Flashing Tandem Student & fake boobs

[Phlip 0]

Rule #1: Do not skydive without a bra if you just have a little top and big fake boobs.

What would you do in this situation?

Doing video for a tandem I spent the 10 first seconds of the skydive telling the tandem master that her student was flashing me (and my video camera) big time. And you know what? I didn't know any hand signal for that! (any suggestion anyone?)

Anyway, after checking his handles 3 time (thinking something was wrong) he looked down and understood (duh!!). He then spent the whole skydive with his hands in front of the "OO" trying to hide them from the video.



I was laughing so hard.... totally confused... I've never seen boobs pointing straight down with a 120mph wind for 60 seconds before. Amazing. Thanks to sciences we can do that today!
I wish us guys could do the same with our stuff one day. That would be hilarious!

Anyway, I just though I had to share that with youall..

Goodday

Flip

[phonics1981 0]

Post the vid!

------------------------------------------------------
"Ive given up on sigs cos I make a mess of them!"
------------------------------------------------------

[Phlip 0]

Yeah... I don't know about that. I'd love to share this video with you, but I feel bad

[AggieDave 6]

Yeah, posting a video like that could open yourself up to sexual harrassment lawsuits...

I hadn't thought about a situation like this as a TM...I will remember to possibly mention something along those lines in a professional and polite manner to women who might have a problem with this if I'm taking them on a jump.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Zenister 0]

some quick screen captures with an anonymity blur are acceptable too.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I will remember to possibly mention something along those lines in a professional and polite manner to women who might have a problem with this if I'm taking them on a jump.

That's very professional of you. You may be gay, but it's very professional

[AggieDave 6]

Yeah, yeah...its just that there's something about the possibility of sexual harrassment lawsuits and stuff that creeps me out.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Zenister 0]

when my friend did her tandems at Eloy the TM pointed out she might lose the tank top thingy she was wearing, and that it might not look the best on the video..of course she said "oh well wont be the first time i've flashed a perfect stranger with a camera" everyone smiled an prayed it would happen, but no such luck..guess i'll just have to stick to the video i have of her

i always knew she was skydiver material

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

Yeah, posting a video like that could open yourself up to sexual harrassment lawsuits...

It should be in the DZ waiver that they can use the video...Check it out, then post...

[AggieDave 6]

I'm no lawyer, but to my knowledge the videographer could still be open to sexual harressment charges in a situation where it happens then he/she shows the video in a public setting.

Yes, I know that video clauses are in most DZ release of liability forms.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mnischalke 0]

Sexual harassment? Nay, my good man. Ya got your law catch phrases all up mixed. Unless they work together and she has told him to not do (fill in the blank with your sex-related issue) but he did it anyway, that is sexual harassment. Posting a pic of someone partially clothed in a public forum sets one up for liabilities associated with gain or profit. Now, if you have a model release......Post that video!!!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Zenister 0]

i'm not positive, but i dont think so..if you take your top off in public (intentionally or not) and someone films it....i wonder if 'reasonable expectation of privacy' applies to freefall?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[AggieDave 6]

Thanks...I guess my brain is still spinning in neutral from my classes this morning...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[andy2 0]

Wouldn't this fall under the same law of public domain. I.E. if you BASE jump off certain legal spans, and someone happens to be there with a video camera, and you have a malfunction, or something unusual happens, its their video to sell to whatever REAL TV, etc. I think this would be the same thing. Your video camera, YOUR footage.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Zenister 0]

a bit different in that your paying the camera man to film you, so i imagine it would depend on how the waiver is written. There is a couple of threads here & here from the Photo forum that discuss some of the legallities.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[nightjumps 1]

Quote

I think this would be the same thing. Your video camera, YOUR footage.

Nope. They're paying for it. Their video.

[Phlip 0]

Well, the waver says that the footage can be used by the DZ and the videoman. So technically I could do anything I want with it.

But...

Common sense tells me it's wrong (at least on the web... )

Flip

[Muenkel 0]

Kind of a different scenario, but I did some modeling (not professional) for the resort I work for. The pics were to be used for signage around the resort and their brochures and website. I had to sign a waiver or they could not use my image at all. Once I signed the waiver, it was their property and could post it anywhere. And boy did they! It's pretty frightening when you turn a corner and see a 4' x 6' image of yourself. I have to be honest, the first time I saw it, it was a very uncomfortable feeling.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Nope. They're paying for it. Their video.

According to the profs at my local community college, "work for hire" only applies if there is a written contract explicitly stating that.

Legally, you're clear (i think). Blur the faces and post pics!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[mnischalke 0]

100% correct.

"Work for hire" is the only way the contracting person owns the material and rights to said material. Otherwise, it is the property of the person who took the image(s).

Funny thing, when I worked as a both a freelance and as a staff photographer, I was getting paid and using company film, but the images on film were mine, hence the film was mine. When I left, I took it all with me.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

This is correct...

from the Library of Congress (They guys that have the say in US copyrights)

Quote

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
a contribution to a collective work
a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
a translation
a supplementary work
a compilation
an instructional text
a test
answer material for a test
an atlas
if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....

The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

[lawrocket 3]

Oh, goodness, things to get a lawyer drooling.

We lawyers do drool over videos like this. Well, at least most of us guy lawyers do.

Send me a copy of the video. I'll make sure to view it carefully. Only after viewing the video, frame by frame (I may even need to have some enlarged stills of certain parts) may I offer an opinion on liability.

Please send it to me and I'll make sure to let you know my thoughts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sfc 1]

We viewed it at the end of the day. They were a remarkable pair of knockers. They stayed perfect, and I mean perfect, throuhgout the jump. The TM did a grand job of trying to cover them, (or grab them, hard to tell which from the video) up but to no avail, the nipples were perfectly silhouetted against the sky all the way down.
Very very funny. I think you should post some frames with the face blurred.

[nightjumps 1]

My last $.02 and then I'm done.

First, you are to be commended for not posting it on here. It is the right thing NOT to do.

While there is an attorney in the room, I would still caution anyone who openly posts a video or pictures for which the customer has paid. Even though the DZ has a clause that states something to the effect about "use"... it may not state anything about "ownership."

1. Work for hire is a way the client becomes the copyright owner. The difference between work for hire and a copyright transfer is rather simple. In the case of a copyright transfer you own the copyright until you transfer it. In a work for hire situation, you never own the copyright. It is owned by the client from the moment the work is created, and the client is by law the author of the photograph. The photographer is denied authorship and is treated as a tool of the client.

2. In order to qualify for "fair use" the photograph would usually have to be copied for educational, classroom, news reporting or other educational or public interest purposes. "Fair use" is always subject to interpretation. There is no simple rule to apply to determine when an unauthorized use is "fair use."

Each case has specific facts that must be examined before such a determination can be made. This is one reason why it is important to consult with a knowledgeable copyright attorney before jumping to conclusions about infringement.

The bottom line is; she handed the DZ money for you to video her. She has ownership. She did not waive ownership when she signed the agreement of use and I'm betting that "use" wasn't defined in the waiver.
If the waiver states "ownership," that ownership transfers to the DZ and then there's the issue of whether they allowed you "use."

[lawrocket 3]

As an attorney with a rather sarcastic previous post, I think that the most important thing is that you should be commended for not posting it.

Not only is it the best way to keep you safe, it is the right thing to do.

I agree with nightjumps. Keep it to yourself.

My wife is hotter than your wife.