DSE

Color range works well too. If it's for a website, .gif will allow for the transparency, so will .png, but .png isn't friendly with some browsers. Does this work?

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.

I've got about 150 jumps on a Silhouette 230, love it. Sweet, soft openings, very responsive, lands great, although it took me a few landings to completely figure it out so I wasn't running hard to stay standing. Now I've got a 210 as the next canopy in my progression; My exit weight is approx 215 or just a hair less,depending on which set up I'm wearing. I transitioned to it very easily. BTW, I went from a PD 230 9 cell to the Silhouette 230, but the flight characteristics are radically different. I wish I knew why the Silhouette isn't more popular, because after jumping several of the larger canopy models, it was my fave.

Paul, Phree, or one of the other significantly more experienced guys can provide better answers than I can, but from what I've been told/shown; Sight goes over dominant eye, or if you're concerned about hanging up lines, put it on the side opposite of your dumpside. So if you're like most, you dump on the right, which would put the ringsite on your left. Mine is cut to very low profile, so I have it on the right, simply because I'm right eye dominant. And my hackey is on the right.

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.

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.

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.

I now use Adobe Flash 8, but prior to that, I used Swish Flix, it's cheap, easy, and dang good at converting avi/mpeg to flash.

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.

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.

Haven't worked with this cam specifically, but be aware it's AVC/MPEG 4, which cannot be easily edited, and is incredibly CPU intensive. CineForm has said they're considering an add-on to their tools that would create HDI's/intermediaries for editing on PC platforms, and Apple has hinted at the same for Quicktime (pro) plus Lumiere has said they'll be creating an AVC intermediary tool. But...those tools aren't here now.

Native American flute piano, guitar, percussion

Or in Dine' (Navajo)?

Ahh, the bliss of youthful ignorance. You'd probably be shocked to know how many bands out there entirely owe their start to KISS. BonJovi and Garth Brooks are probably the two biggest names that come to mind. If you think it's about the music, you're woefully (insert negative superlative here) _______________________________ [edited for typo]

There are a few of us older guys that sing/chant this song on the ride to altitude... Duh duh duh Duh duh duh Uhn uhn nuh... Nasty guitar riff in there. "My basket ball coach he done kicked me off the team for wearin' high heeled sneakers, and acting like a Queeeeeeeeeeennnnnn"

Join the club. After a few emails I ended up calling. That eventually got me a return phone call, 3 weeks after the first phone call and 6 weeks after the first email. Great products, lousy service.

Many dropzones share the airport facility with other businesses, private aircraft owners, and commercial operations. If the runway is paved, you can almost rest assured that federal $$ went into the airport at some level. Therefore, it's all but impossible to have situations where no one else is flying within a mile of the dropzone. Even if there were such a restriction (and there are restrictions as to where aircraft may fly) it is still entirely YOUR responsibility to be safe in the air whether in freefall or under canopy. You have less control, less speed, and less mass, but so does a bicycle rider on the side of the freeway. As you grow from student status, your JM or instructors will teach you to spot, and looking out for aircraft is an integral part of the spotting process. Our DZ for example, is used by a lot of doctors/lawyers/private business aircraft plus firefighting aircraft and helicopter businesses, controlled by a tower 30 miles away. It's not extremely common, but not uncommon to have to do go-arounds because other aircraft are spotted in our flight path.

I'm sure glad to read this, I know someone who has pullup cord as their dive loops, and I thought it looked pretty cool (color contrasts), and had considered it for myself.

Congrats, Tonto~!

So today marked the release of "KISSology" in three volumes. Sucks that you have to go to Walmart/Sams Club for volume one Best Buy for volume two anywhere else for volume three But have spent the past few hours enjoying old vids of KISS. There is a clip of a skydiver with KISS makeup on one disc from what I'm told, but haven't found it yet. Anyone know where it is? there are 9 discs total in the set. I wanna dress up like Gene Simmons and wear my cam suit like his "wings" and jump before I get too much older. Would be fun, and probably get some fun hits on YouTube or something similar.

No, but it's much easier to do so. I started my AFF in one state, but when my instructor told me I'd have a hard time with certain aspects (due to small landing area, reasonably constant and almost too high winds on most days) and that the DZ that would become my home DZ would be different, I started calling around. The DZ I moved to made me repeat my level one jump, and made me repeat jump school because their tests are different than the one I took. There was also 5000 feet difference in MSL, as well. Plus, you'll want to get to know the instructors. With luck, you'll jump with different instructors through the process. I'm *really* glad for that opportunity, because I learned from a variety of people, all of whom were saying essentially the same things, but from different perspectives and differing methods of explanation. It was very helpful for me, but YMMV. Spend a little time at each DZ option you've got, figure out which DZ "fits" your personality/gut instinct, and that location will likely become your home DZ.

PM me with your addy. I probably have at least Premiere 6 laying around, and maybe something newer. It's yours for the cost of postage.

Sorry, gotta disagree...I have a Road King, and while I know I can sell it, I'm keeping it. But...it has problems, and a lot of em. We produced a desert shoot of a no-name motorcycle breakdown where a wife picks up her hubby because "he just had to have a motorcycle." The spot was based on a real-life experience the copywriter had with her husband, following him to Sturgis on his 7 month-old, properly broken in Harley. I've got a Valkyrie, Road King, and my wife has an older Silverwing. Road King has had more costs in repair than all 4-5 previous bikes (including my Hondas) combined. But...I can also sell the Road King for nearly what I paid for it. Even if it isn't the best bike I own. People will buy anything that's got ego appeal. 'Specially if it says "Harley" on it. But also gotta add, the post-AMF days are light years better than the Sportie I had back then.

you wrote: Yahoos like your friend are the reason it costs something like $2,000 a year to insure a sport bike and the reason I can't buy health insurance that covers me when I ride. " Seems to me that's blaming riders that wear shorts for your lack of ability to purchase health insurance. Must be those damn demons; they're making it difficult for me to understand your point. Out! Damn demons! OUT! An artist is a creature driven by demons. He doesn't know why they choose him and he's usually too busy to wonder why. William Faulkner I guess that's me. Too busy to put on pants.

Demons? DEMONS? We don't gots no stinkin' demons 'round here...Wow! Guess I'd better see a priest or something. Jeans vs shorts make virtually zero difference at 75 mph. Wearing a helmet might make a difference. Either way, my insurance company doesn't care which I wear; they'll be scraping me up the same way. If demons are being projected, it's the blame which you assign to me and others that are apparently "careless" by wearing shorts, jeans, and no helmet, for your apparently expensive motorcycle and/or health insurance. Demons or otherwise, I'm not responsible for your insurance problems. BTW, I have horses and land in San Marcos, and I broke my leg riding my horse while wearing shorts. Maybe my horses are more responsible for your healthcare/motorcycle insurance costs? And yes, I have a Texas helmet exemption tag. As Normiss said, I think based on my 30 years of riding I can handle most situations...most...but there's always a first...that's why we call it risk. Just don't blame me, us, or demons if you can't afford insurance or have issues with helmet laws. No hurt feelings on my behalf, I simply feel you're a misinformed or seriously lost soul to suggest that wearing Tshirt/shorts on a motorcycle is careless or foolish. I do believe that I have a right to choose, and making that choice means I took care to make a decision. You might not agree with my decision, but it was one made with care based on riding conditions. But I'll see a priest to have my demons exorcised...no worries. Or maybe I can just read a book and do it myself.