Work for Hire (Was part of Poached Photos)

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

We use Work For Hire on our DZ for all photographers. It's a good practice from a DZ perspective...

DSE, can you go into what this means a little more? Does this mean that the DZ owns the pictures or does the photographer still own the rights?

[DSE 3]

I split this off, as it's worthy of its own discussion and didn't want the "Poached Photo" topic to derail.

"Work For Hire" is a very specific legal term.
We use it on our DZ to define who owns what.
If a photographer is hired to shoot video or stills of a tandem ie; slot is paid by DZ or contracting concession, then it is a WFH on our DZ and the DZ owns all the rights to said photos. There is an unspoken agreement that phographers can use these shots for themselves, so long as it's not commercial work. There is also the possibility of "shared rights" but the ownership still needs to belong to one or the other. "Rights" and "ownership" are two very different discussions.
Fun jumps, RW, whatever else...that's all on the photographer and the subject, or whoever is paying for the jump.
There are several legal reasons why WFH is a good idea for contracted/tandem work, and virtually no real reason for why it's not a good idea, IMO.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

There are several legal reasons why WFH is a good idea for contracted/tandem work, and virtually no real reason for why it's not a good idea, IMO.

It's not a good idea, for me, because my photos, taken with equipment that I pay for, are worth far more than the price of a slot!

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

Quote

There are several legal reasons why WFH is a good idea for contracted/tandem work, and virtually no real reason for why it's not a good idea, IMO.

It's not a good idea, for me, because my photos, taken with equipment that I pay for, are worth far more than the price of a slot!

Are you only shooting for the price of the slot? Or do you make an additional fee on top of the cost of the slot?

That does bring up a question/observation, if doing WFH, should the DZ provide things like the tapes and/or memory cards in return for expecting rights to the media created? Just asking, don't really have an opinion one way or the other at the moment as it does not apply to me, but I am starting to think about things like this.

[vdschoor 0]

Quote

That does bring up a question/observation, if doing WFH, should the DZ provide things like the tapes and/or memory cards in return for expecting rights to the media created? Just asking, don't really have an opinion one way or the other at the moment as it does not apply to me, but I am starting to think about things like this.

WFH means you negotiate a price and what you include for that price...
So, when you start flying video / shooting photos, you figure out what you are going to get paid by the dropzone and if that is enough or not.. if not, renegotiate, and you will probably end up not working for the dz, cause someone else WILL do it for that money.

As far as providing supplies, when we were shooting film the dz I work at was providing the film, but we were using our tapes e.a.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Are you only shooting for the price of the slot? Or do you make an additional fee on top of the cost of the slot?

I shoot for a fee, as an independent contractor. I would never sign the rights away to my photos to a DZ. What DSE describes, might be good for the DZ, but to the photographer it's a rights grab.

Quote

That does bring up a question/observation, if doing WFH, should the DZ provide things like the tapes and/or memory cards in return for expecting rights to the media created? Just asking, don't really have an opinion one way or the other at the moment as it does not apply to me, but I am starting to think about things like this.

I might consider selling the rights, if I worked full-time for the DZ/concession and they paid me a reasonable wage, provided all of the equipment, plus a good health benefits package

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I shoot for a fee, as an independent contractor. I would never sign the rights away to my photos to a DZ.

Unfortunately, not selling the rights away with the contract is unusual. Try to hire yourself out as a independent contractor photographer doing product shots for ads. Or as a stringer for a newspaper. In almost all cases, the person hiring you owns the work they hired you to shoot, regardless of the fact that you use your own equipment. Sure it would be great to have your cake (the fee paid by the DZ), and eat it too (the ability to "own" that work after the fact). But that just isn't reality for most hired guns.

As far as it not paying much, well yeah. That sucks. But that's the nature of the beast when you do something for a living that is fun, and that many others are capable of doing too (and most of whom are willing to do it for dirt cheap).

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I shoot for a fee, as an independent contractor. I would never sign the rights away to my photos to a DZ.

Try to hire yourself out as a independent contractor photographer doing product shots for ads.

Note ... I said I wouldn't do it for a DZ. Besides, I'd think that doing product shots pays a bit more than shooting Tandems.

Quote

As far as it not paying much, well yeah. That sucks. But that's the nature of the beast when you do something for a living that is fun, and that many others are capable of doing too (and most of whom are willing to do it for dirt cheap).

Can't argue with that. But, shooting tandems for a tandem-factory DZ is not the most fun I can have with my cameras skydiving. So, I wouldn't do it if it meant giving up the rights of the photos/vidis I take.

ETA: I realize that DSE was speaking from the DZ's POV, so I really don't have any argument with what he said in that regard. I just think that considering how little most vidiots get paid, it's a bit over the top to grab all their rights even if there is "an unspoken agreement that phographers can use these shots for themselves, so long as it's not commercial work." The photographers aren't left with much to work with for themselves, "legally," if they sign their rights away in a WFH contract.

[Laszloimage 0]

My problem is with the “work for hire” is when media/advertisement takes advantage of it. I’ve been there a few times when we got paid for just another tandem video ($50) but we were shooting for TV or other production stuff. I think Spot you know the best how much a camera guy makes a day on production. But those guys can’t skydive with their cameras. We can! So why do we have to make significantly less and give away all of the rights? I have no problem to give away my stuff for average Joe Shmoe for WFH. The problem is when once awhile there’s an opportunity to shoot something for production, but they expect us to work for our regular rate, while they paying lot more for everybody else on their own crew. For example a few years ago I was kinda forced into to film Rachel Ray (Food Network) for $50 because the rest of the staff was OK with that (luckily that contract was only about the video, so I kept my stills). I shot video for production before and signing a WFH contract, but those paid LOT MORE than just an average tandem video. Same thing with the stills… People come out to make a tandem jump and buying a video/still package for $95. But what we don’t know is the guy from a NYC advertisement agency. And the next thing is we see he’s tandem photos promoting some multi billion Dollar investment bank about risk taking. He can do it because of the WFH. Cost him $95 an my cut would $50. Not a theory it happened before (not with me though) …that’s the other reason I don’t take tandem stills with higher end camera (the other reason is the weight of course).

[DSE 3]

I entirely agree, Laszlo!
That said, it's up to the DZ, IMO, to specify that the images can't be used for commercial purposes.
The WFH our DZ uses is between the DZ and the videographer, not the DZ and the end user. The end user gets no specific rights whatsoever, other than that the DZ can use the images any way they see fit.
Therefore, Rachel Ray gets a copy of the images, but she can't do anything with them except look at them on the mantlepiece or something. If she wants to do more with them, then she/her management need to negotiate those rights with the DZ. In that event (at our DZ) the DZ will work with the photographer and share whatever additional revenues are derived.

[Skwrl 56]

One thing worth mentioning about work for hire is that if you're NOT an employee (i.e., you're a contractor), in order for the work to be "Work Made for Hire", there needs to be a written, signed agreement that expressly provides that it's work for hire.

Given how lax some dropzones are with the whole "paperwork" thing, I wonder how many situations exist where something the DZ thinks is WFH is actually not....

(Note: this is the US Copyright law only that I'm talking about - foreign jurisdictions have thier funky laws.)

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

That said, it's up to the DZ, IMO, to specify that the images can't be used for commercial purposes.

If we're talking about tandems, it isn't necessary for the DZ to do anything in order to preclude the photographer from using images of people or property for commercial purposes. The photographer must have model releases signed by both the tandem instructor and the tandem student in order to use their images for commercial purposes (non-editorial or not art). If there is identifiable property then property releases from the property owners are necessary also. Most waivers include a model release for the DZ, but not the photographers.

[DSE 3]

Quote

If we're talking about tandems, it isn't necessary for the DZ to do anything in order to preclude the photographer from using images of people or property for commercial purposes. The photographer must have model releases signed by both the tandem instructor and the tandem student in order to use their images for commercial purposes (non-editorial or not art).

Our tandem waiver also includes a photography waiver.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

If we're talking about tandems, it isn't necessary for the DZ to do anything in order to preclude the photographer from using images of people or property for commercial purposes. The photographer must have model releases signed by both the tandem instructor and the tandem student in order to use their images for commercial purposes (non-editorial or not art).

Our tandem waiver also includes a photography waiver.

Is it a release that allows anyone to use the images, or is it one that allows the DZ/concession to use photos?

[DSE 3]

it is a general release. In other words, if the DZO has a photo he wants to sell as stock, use as a billboard, whatever...he's able to.
The student releases all rights. I'm sure that if they wanted to make an issue of something, they could attempt to challenge the waiver, like any other waiver.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

it is a general release. In other words, if the DZO has a photo he wants to sell as stock, use as a billboard, whatever...he's able to.
The student releases all rights. I'm sure that if they wanted to make an issue of something, they could attempt to challenge the waiver, like any other waiver.

That's kind of what I thought. Most of the releases I've seen in DZ waivers are not assignable, so I don't think they would be very useful to a photographer who wants to sell one of those photos to a publisher for the types of publications that would require a model release. If the release is not assignable, it also wouldn't permit the DZO to assign it to anyone else. My point is that in this situation, the photographer is not permitted (by the student or the instructor) to use the images for commercial purposes. So there really is no need for the DZO to have the photographers relinquish all of the rights if what they're trying to do is limit "commercial uses."

[DSE 3]

In our case, it's not to limit commercial uses. It's to limit someone having photos of an incident and putting them out into the world without the DZO's permission.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

In our case, it's not to limit commercial uses. It's to limit someone having photos of an incident and putting them out into the world without the DZO's permission.

Hmmmm...that's interesting. Has this ever been tested? The waiver can't stop someone from doing that (it might even be considered a Fair Use!); but it just might give the DZO a means to threaten the photographer with a law suit. The next step could be for the DZO to forbid "unauthorized" photography within his operation entirely. He has every right to do that. Do you think it's more likely that there would be a tandem incident that gets photographed and publicized than an incident involving fun jumpers?

Most people may not realize that issues surrounding model releases and/or photographers' rights are fundamentally issues that pit rights of privacy against free speech. Very often, especially after 9/11 , we see the rights of photographers being restricted on the basis of exaggerated fears. Many DZ's are public places where photographers have rights that should be exercised rather than waived.