jeiber

Right on! I think most chicks are starting to figure out what they really want (ie mature) at 26-29. Us guys... ppfffftttt, we're a little slow, I guess. No guy should even be allowed to get a marriage license before the age of 29!

Interesting article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

I guess the best way to avoid a divorce is to never get married!

J

I think the media (and cops) have it all wrong. Here's my theory:

Guy is sick of his girlfriend, but can't get out of relationship because she's psycho, so he starts hooking up with hot horny married lady. He falls in love with hot horny married lady, and she laughs in his face when he tells her he wants more out of relationship and asks her to leave husband. He's crushed, but still had to put up with psycho girlfriend. If he can't have hot horny married lady, nobody can; he sabotages her rig. She goes in, and everybody suspects the unstable psycho girlfriend. Psycho girl gets locked up, hot horny married lady is dead. No more women problems!

Perry Mason and Columbo aint got shit on me!

Jeff

Quote

works more like a computer, so you should turn it off and back on again to reset it.

LMAO, it is Windows, after all!

2fat2fly
AllisonH
BigBug
BigM
BillyVance (maybe) bloody BETTER BE dude...that's right - I'm yelling!!!Laugh
Bolas
Blueskyserenity
Carbonezone
ccowden
Chaoskitty
CrazyRick
crutch
CSpenceFly
DaGimp & PornKitty
DownwindDave
dzmemories
FlyDoc
fmmobley
Goofyjumper
hisgoofyness
Hushpuppy
icevideot
Icon134
Ifallfast
Jeannier
JeepDiver
Jeiber
Jerrald
JesSke
Julie
jumpingbean001
LadyBug
Lauraliscious
LittleSkyCrab
LoveBug
matt1215
MicDuran
Mirage62
Missg8tor + Chris Meng
MOUTH and hubby
mwabd1
namgrunt
nannerbanner
ncfitzge
PapaSke
Peregrinerose
Popsjumper
Psychobob and Psychopatty
Pyke
Rastaricanair
RedBug
Revillusion
RevJim
skinnyshrek
jumper03
Skydave
Skydivingchad
Skymama
Speedygonzales
Stitch
smud79
T
teamjenn1
Thanatos340
TinMan
TMaricle55
TMPattersonJr (maybe)
Turtle
Whodamiss and Freelyflyn71
wildcard451 + dick in a box
woodpecker
yardhippie

It was great meeting you in Eloy, Tommy; just wish we had more time to hang out. I wish I would have headed to Mexico with you guys on Thursday.

EgoMike, Ficus, and Iwan, it was great hanging with you guys. Beth, Kristi, and Gia, it was great seeing you ladies again. All of you, and anyone else I've absentmindedly missed, I'm very sorry for your loss.

It's been a rough year...

Jeff

If we all banded together and formed some kind of union or association, it would give us a firmer base to stand on. We could probably get a yearly discount at someplace like 'shutterfly', where we could just direct people to get their photos. Prices (and profit margin) would automatically be set online. Maybe work an equipment discount with some online retailer like B&H?

Union of Freefall Photographers?
Vidiots Association of America?

I don't think it would be too tough to get set up. Then again, getting skydivers organized is like herding cats!

Jeff

Quote

i put various systems under a high degree of stress until they break...

then we make them better

Now THAT is a cool job! Getting paid to break stuff all day!
I'm jealous!

J

Quote

Personally, I'm an "IT Infrastructure Support Analyst" or more simply, I do tech support for the government of Canada.

Sr. Design Engineer (CCIE) for a Fortune 100 telecom. I design large data and VoIP networks.

I spend half my day trying to come up with solutions to impossible problems. I spend the other half of my day trying to explain the solution to people who don't even realize a problem exists.

It's a good job, pays well, and I enjoy most of the people I work with. Unfortunately it's not very exciting...

Jeff

Quote

No rear curtain..

Just my XT - 10MM and the popup flash!

Nice how the leading edges are still sharp!

Jeff

Did you use rear curtain sync on that?

Nice shot!
J

Quote

Thanks - I used a 15mm fisheye and slide film on that one.

Just out of curiousity, what brand? Very cool shot.

Jeff

Very nice work for your first tandem vid!
What everybody else said. Also, you seemed really close to the tandem on their deployment, but maybe that was just the lens distortion.

I disagree with turning off the image stabilization though. Zoom in, so you don't get a vignette. Better yet, if you're going to be doing alot of vids, I'd spend some cash on a good lens that doesn't vignette. That's just a personal peeve of mine though.

Jeff

Dayum, looks like you were pretty close with that wide angle!

Here are a couple of my favorites.

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

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

Quote

It's AVC HD, which is the consumer name for MPEG4/Pt 10. MPEG 4 is incredibly difficult to edit at this time, requires massive CPU horsepower, and at bitrates of less than 18Mbps, suffers quality loss. At higher bitrates, it can be incredible, depending on the encoder/decoder combination. Panasonic has also announced a pro version of this, with the first prototype to be shown at NAB 2007 in April. The pro format is called AVC-I, for IntraFrame Only mpeg 4. It's speculative at best as to how this will end up, as engineers from every company except Panasonic have chuckled privately and publically about it.
Either way, AVC is coming, coming fast, and will eventually replace DV in a few years.
Bear in mind, it's not *just* the encoder that matters, but the decoder too. Both are relevant for quality.
CineForm(www.cineform.com) have announced an AVC HD conversion tool to convert AVC HD to a more editable format, should be coming soon.

With HD (and it's variants) becoming more popular, how do we take advantage of this increased resolution? I ask, because my understanding is that DVD's have a much lower bitrate the even raw DV, let alone HD, right?

Does one need an HD DVD burner/player to really take advantage of these cameras? I assume an HD player would be required as well?

Jeff

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

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

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

If you have a folder in your C:\windows\system32 directory named wsnpoem, and it has filed named audio.dll and video.dll, you've got a problem.

This, and alot of other bad thing started happening after I clicked on a link someone sent me in messenger. They told me they didn't send it, so they're probably infected as well.... :(

This is a pain in the ass to get rid of...

Jeff

Yikes, already got that from someone, and already clicked on the link.

I'm using Norton Antivirus and Webroot Spysweeper, and they didn't catch anything wrong with it...

Uh oh... anybody know any details about what it does?

Damn... I didn't even get to see any boobs.

Unfortunately I might not make it down until Saturday... Had vacation scheduled, but looks like a project I'm working on can't go without me for two days...

Quote

Quote

Quote

See if I ever get drunk around you two again. You're instigators, I tell ya!

andrea just don't drink the water in palatka and you won't get yourself in such trouble

i would love to know what i am doing in the background

Art - "You're gonna get in so much trouble"

Unknown - "I love 'lamp'" hahahah lol

Lamp?! Huh? That's not what it sounds like to me...

Welcome to the world of identity theft...

http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/

Whatever you do, don't cancel the charge back!!!

I wouldn't worry too much about their threats, I'd worry more about who they're going to sell your information to. I'd expect alot of junk mail and spam in the future.

Good luck,
Jeff

ps- cancel your credit card...

Quote

Hell,I'll take the Super Otter.Faster thatn the Skyvan and holds two more people.

I can't wait to see the Pitts brothers try to launch a raft exit out of the Otter!