A stolen skydiving image on National Geographic site?

[Laszloimage 0]

I found this skydiving photo on National Geographic's web site:
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/2532629/
The problem is the guy who claims taking this picture also states that he made only one jump in his life. So obviously he couldn't take a freefall shot like this with a DSLR.
This means he uses somebody else's photo, which is a copy right infringement.
Besides that he also fooled a whole bunch of people including a NatGeo editor.
Please read his statements and postings about this photo.
By the way does anyone of you skydiving photographer fellows recognize this shot?

[PhreeZone 15]

Looks like the plane is a Cresco or PAC so it should narrow the list a lot of where it might have been taken at.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[RMK 3]

Attached is a copy of the photo from the site. He even put his own name as copyright on it. WTF

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[BigMark 1]

What a ripoff, that picture was taken by ChrisD!

[jumpsracer 6]

Have ChrisD notify NatGeo of the problem. That is total BS!!!

[fasted3 0]

RMK

Attached is a copy of the photo from the site. He even put his own name as copyright on it. WTF

This looks like a photo of this guy's jump. He probably paid for the photo, so IMO, he owns it. If he grabbed it from a website that CD posted it to, then not so much.
So if he buys the pic, then it's his.

But what do I know?

[DSE 3]

fasted3

***Attached is a copy of the photo from the site. He even put his own name as copyright on it. WTF

This looks like a photo of this guy's jump. He probably paid for the photo, so IMO, he owns it. If he grabbed it from a website that CD posted it to, then not so much.
So if he buys the pic, then it's his.

That's not at all how copyright works. The photo belongs to the photographer or the DZ, depending on agreements.
The right to VIEW and DISPLAY the copy goes to the person in the photo.

When you buy a song on iTunes, you do not own the song. YOu've purchased a license to listen to it whenever you want.

[fasted3 0]

DSE

******Attached is a copy of the photo from the site. He even put his own name as copyright on it. WTF

This looks like a photo of this guy's jump. He probably paid for the photo, so IMO, he owns it. If he grabbed it from a website that CD posted it to, then not so much.
So if he buys the pic, then it's his.

That's not at all how copyright works. The photo belongs to the photographer or the DZ, depending on agreements.
The right to VIEW and DISPLAY the copy goes to the person in the photo.

When you buy a song on iTunes, you do not own the song. You've purchased a license to listen to it whenever you want.
I agree. But I submit that this is an area that is up for contention, and entirely dependent on prior agreements. Say I, as a jumper, pay you to take my picture. Now I claim that I own the pic, and even want to copyright it. If the prior agreements we made are in line with this, then it is mine, right?

But what do I know?

[DSE 3]

no, not correct. Under any circumstance but a very specific work for hire written agreement, creative content always belongs to the creator of the content.

Remember when you were a kid in school? Your parents never got the negatives of your school pix; Jostens owns them. Your parents merely paid for a print of the negative Josten's owns, created at your parent's instigation.

[ChuckMartin 0]

fasted3

*********Attached is a copy of the photo from the site. He even put his own name as copyright on it. WTF

This looks like a photo of this guy's jump. He probably paid for the photo, so IMO, he owns it. If he grabbed it from a website that CD posted it to, then not so much.
So if he buys the pic, then it's his.

That's not at all how copyright works. The photo belongs to the photographer or the DZ, depending on agreements.
The right to VIEW and DISPLAY the copy goes to the person in the photo.

When you buy a song on iTunes, you do not own the song. You've purchased a license to listen to it whenever you want.
I agree. But I submit that this is an area that is up for contention, and entirely dependent on prior agreements. Say I, as a jumper, pay you to take my picture. Now I claim that I own the pic, and even want to copyright it. If the prior agreements we made are in line with this, then it is mine, right?

No there is no contention, like DSE said 99.9% of the time you do not own, or get to call the photo yours. Unless it is agreed on the buyer does not even have the right to edit the photo. If I shoot somebody for an ad or a couple for a wedding they don't get to take the image and enter into a contest saying it is their work. That might not make sense to you but it does to people that went to school for this and live off their work. You cant buy a car and say that you invented it. Even when photographers sell their rights to an image you still cant say that it is your work, just that you own the rights to it.

[fasted3 0]

Hold on. I'm not saying I created the photo, but the bone of contention is who owns it. If I pay Spot to take a picture of me, and clearly specify that I will take possession of said photo after paying him an agreed amount, then would I not own it?

But what do I know?

[Rover 9]

All other arguements aside I don't think it is a particuarly great photo - no disrespect to the real photographer. It's cool but not outstanding IMHO
Alot of the comments about the photo are just pretentious gushy bullshit.

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[mereanarchy 0]

If this is the case than you also receive from the photographer a statement indicating that you own the rights to the photo. I have done this for my wedding, and have a signed letter from my photographer indicating such. In this case, he has stated and is clearly claiming that he TOOK the photo, not that he is the subject of the photo

[Doug_Davis 0]

Picture has been removed from their website it seems.

[RMK 3]

Doug_Davis

Picture has been removed from their website it seems.

That's no fun. I had bookmarked the page to wait for the actual photographer to add a comment thanking the former posters for their compliments and asking what the prize would be of he won.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[ChuckMartin 0]

fasted3

Hold on. I'm not saying I created the photo, but the bone of contention is who owns it. If I pay Spot to take a picture of me, and clearly specify that I will take possession of said photo after paying him an agreed amount, then would I not own it?

Depends on what is said in the model release. If I keep all creative rights to it there is not much you could do with it. Lets say I take a photo at a wedding and a wedding magazine wants to run it they still have to get my permission to do so. At the least they have to try and if not have to give credit. A lot of time if a shoot a model for something we both get rights to it, if we used a make up artist and a wardrobe stylist them too. But I don't think I ever gave permission to edit the photo. So it is part theirs but again there are some things they can and can't do with it. Lets say the make up artist takes it and makes it look like crap with some bad editing I now look bad. This is always a little different because it is basically a contract between you and the artist. You could talk about this stuff all day because you could talk about stock photos and other thing but something like what happened on natgeo is in NO WAY okay.

[Laszloimage 0]

Yeh, NatGeo had a quick reaction and removed the photo. But I'm surprised they didn't ban the guy (Siddhartha Khandelwal) from the site.
It's also a great to hear some of you found the real photographer.
Thank you guys!
Laszlo

[Fullmoon 0]

I wonder if NatGeo actually removed it vs. Siddhartha removing it due to numerous comments. Your Shot has a few guys with handy-cam photos posted as their own. You can even see both hands of the student, so he obviously didn't take the picture. There's a few, but here's one that had a lot of attention a while back. It's a nice photo, but not his.

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/2355164/

BTW, love your photos especially the clouds. Also, the link to your website does not work from your profile.

-Lisa

[jumpsalot-2 3]

Big in the news last week. Ellen Digenerous ( ?) was hosting the Oscars. She and her buddies go for a "selfy" picture. One of the guys ( in the pic ) grabs her phone to get a better angle. This picture, worth a lot of money they say, is now the property of the guy who took Ellen's phone from her and snapped the pic. .....

Life is short ... jump often.

[dragon2 0]

jumpsalot-2

Big in the news last week. Ellen Digenerous ( ?) was hosting the Oscars. She and her buddies go for a "selfy" picture. One of the guys ( in the pic ) grabs her phone to get a better angle. This picture, worth a lot of money they say, is now the property of the guy who took Ellen's phone from her and snapped the pic. .....

I ran into an issue like that a number of years ago, when another skydiver (just a spectator, who didn't bring his own DSLR) borrowed my expensive DSLR and lens and went onto the water to shoot pics of the swoopcomp I was filming. A couple of photographers were allowed close to the course and I was going to get those pictures for the website and promotion and stuff (all duly credited of course). He then gave the camera back to me with a gruff 'give me the memorycard and don't use these pictures for anything they're mine'.

OK, that was the last time he borrowed anything from me

At least he still pressed the button, I just didn't like his manners and we should have communicated better beforehand...

But what if I set up a helmetcam of mine for someone else, with the camera auto-set to take a picture every 5 seconds?

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[DSE 3]

dragon2

But what if I set up a helmetcam of mine for someone else, with the camera auto-set to take a picture every 5 seconds?

Your eye still won't be composing the frame, your body positioning for the frame, and your experience knowing what it takes to instinctively create the opportunities. Ergo, the photos belong to the one "pushing the button" and "composing the frame"

[Laszloimage 0]

Thank you Lisa for the compliment and all the info!
I wonder why would people claim things what can be busted so easily. A "kinda celebrity" gave an interview after his first jump. He told to the camera he was so cool during his 1st tandem jump the instructor actually released him and let him skydive by himself for a bit... :)

The link appears to work for me, thanks again anyway.
Laszlo

[ChrisD 0]

BigMark

What a ripoff, that picture was taken by ChrisD!

Go F... yourself, you think your funny?????

I don't

C

have a nice day.

(Hey here's a special note to the mod that removes this post, why don't you remove the original one by mark as well,????)

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[Chris-Ottawa 0]

I love this. A photographer comes online to complain about people "stealing" skydiving photos. Sure, I don't dispute the ownership of the photos, but then another photo is posted where the guy makes no claim that he took the picture...yet this same photographer decides it's his duty to show everyone how much of a douchebag skydivers can be by calling the person out on a public message board. The client knows no better, they paid for a cameraman to take their pictures and then they were provided the digital originals for them to take home. That can easily be interpreted as "their photos" at that point. Regardless of whether they are or not, a kind reminder would have sufficed.

Golf clap for you sir...

Have you heard of private messages, or contacting the company hosting the contest/event etc?


See the comment for yourself:
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/2355164/

Quote

Laszlo Andacs 5pts
While it's a nice shot you did not take it!

The tandem instructor (the person behind you wearing sunglasses and taking you on a tandem skydive) took this photo with a GoPro camera mounted on his wrist. Therefore it is his photograph and not yours!

The trophy and the recognition should be his. Further more I don't know any dropzones (skydiving operation)

which actually gives away their images on a "work for hire" bases, so there's a chance you're violating copy right law using his picture and claiming it as your own.

Have you considered that maybe he had consent from the owner? Maybe the TM was his friend. Maybe he works at the DZ. Maybe the owner doesn't care if he uses the photo? Maybe there was a verbal agreement that the GoPro was the client's and the pictures would remain his? All questions you do not know the answer to.

Anyways, not like we have any skydivers that have egos to protect or anything. Best we show the public that we are friendly and courteous....right up until you piss us off and we lose our shit on you. No wonder there are so many farmer McNasty's around the world...it's people like the above and their attitudes.

Mind....spoken.

"When once you have tasted flight..."

[DSE 3]

Given that the original photo/posting is gone, you may have missed that the person posting the original photo is also a professional photographer.
No, he did not claim he took the photo, nor did he express he didn't. Given that he's a professional, it would be reasonable to assume the original poster on the natl' geo site knows the ropes of copyright.
The shot you've linked to isn't at all relevant to the original shot, now removed by National Geographic or their site hosts.