Today and The Last Couple of Days Poll?

I want to hear your thoughts on this poll. I think the cinematographer/Videographer owns the rights to the film/video they shoot. What they can do with it is different, but they have the right to say who can and who can't use it. The camera man has a lot of expenses and it is his creative vision. The rider is like an actor in a film although I do think they can have some say but the bottom line is the camera man that shot the footage owns the footage unless an agreement was made prior to the filming. Lets hear your thoughts. I see more people think the riders own the footage??

I agree that the cinematographer/videographer owns the rights. I think it is usually outlined in the contract between the filmer and the rider. The filmer uses their equipment, and their vision to capture the rider. That gives the photographer the right to reproduce the image.

Also, look at Hollywood. Actors don't typically own the film because they are the one on screen making the magic happen. Instead companies like paramount, universal, etc. own the rights to the film. Why would a wakeboarder think otherwise?

I found it really bizarre that the majority thought the rider owns the footage. I was actually disappointed to see that.

It's the intellectual property of the cinematographer/videographer/photographer.


http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

I believe it depends on the reason of why the footage was being shot. If it was for a movie, then yes the cinematographer should have the rights. But if it is freeriding and your buddy is out filming you, then I think the rider should have the rights to the film.

If they are the first to complete the move then they do "own" it already, don't they? The video footage just caps off "ownership" in my eyes.

I think it belongs to the cinematographer, they can edit it into different fimls, etc, but I think the rider deserves his or her own copy.

The only exception I can think of is if the photog is hired to shoot.

There are times that the photog need's to have a signed model release though.

There's lots of info out there on the subject. Google copyright law.

When I find a company using my work without permission they will get billed and won't like the price.

"When I find a company using my work without permission they will get billed and won't like the price."

How bout without a model release

http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/1/628225.html?1222054706

There are a few shots of me in there too and I don't remember signing a release.

All those photos would fall under fair use. There's lot's of info on that too if your not clear about when you should have a release.

The results are very interesting. Obviously the cinematographer owns the rights and thats exactly the way it should be.

When I shot Brad Smeele's 1080 a while back the major issue was trying to get it out there for as many people to see as possible. I could have sat on the footage and used it for Canvas, but I didn't think it would have been fair to Brad. That said, me and Brad are close friends, so that affects the decision making process.

What if you had handed your camera to somebody else while you were getting a new battery or something and while they were holding it, they shot Brad doing a 1080? Now who owns the footage?

from how i understand it, the footage belongs to whoever shot it, no matter whose equipment he/she used.

Ask the poparatzi who gets paid for the pictures! I think people answered this on what they would like not what actually is. What you do in public is public information.

I agree with Joe but, Usually when you hand the camera off to someone for what ever reason most people say without even thinking "Can you shoot this for me?" Usually the words will you or can you and along with the words FOR ME are said in these situation and therefore entering into a verbal contract with the camera owner or main videographer. Giving him/her the rights to the footage. I don't know how well that would actually hold up, but the cameras are usually pretty expensive and for the most part are not just handed off to some you don't trust.(Friend,Fellow Cinematographer, Ect..).

There is no such thing as a verbal contract. Learned that in Entourage.

There is such a thing as a verbal contract it just isn't very strong in court.

Copy Right law covers photos, videos, music, and written word. Protecting your copy right does not requrie a written contract. If you create something you own the rights to it. The internet has made protection of your ownership much more difficult with the ease of distribution and stealing of other peoples property.

If you hire a photographer or videographer to shoot you they still own the image. You purchase one copy or the right to do something with the image or video. If you make additional copies for sell or gain you are stealing from the photographer.

If you have a photography business and you hire someone to use your equipment compensation can be based on "time" in which the busineess owns the images or based on "images sold" in which the photographer owns the images.

I am an attorney and one consideration is the "reasonable expectation of privacy". When riding anywhere in public, anyone can shoot and film you. They can't turn around and slap your picture to endorse a product, but they do own the rights to the image (think paparazzi). David, your comment turned this thing into a law school final exam and I don't take those anymore.

Nowadays (since 1978), aside from works made for hire (ie., employees doing so for their employer), and absent a ‘written’ agreement to the contrary, whoever ‘fixes’ a work in a tangible medium of expression is the author, and claimant to as well as owner of the copyright rights to the work.

A ‘work made for hire’ is an employee authoring the work (ie., fixing the work in a tangible medium of expression) for the employer, wherein the employer is deemed the author, claimant and owner.

Under U.S. law, a transfer of copyright rights requires a written agreement (and is preferably recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office or else a subsequent transferee might take good title over previous transferee(s)).

You have no copyright rights in your face or performances because neither are ‘fixed’ (in a tangible medium of expression) until recorded.

Copyright rights are essentially the right to ‘exclude’ others from using the copyrighted work, as the right to use it may be in conflict with someone else’s right to ‘exclude’ its use.

This happens way too often when a patent owner pays a software developer to author code which has no other use but an infringing use of the patent rights, did not secure in advance a written transfer, and then the relationship melts. In such situations, the patent owner and copyright owner have a standoff. Each can exclude the other from infringing each one’s personally-owned Intellectual Property rights, but has no right using the other’s. Usually this leaves the software developer with code he or she cannot use/re-use, and leaves the patent owner shopping for a new software developer who will be commissioned to produce an independently original work (probably under a written agreement).

If a photograph is taken of a copyrighted poster, the right to copy the photograph might be excluded by the copyright rights in the poster.

The right to use a copyrighted work might be in conflict with other sources of ‘rights’ beyond copyright and patent law, such as and without limitation the rights of (to a lesser extent) privacy and/or (to a greater degree) publicity.

A use which might be squarely encompassed by someone else’s right to exclude its use might be allowable nevertheless under some permitted defense, the ‘fair use’ use defense being the most commonly-given justification to self-help (the validity of such defenses are not known until raised in court and the court delivers its decision).

One brief remark to make about Hollywood films is, that these are expensive business undertakings conducted under a highly formalized structure of contracts, something which would make the amount of documents you sign when refinancing your home mortgage look like peanuts. And in any event, the work authored by an employee-cinematographer would belong to (in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, either between the employee and employer, or else employer and a transferee) the employer.

Or at least this is what my students at a local college have been being taught since 1999. Here’s some ‘air’ photos from 1998 (Covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 5,647,294; 6,070,544 and 6,073,568).

Ollie.
Heelside.
Toeside.