not be a big deal, but if the TM is saying "he holds all rights" it's a pretty clear situation of muddy waters ahead.

[jeiber 0]

I'm in the United States as well, so laws may be different over there. There are a couple aspects of the law that MIGHT be applicable in your country as well. I've taken a number of law classes, but I'm not an attorney.

If the person is not clearly recognizable, you don't need a model release. An example of this would be a silhouette, or a photo where the person's face is partially obscured. A helmet and sunglasses may satisfy this requirement - honestly not sure about that, but it would be an interesting argument.

As far as ownership goes, if there's no contract stating the photos are the property of your employer, they're yours. Period. Unfortunately, you may only be allowed to hang them in your house.

Is the tandem master also the DZO? If not, he probably signed a waiver to jump at the dz, which (as already mentioned by someone else) usually contains a release. Talk to the DZO.

There's tons of info on the Internet relating to model releases and ownership of photos.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[DSE 3]

Quote

If the person is not clearly recognizable, you don't need a model release. An example of this would be a silhouette, or a photo where the person's face is partially obscured. A helmet and sunglasses may satisfy this requirement - honestly not sure about that, but it would be an interesting argument.
Jeff

Not the place to have a legal debate, but the above statement is not accurate. If someone can identify themselves specifically in a photograph that is used commercially without permission, it has been successfully argued that it is a violation of their rights.
In television shows they can often get away with blurring, because the people seen in the image are not the subject, but rather ancillary/bystanders to the main subject. Same with blurred out Tshirts, etc. If the graphic or person, or whatever isn't germaine to the main subject, then it's not an issue. In a skydiving image or video, it could easily be argued that the subject is exactly that; the subject, obscured or not.
Not a huge point; just a noteworthy one.

[davidpanal 0]

Ok, thank you all the advices. I ll try to be safe.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

If someone can identify themselves specifically in a photograph that is used commercially without permission, it has been successfully argued that it is a violation of their rights.

You're splitting hairs.... I don't think the judge is simply going to ask the plaintiff, 'Can you identify yourself? Yes? Ok, I find for the plaintiff....'

Here are plenty of resources backing up my initial statement.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=law+model+release+identifiable

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

If someone can identify themselves specifically in a photograph that is used commercially without permission, it has been successfully argued that it is a violation of their rights.

You're splitting hairs.... I don't think the judge is simply going to ask the plaintiff, 'Can you identify yourself? Yes? Ok, I find for the plaintiff....'

Here are plenty of resources backing up my initial statement.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=law+model+release+identifiable

Sorry, in my line of work, Google information doesn't quite cut it. We use releases every single day of the week, whether shooting for HBO and controlled work, or wild work for Broll sold to CNN. Their lawyers, our lawyers are who I'm gonna trust. The reason my company has access to legal sites such as NOLO are because we're often having these questions.
Yes, a judge can and would ask a plaintiff "Can you identify yourself in this image." In fact, I'd submit it's a very reasonable question for a judge to ask if a complaint was brought before a court, wouldn't you agree?
Obviously, if the plaintiff brought a case, he/she likely can identify themselves. The question of harm isn't one of merit. It might be found DeMinimis, but not likely in the case of commercial use of someone's likeness.
For what it's worth, I'm the producer of the Understanding Copyright Law DVD featuring a copyright attorney, model releases, location releases, Work For Hire releases, and about 100 other agreements, contracts, stipulations, releases, etc.
I've also written several articles on the subject.
None of the above means I know jack, I'm not an attorney, I just pretend to be one sometimes. And have spent a small fortune on entertainment attorneys, given that's the industry I live in.
And at the end of the day, not much of it matters, as the question is relevant to France, not the US.

[iamsam 0]

As has been said, privacy and © laws vary from country to country. You need to find someone who knows. Post in the french forum on DZ.com , or find french professional photographers forums or you could try www.dpreview.com a US site or robgalbraith.com a Canadian site.
Model release is not needed for editorial use, i.e in magazines, but if it was taken on private property (your DZ) then technically, you
need verbal permission from the passenger too.
But that's in the UK..


From what I know of French © laws, they lean quite well in favour of the moral author, i.e you the photographer. In the absence of a contract stating otherwise, I'd be surprised if the rights weren't yours.
At least thats how it'd be in the UK...

Je'ne sais pas en FranceOn the flipside, french privacy laws are also quite strict as well.

Hope that helps

Sam
in the UK

Quote

but what do I know

• Quote

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Google information doesn't quite cut it.

You know as well as I do that Google isn't providing the information, only links to resources. Some very credible resources at that.

Quote

Their lawyers, our lawyers are who I'm gonna trust.

Lawyers, especially corporate, frequently advise along the path of least resistance. In other words, even if something is completely legal, they'll advise against it, just so their client can avoid a lawsuit, even if their client is acting completely within their right. It's a sad aspect of our legal system, but it is what it is.

Quote

Yes, a judge can and would ask a plaintiff "Can you identify yourself in this image." In fact, I'd submit it's a very reasonable question for a judge to ask if a complaint was brought before a court, wouldn't you agree?

It would only be asked as a matter of procedure. What other answer could there be, 'No, your honor, I'm not totally sure it's me, but I still want some money out of this'?!

If law were simply black and white, we wouldn't need attorneys. I too have talked with attorneys in the past, in regards to my photography, as well as a (still in the making) business venture related to video. The answer has been the same every time, if the people are recognizable, I need a release. Period. It's the interpretation of 'recognizable' that becomes the issue. Just as most people do, I'll use common sense in the absense of a law degree.

It's simply not reasonable to take a picture of a busy New York street, and ask every single person in the photo to sign a release. It IS reasonable to have the people who's faces are in focus and visible to sign a release. Why? Again, because they are clearly identifiable.

American Society of Media Photographers
http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

You seem to be well informed on copyright law. However, model releases are more related to one's Constitutional right to privacy, not one of copyright infringement...

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[DSE 3]

I guess we'll just keep debating the subject.
Try shooting on a street corner in NYC. I have/do.
You *must* post a sign at all public access areas informing passers-by that their likeness may be photographed and/or filmed if they enter said area. The notice constitutes a blanket release. If you don't have this posted in highly visible areas, you will be cited, in addition to citings for not having permits, etc. Now try having McDonalds, MTV, Regency Theatre, or Marriott in the background without a release. That's the fast track to a lawsuit.

Model releases are *not* related as much to right to privacy as to copyright protection; the very purpose of a model release is to notify the model that their likeness may be used in "XXX" manner, thus establishing the release holder's right to copy/profit/etc for the model's image in exchange for "XXX" compensation. Looking at 3 model releases (2 generated from Sony attorneys, 1 generated as a template from who knows where), not one of them suggests anything about privacy/right to privacy.
A release is just that. "If you compensate me, you get to use my image." Compensation could range from written credit to high $$ to a crazy weekend in bed in Maui.
I'd submit that common sense suggests exactly that.
If releases were at all about privacy, you think that all the young starlets who signed releases years ago, would be able to prevent nude pix of themselves from surfacing? Or find a way to profit from the release of said images?
Of course not. They released, and were compensated for nude images of themselves when they were 18-20something, and now they're famous at 25something, and don't want the pix released. But they can't stop the images, because they released. They signed away their rights to their likeness for compensation.
Common sense indicates that's how it should work.
If you are photographing for commercial work:
1. You must notify the subject you're photographing them. (Many dropzones have this in their waiver already)
2. You must either compensate, or stipulate away compensation for use of said image.
3. You must express/determine who holds rights to said images.

Dropzone may have it in their waiver that photographs may be taken/used in any manner, but then the question arises of who owns the image.
If the DZ is collecting money on behalf of themselves and paying the vidiot from the DZ, then it's quite arguable that the vidiot is an employee of the DZ, and therefore the photographs/video is generated as a Work For Hire, so the DZ owns the images. If the customer chooses the vidiot, pays the vidiot, then the customer technically could claim Work For Hire, but in the absence of a written WFH agreement, the copyright would be held by the photographer, excepting certain circumstances. It's actually pretty cut and dried as far as US law goes.
As a side conversation, I spoke to an Australian IP attorney about this in a session yesterday; Australian law is identical. Without a written release in some form, the image is very open to legal action on the part of the subject. Without a Work for Hire agreement, the photographer owns the rights to images.
But, the US and Australia aren't France; the source of the original question.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Try shooting on a street corner in NYC. I have/do.

There might be a difference in commercial video production vs. photography. I don't know enough about video to even try to argue the differences, but I will argue that there ARE differences.

I have a number of shots of Ground Zero in New York, as do MANY photographers. I bet very few, if any disturbed mourners to obtain a release, nor did they post signs around the memorial stating they might be photographed. Not a big deal, because peoples faces aren't clearly recognizable. If I sell that photo for millions, I have no doubt I'll have doezen and dozens of lawsuits, all claiming they are depicted in the photo. Not one will be able to prove it, with or without a waiver.

Quote

Model releases are *not* related as much to right to privacy as to copyright protection

I completely disagree. While there may be compensatory verbage in the release, I would argue that the primary purpose for a release is to absolve the photographer (publisher, actually) of denying a person their Constitutional right to privacy.

Quote

Now try having McDonalds, MTV, Regency Theatre, or Marriott in the background without a release.

I think the discussion is about who owns the rights to a picture if the subject is not clearly identifiable. Photos of trademarks is another topic.

Quote

If the DZ is collecting money on behalf of themselves and paying the vidiot from the DZ, then it's quite arguable that the vidiot is an employee of the DZ, and therefore the photographs/video is generated as a Work For Hire, so the DZ owns the images.

If there's no contract stating that a vidiots work is the property of the DZ, It'll be difficult to prove anybody but the vidiot owns the photo.

Let me see if I can get Lawrocket in here to settle this....

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[lawrocket 3]

It's not my specialty, but I have some gut instinct on this.


Hypothetical 1 - you are just another person in the sky and you happen to get some cool video. You sell it. I see no difference between that and being some news cameraman, or some person on the street filming anything in a public setting. Jumper is in the public, so are you, opportunities collide, it's yours.

Hypo 2 - dude pays you $20to take video for him using your camera and your film/tape/dvd/whatever. You agree. He wants ALL video with you having no record of it, negatives, anything. You say "take a copy, this is mine. You paid for me to video you, not for the video itself" He says, "It's mine, not yours. I paid for the video, you just were the person that made it." Now you are in a legal quagmire, since we don't know who was supposed to "own" the product. Were you paid for your "services" or for the "product?"

Hypo 3: Same as above, only he gives you the recording device to use. I see little difference between him and you again in this. He just didn't pay you to provide the DVD. Still unanswered questions.

Hypo 4: A guy hires you for $20 and has you sign an agreement that all of the video is copyrighted to him - you are just providing a service. Okay, now it's clear. Or, you say "forget that. I want ownership." He says, "No way." He hires someone else. You decide to piss him off and video him, anyway, and catch a sweet mal that you sell to Real TV. Odds are, there's no difference between you and #1.

I mean, think about fairness. It comes down to the relationship. It sounds like you aren't quite freelance with this guy, meaning he has a better (though maybe not convincing) argument that it is his.

Man, this is a gray area. It's where guys like me make our money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Let me see if I can get Lawrocket in here to settle this....

Ha! Hell, no. I just muddied it even more, probably.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jeiber 0]

Ha! LMAO!

Well, I'm not going to spend 30 minutes handing out model releases every time I shoot a photo in a public place, nor am I going to carry around big signs telling people the backs of their heads might be in a photo. Every publisher I've talked to only requires a release for the situations I've already mentioned.

I've spent (wasted?) a bunch of time researching this tonight, so here are some links that might help others.

One of the more informative links I ran across.
http://www.baja.com/sensuousline/sline0799/mag4-6model_releases.shtml

More good info, don't know authors credentials
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#6.1

Kodak's comments on Privacy and Model Releases
http://www.kodakgallery.com/HelpCopyright.jsp#others

Well, I'm off to editing more tandem vids and trying to get myself sued!

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[DSE 3]

News falls under Fair Use. Very different scenario.
All respect to LawRocket, he's not an IP attorney, which is one of the most lucrative and challenging Gordian knots in the legal profession today.

Check with the 500.00$ per hour attorneys like Paul Tauger, Ned Hearn, Bill Evans. They'll each tell the same story. I'm not an attorney, but live in the world of clearances every day. Common sense doesn't apply when it comes to copyright law.

Call Wanda Best at America's Funniest Home Video and see how easy it is to sell a non-news/world event video without permission of those in the vid.

There are those that think it's legal to use "Free Fallin'" track on a tandem or for-sale skydiving video, too. Just cuz they "think" it doesn't make it right, legal, or accurate. There is a guy on our DZ currently jumping a 170 who *thinks* he can size down to a 120 with a couple hundred jumps.
Maybe he can.