Fun, Disappointment and Exhaustion

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

Something gets said about the videos from my student days, and Jack's face gets a really worried look. He says something like "you can't use them", and I retort "why not? Aren't they mine?" and Jack gets kind of mad, and walks away with one of the producers. I am still not altogether sure what that was about - or how it will get resolved.

I almost forgot about this part. Actually, I need some help here from the videographers that lurk this forum. At Perris we have always tried to protect the videographers that work hard to make us look good in the air. Standard skydiving video is normally shot for private enjoyment, not for broadcast. We have always asked that skydivers wishing to use video for broadcast purposes seek permission from the videographer prior to broadcast. In some cases that can also mean some form of compensation. What Michele had stated in the pre-production meeting was that she was going to give the producers footage from some of her fun skydives. When I asked her about the right to be able to do that her comment was, "I paid for them, they are mine and I can do anything I want with them". I was trying to protect the videographers involved. I am asking videographers how they would feel about having their footage used in a situation like this, without their knowledge, permission and without compensation. Perhaps I am overstepping my role as a general manager in doing this, but I do want to see ALL parties at our DZ treated fairly. Any opinions?

Thank you Jack. Sorry Michele but Jack is 100% correct on this one.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[AndyMan 7]

I understand quite the opposite. Tandem video is usually paid work, which to me puts it into the category of "for hire". When video work is done "for hire", the copyright is owned by the client, being michele, and she can do with it as she chooses.

As I understand it, the videographers have as much right to the flim as the NBC cameraman who shoots the superbowl, being nil.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[JakGramley 2]

Quote

I understand quite the opposite. Tandem video is usually paid work, which to me puts it into the category of "for hire". When video work is done "for hire", the copyright is owned by the client, being michele, and she can do with it as she chooses.

Actually, if you look at the entertainment industry, quite the opposite is true. When any video or still image is taken, there is an understanding as to how it would be used. You can't use someone's image without their permission, you can't use someones work without permission. Let's take a real life situation. Let's say you ask a photographer to take a shot of you in freefall, just for your own enjoyment. Let's say you then find that the shot is REALLY good, and you sell it to a magazine. I think you will find that you DON'T have the right to do that, that the photographer would object because his/her work would be used outside of the orginal understanding. Again, I am using what I have learned in dealing with production companies and I am not a lawyer. It would be interesting to hear from others about this.

Jack Gramley
Computer Consultant

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Any opinions?

If Michele has hired a camera flyer to videotape her jump, then the contents of the tape are hers! Of course, this is not a legal opinion, 'cause I ain't no lawyer, but I would suggest, Jack, that if you don't want people using their video's for anything other than personal viewing, then you have them sign a contract indicating so at the point of purchase.

[Michele 1]

Quote

I understand quite the opposite. Tandem video is usually paid work, which to me puts it into the category of "for hire". When video work is done "for hire", the copyright is owned by the client, being michele, and she can do with it as she chooses.

That's what I had thought. As it was not done with "public" airing in mind, the original intent was simply for training (as a visual learner, I learn best by seeing things...which is why I spent the $75 each time for a vid). Had it originally been done with the intent to sell it, or publicize it, then the intent is something else altogether.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. All those photos which are on this site - posted by the "hey, that's me and so-and-so doing a something-or-other", if what Jack says is true (and I am not a lawyer, and have no clue what the law says...and he could be totally right), then each and every one of those are violating the copyright laws - unless it was the videographer him/herself posting that pix. Is that true? And since no releases were signed, is it a violation of everyone to have their faces shown on such a public forum, too? All sorts of things start to come into play...and since I don't have the vid's to watch, I can't be sure, but is there a copyright stamp anywhere on them, indicating that it belongs to the photographer and not to the employer (in this case, me?) I know that Paul Quade puts the little "c" in a circle on his stuff...but is it on the vid's I have? I dunno; it's something I'll check out when I get them back.

Further, I find it pretty concerning that people are assuming that I didn't talk to the production company about making sure credit gets to the photographer(s) (which was done, as well as ways to get in touch with them, if they choose to use any of it at all - and done prior to the conversation in the "crew" room).

If the contention is "I filmed it, therefore it is mine", Joe owns the footage from ESPN. If the response to that question is, "well, he was hired for the footage, paid for his time, and the footage is ESPN's", then the same can be said about the wonderful guys who jumped with me: I hired them to perform a service, I would suspect that their W2's or 1099's show income from vid services - which, if I am not greatly mistaken, makes them professionals, and, as the employer, whatever vid came from it belongs to me. (Caveat: I am NOT a lawyer!!! I said that already, but it bears repeating, I think. This is just my OPINION, of which I am full of).

Keely, I appreciate your comments, and if I neglected to say THANKS to PVSD, then I am indeed remiss - and hereby rectify it:

THANKS PERRIS VALLEY SKYDIVING!
But it might also be mentioned here that I didn't say "THANKS" to anyone.....which may point out a character flaw I have...

OTOH, I was and am still disappointed for several reasons. And as was pointed out by another poster, I felt really stuck in the middle. The way I write is from my recollections, and if something bad has happened, I include that, too...because everything is not always nice, and not always perfect and skipping down the garden path. I am a direct person, and do not lie. What people read in my posts are specifically my own opinion, and can draw the conclusions they like - be they good, bad or indifferent.

Look, some people may/may not like that I did this. Some people may feel that I have done damage to the sport. Some people may indeed feel that they have been taken advantage of. Some people may regret helping me, some people may regret volunteering their time and efforts. As stated in the original post, I am ambivalent about the whole thing. There were good parts, there were bad parts, and there were fun parts, too. Just like in any skydive, there are things that were wonderful, and things which I will not do again; things I learned, and things that occurred which were not planned. We have all walked away from it, so at this point, lessons learned, and it's time to move on.

How about we all wait until the editing is done, and the final copy is done and aired, before we start saying PV got screwed? I don't think that's the case. But we'll see, you know?

As always, this is simply my opinion. It may not agree with yours. That's kewlio by me.


Hope all who're jumping have great jumps, and all those that are not have great times this weekend, too!

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

[JakGramley 2]

Michele,

Actually, I think you will be very pleased with the results from the ESPN shots. I was able to watch most of it from behind the camera. You and the instructors did a good job of telling the story. Unless they REALLY mess it up in post production, I think the story will be one that all skydivers like. Also, I am sure that all of the skydiving wannabees will like your prospective of it. You have the ability to remember your feelings from that moment and project that to the camera. I am hoping we can get a copy of the tape so that we can all enjoy it in the Bombshelter over a few cold ones.

Jack Gramley
Computer Consultant

[drenaline 0]

Am not a lawyer but here are my opinions but I had this talk with a good friend who is a profesional photographer

Quote

If Michele has hired a camera flyer to videotape her jump, then the contents of the tape are hers!

That is correct, Michele is the owner of everything that is in the tape (cause she bought ownership, titles and everything if am not mistaken, remembe me no lawyer) but remember that the one who sold the video for 75$ did it with the intention that it was going to use for entertainment and non profit things (in this case ESPN was the one gaining the profit); if the seller knew or thought that the video was going to be used for profit (ESPN, not Michele) he would of sold the video for more than 200$ cause others were going to make money with his work.

Quote

if you don't want people using their video's for anything other than personal viewing, then you have them sign a contract indicating so at the point of purchase.

Good advice, might save you a lot of communication problems but might make some people not liking the idea of having to sign something and end up asking somebody else to film them.

Michele can use the videos for anything but she will loose the trust of the cameramen. IMO Jack protected your relation with the camera flyer crew.

A camera man told me that if I wanted to use the picture for anything that will give profit to another institution (sponsors) he would have to charge me 150$ for the picture and have them (the people making profit) sign a contract for 6 months of exposure or something like that and after that time they will not be allowed to show the picture if they don't renew the contract and pay more money but if I wanted that picture to hang it in my room he will only charge me 10$. He also explained me that I could use the 10$ picture for the profit stuff cause its my picture but he will loose all trust in me and charge all future pictures for 150$ if he wanted to take them.

of course I live in another country so I really dunno 100% if it works the same there. <-- added that line on the edit.

HISPA 21
www.panamafreefall.com

[Michele 1]

Quote

remember that the one who sold the video for 75$ did it with the intention that it was going to use for entertainment and non profit things

I also had no intention of using it ever for public viewing...

Quote

IMO Jack protected your relation with the camera flyer crew.

Yup, I think he did, as well...but again, that is something I had (and continue to) talked to the production folks about - and did it from the first moment they asked me about video. I am not looking to screw anyone about anything...matter of fact, they had names of some of the camera guys *before* Jack even knew about the vids....

Quote

I am hoping we can get a copy of the tape so that we can all enjoy it in the Bombshelter over a few cold ones.

Right on, Jack! They said they'd send me a copy of it when it's done, and I'll buy the first 2 pitchers! Party in the Bombshelter - time to laugh at me! (Something I do with frequency, let me add...I am the goofyest thing I know!)....

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[fasterfaller 0]

First off Jack , sorry about the greedy bastard comment . I still think it would have been good to let her jump . This still smells of dz politics to me . I have seen other dz owners and managers fall all over themselves to get coverage on any local channel let alone ESPN . I have watched dz owners give away 20 jump tickets to fill a load at 6:30 am for a free tandem to a news producer . I heard they got close to a hundred tandems for their initial outlay and that is the ones they can say for sure .The camera man that shot the film was paid $75.00 for his efforts and even shot a free roll of film for the producer . He told them do what you want with the footage as long as he could keep a copy and use it for himself .The dz operator said he figured that the take was close to $15,000 for his minimal outlay of cash . There is a thing in advertising that is called a lost leader . You lose very little money up front but when someone comes in to the store most of the time they buy more than that one lost leader item . The profits can be HUGE . I shoot video from time to time and I would love to see my photos on tv or in print as long as I am given credit for shooting them . I think the photographers are missing the point in this too . It is called exposure . I would have never known about some of the photographers at perris if it was not from this forum . Having your name in the credits can mean a lot to you when the right person sees it . I think that if the guys that shot her student footage got their names in the credits it could be a big boost to their careers . If I was trying to scrape out a living at a dz doing video , I would see this as a missed opportunity . I would be pissed at the person that blocked this from happening . If I owned the dz I would pissed that I missed free national coverage on ESPN .There is a much larger picture here that I think Jack is missing . Think outside the box . Play the media to your advantage . Give away something and it will come back to you .

[JakGramley 2]

Quote

First off Jack , sorry about the greedy bastard comment.

Not a problem. Given the information that you had at the time I might have made the same comment. I just appreciate that you are keeping an open mind to the information as it becomes available.

Quote

I still think it would have been good to let her jump . This still smells of dz politics to me .

Actually, the decision all along was ESPN's and they chose, from the start, not to jump. We never even discussed what the costs might be for that. It was never even proposed to me by them. My only concern here was that our policy at Perris is that we do have different criteria when a production company wants to put people in the aircraft. And you are right, each company decides how they want to do business. Perris has chosen to work closely with production companies and we have a set of guidelines on how we operate. In this case we were asked only for ground footage, and it was for one of our jumpers. That was why we asked nothing for ourselves.

Quote

I shoot video from time to time and I would love to see my photos on tv or in print as long as I am given credit for shooting them . I think the photographers are missing the point in this too . It is called exposure . I would have never known about some of the photographers at perris if it was not from this forum . Having your name in the credits can mean a lot to you when the right person sees it . I think that if the guys that shot her student footage got their names in the credits it could be a big boost to their careers . If I was trying to scrape out a living at a dz doing video , I would see this as a missed opportunity . I would be pissed at the person that blocked this from happening .

I understand that you would want that opportunity. I think the thing is that each videographer should have the right to be involved in that decision. You feel that you want it sent out, someone else might not. I was simply suggesting that ALL parties had the right to be involved. I think that is only fair. It would be easy to contact the videographers involved and ask them. They might immediately agree. They might not. I simply feel they have the right to make that decision. Is it legal? I have no idea. I like what one of the previous posts said, about having the working relationship with videographer. Out of courtesy I would have asked.

Jack Gramley
Computer Consultant

[Michele 1]

Quote

Any opinions?

Hi, Jack.

There sure has been a lot of speculation floating on this thread about copyright laws, who owns what, etc.

I sent you this in a pm, but I also thought I'd post it up here, just so we could move from the realm of opinion, and into the realm of "law"...here is what I found:

US Code, Title 17, Chapter 2, Section (a) and (b)

(a) Initial Ownership. -

Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

(b) Works Made for Hire. -

In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html

(emphasis added is mine).

(head's up, opinion coming now)...'twould seem that in this specific case, I am the person "for whom the work was prepared", and, as there was a cost involved, also could be considered "the employer", as there would have been no "job" had I not paid for them to come along on the ride - and not just a jump ticket, either (which, again, imho, is NOT remuneration for the video work - just the ability to get into the air). Now, if video came with every jump, I would suspect that the video would be owned by the school, who is the employer of the videographer.

Just some thoughts. I didn't read the entire Chapter 17 (would've put me right to sleep, I think), but this is the pertinent section, as far as I could find.

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[IronMike 0]

Jack,
I want to produce my next porn flick starring Ed White at the dropzone. Do you forsee any problems? We are paying big bucks and free jump tickets to all females willing to be involved; any takers?

Mike

[BonnyBN 0]

Quote

(b) Works Made for Hire. -
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
[snip] - just the ability to get into the air). Now, if video came with every jump, I would suspect that the video would be owned by the school, who is the employer of the videographer.

peace out,
Bonny.

[Michele 1]

Quote

Now, if video came with every jump, I would suspect that the video would be owned by the school, who is the employer of the videographer.

Right, if there were video at no extra charge, but was included in the price paid for the jumps. Because it's not necessary (like 2 jm's on level 1, etc), and is an extra charge, which I paid for, and he/they would not have had the job had I not paid for it, then I suspect that I was the "employer" at that point.

No matter, Bonny, unless you're a lawyer and want to prosecute me for copyright infringement...as always, you have one opinion, and are welcome to it, and I have another.

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[fasterfaller 0]

The only rights of the school in this matter is to use the film for its own advertising or whatever they want to use it for . You sign that right away when you waiver at most dz's . EVERY cameraman I know is a sub contractor as there is no insurance carrier that would touch that one for a price a dz can afford . If you pay for a cameraman you own the product but I can still use it too if I kept a copy of it . If I film you without pay , I own the product . If there is the proper wording in the dz's waiver I can sell the film .

[Lindsey 0]

Granted, it seems that I'm ALWAYS out of the loop, but I just have to know....wtf is "peace out"


Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Jessica 0]

Quote

wtf is "peace out"

It's a signoff. It means "bye."
As far as all this stuff about who the videos belong to, well, I don't know about the legalities, but my gut says the RIGHT thing to do is not to give the work of someone else away for publication without permission. The skydiver who paid for it may own it, but it remains the creative property of the photographer.

Not a legal opinion...just a personal one. And not a slam against anyone, just a different way of looking at things.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[billvon 3,130]

>If I was trying to scrape out a living at a dz doing video , I
> would see this as a missed opportunity .

Right, but that's you. Try the following experiment:

Get Mike McGowan to take video and stills of your jump. Buy a print off him. Sell the print to, say, National Geographic. When he comes to you and asks you why you thought you could do that, explain that, from your perspective, you owned his work since you paid for it.

If you do this, you will discover that not all videographers think that exposure is everything, that their work can be used for free as long as it somehow somewhere gets on TV or sells tandems or something. You may be able to legally sell his picture, but the right thing to do is to ask the videographer _first_ if you can use his work.

IMO Jack was right in insisting that the videographer was consulted first before any promises were made about footage. It may be legal for Michelle to use it anyway, but consulting the videographer first is the right thing to do.

[Michele 1]

Quote

IMO Jack was right in insisting that the videographer was consulted first before any promises were made about footage. It may be legal for Michelle to use it anyway, but consulting the videographer first is the right thing to do.

Yup...which, as I have said, I told them to do way before I gave them the vids...and which they are doing, I might add....

Ciels and pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[weid14 0]

well IMO, copywrite material has to be labeled as such (check out Mike Skeffington and Chris Norton's sites)... in actuality, if someone is making money off the video, and they are using music on it that is not theirs w/o permission, and they are not paying a royalty, that is copywrite infrigment, too.

[fasterfaller 0]

McGowan has shot photos and video for me and after the jump was done he handed me a roll a film . I paid to have it processed and have the enlargements made . I did have another set of negatives done and sent the originals back to him to do with as he pleased . He did not ask for that . I have had a few other published photographers do this the same way . I strongly believe that the cameraman MUST be credited for the work in the credits . If you buy prints that have a copyright on them then you are wrong to use them . In Michele's case what she did was the only way she was going to have ANY video to go with her story . I don't blame her one bit .

[VectorBoy 0]

I use to work for a company that owned some very unusual real estate. It was very sought after for anything from blockbuster Arnold movies, rock videos from bands like Orgy or a simple public service announcement for kids to stay off drugs and on their skateboards. Mega profit to no profit, the production company always paid. Not just for access but also any cost like technicians. "Safety checkers" to make sure none of their crew Died in our facilities. A very real possibility and in more than just one instance very necessary. We were never cheap, most of us being on overtime if not doubletime. To make matters worse every other business entity on that facility had to take their "cut" of any profits, driving the production costs up even more. They always paid. I've had hollywood directors tell me we were robbing them blind and once having the chance to see what the real profits were from these types of ventures I was shocked to learn its basically a wash.
No major cash flow to us, zip, nutt'n. It covered the extra cost of "hosting" 20 to 100 extra working visitors, equiptment and vehicles at our site and keeping them safe. All the costs from our legal department down to the last bit of assistance from somebody helping them pack their shit up and get out after hours or days of filming.
Now I know we are not NASCAR and none of us are sponsored by Marlboro but ESPN, come on, they could have paid or should have. My guess is it wouldn't have been that much. Seems they took advantage of some good natured skydiver folks. But bottom line is they're gone and we are still here every week. We really can't afford the residual bad vibes, its a learning experience.
My 2 cents.........Glen

[SudsyFist 0]

shite, gotta jump into this... it's just too inviting! please keep in mind that although i've dug deep into intellectual property issues, i'm not an attorney; i'm only sharing opinion.

Quote

well IMO, copywrite material has to be labeled as such

although it's almost always wise to expressly label materials with their appropriate copyright, it's not a requirement from a legal perspective. works are protected under copyright law as soon as they are created, a sort of intrinsic ownership.

in this case, the work is a video recording, which is protected at the moment the frames are captured to tape (i.e., on the camera flyer's head). without a written contract/agreement stating explicitly who owns the copyright to this work, however, ownership becomes a HUGE gray area.

one way to look at it, as michele mentioned, is that the customer pays for the video, so then it becomes a work for hire, right? well, it's not quite that easy. there are TONS of complications, including the school/dz's being the one actually paying the (1099'd independent contractor) videographer... perhaps they could claim the same?

which leads us to another scenario: licensing for specific use. whether it's music, videos, books, software, or what have you, we have all been there. ever hear someone say something like the following?

"well, i bought the dang thing -- why can't i copy and sell it? it's mine, and i'll do what i want with it!"

um... no, silly. you bought a license to use the material, in a very specific way.

could we apply the same logic in this case? sure. the videographer (or even the school/dz) could claim copyright to the material, and the customer is paying a certain (fair) amount for license to the material for specific use (which likely doesn't include broadcast).

but, without a written agreement, who owns the copyright in this case?

from my humble perspective, i'd say that the videographer does, with good reason.

first, there *seems* to be a precedent of policy already established in the industry. for example, if you took a look at most videographers sales receipts (or invoices, or checks... humor me here) for typical student videos and compared them with those for videos taken with intent to broadcast (MTV, FOX, etc.), you will definitely see a difference in cost.

second, the issue of commercial use is oftentimes brought up directly by videographers. i understand that in the fast-paced student-mill environment, this probably isn't the case, but if you look at the industry as a whole, you'll find it more common. then again, i may be way off here; i'm just going on what i've both heard and experienced.

finally, there's the matter of fair market value. i'm sorry, but a measly $75 just doesn't buy full (namely commercial use) rights for videography in general these days, not to mention when the videographer literally puts his/her life on the line for the shot. sounds like a great deal, though, doesn't it?

well, like i said before, i'm no attorney, and i'm definitely not a judge. if this had to go before a court, it's hard to tell what would happen, but i'd bet that the better (paid) attorney would win.

gray area. yep, sure is.

a well-written videography clause, explicitly defining terms of use/ownership, in the student agreement might just be the key to clearing a lot of this up in the future. in fact, it probably behooves every videographer to make sure such an agreement is in place with all their customers, lest they suffer potential consequences. This thread serves as a great example.

anyway, that crap aside... michele, congratulations on your show! and hats off to you for taking the initiative of trying to get the producers and videographers together -- i'm sure you were a right pain in their ass on that one! keep it up!

and for all you who made it this far in my post... shame on you! shouldn't you have better things to do than to try to make sense of this senseless drivel???

!

steve

[quade 4]

Hokey smokes guys!

It's 11:30 pm ish and I just got home from the DZ and read through all this poop.

-Personal opinion- doesn't enter into it!

SudsyFist has a pretty good grasp on the Copyright issues surrounding the creation of Copyright material so I don't need to rehash what he just wrote, but I'd like to add one thing.

Much like his example of material belonging to the creator at the time of creation even if it doesn't carry a (C) on it, a Work-for-Hire situation does NOT exist without a -specific- clause in a contract between the parties that states so.

In other words, if somebody pays me money to shoot stills or video of them, that is -NOT- considered a Work-for-Hire situation unless there is a specific contract between us that states so. In the case of a camera person that works for ABC Sports for instance, that -would- be in the employment agreement as a condition of employment.

What Michele -probably- bought for $75 during her AFF jumps (in legal terms) was a COPY of the original work. She -probably- NEVER owned the work from a legal standpoint unless there was a written agreement between her and the camera flyer stating that what he was doing was a Work-for-Hire.

Much like if she were to buy a copy of Star Wars, she would NOT be able to then resell the copy of Star Wars to a TV station for broadcast. Doing so would be fraud and a clear violation of Copyright law.

In the case of Michele giving her AFF jump tapes to ESPN, all the owner (camera flyer) would have to do would be to show that he created the work and it would be the Producer's burden to prove the Work-for-Hire status. My guess is that barring a written agreement, the owner (camera flyer) would win every time. BTW, the lawsuit probably wouldn't be against Michele -- but the Producers at ESPN. A suit -could- ALSO be made against Michele for fraud if Michele -SOLD- the material to ESPN. If Michele simply -gave- the material to ESPN, then there's -probably- no lawsuit that would be brought against her -- still, it'd be worth a shot to some.

Generally speaking, the skydiving schools and dropzones would ALSO not have any rights to the footage since most DZs and schools don't have videographer employees, but rather independant contractors. Unless it was -specifically- stated in an agreement between the school & dropzone and the camera flyer, then a Work-for-Hire situation simply would not (could not) exist.

Like just about everybody else on this thread, I'm going to say that I'm NOT a lawyer -- however, in my 5-day-a-week job as a post-production supervisor for a very large media company (which also owns ESPN BTW) I deal with rights issues -ALL- the time.

Work-for-Hire is a VERY specific term used by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress and was defined in the 1978 rewrite of the Copyright laws.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Much like his example of material belonging to the creator at the time of creation even if it doesn't carry a (C) on it, a Work-for-Hire situation does NOT exist without a -specific- clause in a contract between the parties that states so.

What Michele -probably- bought for $75 during her AFF jumps (in legal terms) was a COPY of the original work. She -probably- NEVER owned the work from a legal standpoint unless there was a written agreement between her and the camera flyer stating that what he was doing was a Work-for-Hire.

Generally speaking, the skydiving schools and dropzones would ALSO not have any rights to the footage since most DZs and schools don't have videographer employees, but rather independant contractors. Unless it was -specifically- stated in an agreement between the school & dropzone and the camera flyer, then a Work-for-Hire situation simply would not (could not) exist.

Yep. Thanks Paul for bringing clarification to the thread.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon