DSE

According to my knowlege, REAL video cameras dont even have AF. They are full manual. (some one may correct me if Im mistaken) In a nutshell, most of the reviews I have read so far says that the picture quality of the camera is best among the canon lineup so far. Also the video feature is being predicted to revolutionize the whole industry.. Hows that ?! Consider yourself corrected. XDCAM HD (most common HD cam in the ENG/EFP market today) has autofocus. Canon is building most o their lenses for future with auto-focus ability. It no longer is "taboo" to use autofocus, particularly with HD. The concept that the "video feature is predicted to revolutionize the whole industry" is a prediction made by someone who doesn't shoot video. It *is* a sweet feature, but essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things. However, I do agree with you that the new 5DMKII is a serious step into the realm of the 1D. But...Canon has some sweet things up their sleeve. Wait'll CES 09'

Read US Copyright code. Any mechanical device which contains media is considered "work product." You want to debate it, research it. It's easy. It's well-known within the video/film/music industry. Masters and work product are both owned by contracted party and/or publisher. That includes memory sticks, HDD, tape, or any other mechanical device which contains in whole or part, content. Great recent example is the History Channel piece. Lots of media shot, very little of it used, yet ask Scotty Burns what happens if he didn't turn over masters, or released portions of his copies of the masters, aka "work product." Maybe start by researching the definition of "The Work." Conversely, spend a day or two working in the production industry and look at a contract or two.

If I laugh any harder at the ridiculousness of this statement, I'll probably lose bowel control. If you feel it's an attack, it's not. It's simply ridicule. Raw footage != work product at any DZ I've ever frequented. It definitely wasn't when I was a working videographer. Raw footage is part of work in progress. I've never jumped at any DZ's in Utah, but I suspect videographers there are also expected to mix/edit the raw footage with music to give the customer a polished finished product. Physical recording media certainly doesn't equal work product. Actually, by legal definition, it does.

yup, I'll be there at CR with my nylons. (more than one WS)

Here ya go I'll be there

Come to Chicks Rock...I'll make sure you're not alone, and make sure you're not molested.

Still warm here, dude....and you owe me a jump still. But I'll still buy the first jump.

JT, would love to see you at Chicks Rock!

Archive grade DVDs are supposed to have a 100 year shelf (riiiighhhhtttt). HDD will last if you mount them occasionally. Tape, if kept dry, will last forever as far as we know, but you need a device on which they can be played back. BD discs allegedly have a 100 year life span too...

Jason Carter rec'd his new Raptor. Sorry...shot is absent an important component... Congrats Jason, can't wait to wing with you tomorrow.

Amen to that, JP.... That waterproof enclosure is HUGE and heavy. Why would you want to mount this on your helmet? Planning on landing in the swoop pond?

Doesn't matter if it's a skydiving event or any o the events mentioned upthread. You think skydiving is any different than rodeo, motocross, horse endurance, mountain climbing? A fatality occurs. Fatalities at any event are considered crime scenes. It's not about "looking good." It's about cooperating vs creating more diifficulty in an already difficult situation. If you wish to make a copy of the video, you must be prepared to deal with the responsibilities that accompany making a copy of the video. If you're a responsible person, then this is no big thing, but you'd best let law enforcement know a copy has been made. If it's DV, HDV, AVCHD, it's easy enough to know a copy of the content was made anyway, due to header flags in the original. If you're shooting VHS, Hi8, or VHS-C, then there is no header information to indicate copy flags. Same question to you as to RhondaLea. How many fatalities have you filmed and then stood up to law enforcement telling them they can't have it, and been able to keep the tape, never turning anything over? I'll wager quite a bit that the answer to that question is "none times."

...and here's where you get yourself into a tub of shit. You may find yourself unhappy with the results of that attempt, both criminal AND civil. I won't mention the possible physical outcome. Over the line, dude. Let's keep this on-topic and leave the bully-boy out of it, eh? You're right, of course. And for that line, I apologize. once in a while the stupidity and abject get me off balance. You're absolutely right and that statement does cross a line

~How many fatalities do *you* have video of, that you have captured yourself? ~Are you a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist/expert? ~Is your employer a court-appointed, certified media forensic examiner or specialist? ~How many instances have *you* been personally involved in where the FAA and/or local law enforcement requested you hand over surveillance tapes, DVD RW's, or HDD's that contain evidence related to a fatal accident of any kind? ~How many instances have you had the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with the FAA, NASCAR, AMA, BRO, or local authorities regarding audio or video equipment and/or recordings related to a fatality or serious injury? The law varies very little on this topic from state to state. Thank you for causing me to take a little time to research this to bolster or debunk my position. I couldn't find one state with a different set of rules. If you have evidence related to a fatality, you may be required to not only turn over the recording, but they may also confiscate the device used to record it. In one case I was told about from the State of Wyoming, they confiscated the camera, as it was a proprietary format without which, they could not view the evidence of a rodeo death. Once the state made dubs of the evidence, the evidence was returned in full to the television station from whom they confiscated the media and camera. Exactly as expected and referred to up-thread. Please, Ms. Paralegal who worked manifest for years, tell us of how you've had video and taken the opportunity to refuse to cooperate with officials investigating the death of a skydiver or anyone else. I'd like to hear how you've thwarted the legal system. I'd *love* to hear how you took the Fifth to preserve your right to prevent self-incrimination. Skybytch...Circling the wagons to buy 20 mins only serves to piss off law enforcement or the investigating body. They're gonna get what they want anyway, and they're likely going to be nasty once they do get what they want. If they're gonna shut you down, IMO, they'll more likely shut you down for refusing to cooperate than for handing over a tape. Since I've never been of a mind to refuse to cooperate, and have generally had dubs of what I'm handing over, and make it a point to be as cooperative as possible...I've yet to have a problem. But...maybe things are different in your neck of the woods. Maybe I'm just "naive" but no event I've been involved with has ever been shut down. My employees are under standing orders to call me or my co-producer in the event of law enforcement intervention, at which point we'll work with them however they best see fit and we can accomodate. Either way, I'll end my participation in this discussion here; both my company and I have encountered several similar situations where fatalities are part of what we've captured with our cameras. We also examine on a regular basis, media from the Attorney General's office and other law enforcement agencies for the state of Utah. You can choose to believe the "never been there/never done it" or you can choose to follow the logic and experience that myself and a couple of others have posted. Me, I'll take the easy road, cuz no matter what...the investigators win, "wagons circled" or not.

With the rhetoric that's been added by ridiculous assertions...it's hard to see what is what, sorry for that. However... The videographer has a right to make a copy. The copy will not be what goes to the FAA or LEA. If the copy finds its way out of the videographers hands, then the responsibility lies directly with the videographer if the investigation is hampered, tampered with, interfered with, or compromised in any way by the release of the copy. The videographer is entitled to receive the original back from LEA once the investigation is closed and any legal aspects of the case are over. If you carefully read my response, I wasn't directing my response to anyone in particular, the use of the world "you" is third person, not any person in specific. I'm not a paralegal, never worked for an attorney. Myself, and my staff are court-certified forensic media specialists, and we assist in media replication, authenticating, verifying of media related to crimes (often specifically crimes against children) that include homicide, suicide, and other fatalities, accidental or otherwise. In other words, I'm quite familiar with the process here in the state of Utah. Wyoming, Idaho, and Nevada all share the same codes as we do here, and I can't imagine most any state being different. So to sum up from my perspective: ~A videographer is compelled to provide original video that pertains to an investigation. It's true, if he/she wants to be an ass about it, he/she can require/demand a subpoena, and that subpoena can usually be issued on the spot, but now the DZ, the videographer, and everyone surrounding the situation gets the privilege of being looked at askance for no reason at all. Perhaps, if the FAA wants to be particularly vindictive, they'll just shut down the operation to prove that they too, can be assholes. ~you can make a copy. It's not the copy that will get you in trouble, it's what you *do* with the copy that may get you in trouble. ~the Fifth Amendment doesn't remotely apply here, unless the videographer did something that couple specifically indict him in the fatality. Do whatever you will. Paralegal or not, there is a difference between television law, Constitutionalist-conspiracy-theorist law, actual law, and the reality of the moment. Be a dick if you wish. Make skydivers and your dropzone look like dicks. Embarass yourself for the 20 minutes or so that it takes to have a subpoena sent electronically to the officer in charge of the investigation. At the end of the day, you'll lose. Every time. Only problem is, everyone around you looks like a dick too. And for what reason? Because you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist that doesn't want the cause of death to be quickly determined?

I wish...my moderation privileges don't extend to un-deleting threads. But it would be fun to show the ignorance previously demonstrated in this thread.

Because this is a discussion that impacts all of skydiving, it seems better suited for the Bonfire. Have at it.

Ah, but when the footage that you freely handed over to the cops (who, btw, are generally not experts in figuring out what happened in any skydiving incident) shows up on the news, or worse yet, in the hands of the lawyer that the passengers family hired to sue the dz you jump at... well, then who's the asshole? The LEA. If the officer takes a tape for purposes of investigation and it ends up on the 6o'clock news, then it is the responsibility of his superior. Unlike a surveillance video where law enforcement might be seeking public assistance in identifying a criminal engaged in a crime that affects the general public, a skydiving incident in which the names and involvement of all participants are known isn't something that would be released to the media for public input. Show me any example otherwise. I do have in my possession video of skydiving fatalities. I do know the videographers that shot them quite well. In all cases, they gave up their tapes, and had their tapes returned after LEO made a copy of them. I'm sure there have been/will be cases that LEA won't return the tapes, but in that event, the videographer, USPA, FAA, whomever has the right to make a claim to have them returned. The lawyer of the passengers family is absolutely entitled to any evidence that may be used to incriminate or exonerate the victim. It cannot be unduly withheld. C'mon...you know this already. It's very basic stuff. LEO may not turn those tapes over to the family attorney without a subpoena anymore than the vidiot is required to hand them over without a subpoena. One is a criminal issue, the other a civil issue. To Shropshire; What if you could mentally beam your thoughts and what your brain saw into a digital recording device and send it to the starship Enterprise? We can play "what if" all day long. My point was and is, a copy itself isn't an issue. It's what you DO with that copy that can become an issue. Most skydivers would give a copy of the copy to a friend and say "Don't do anything with this" and then be stupid enough to wonder how it ended up on YouTube. Which is why I refuse to give copies of "oops" to anyone except the DZO. Here's the bottom line, IMO; fuck with the FAA and law enforcement when there is a fatality and come back with your report on how fun they made it for you. I'm sure that technically, the minutiae and microstudy of various and numerous loopholes in the laws can allow for a lot of leeway. I can't foresee a single instance where withholding a card or tape from law enforcement has any merit or value, because it's a matter of a phone call to a judge for them to get a subpoena any way. Judges can now send signed PDF files to any police car in the USA which the officer can print on-site. I've seen it done on at least half a dozen occasions. There is no reasonable point at which you might refuse to assist investigators in determining what may have caused a skydiving fatality. If the TI messed up, he messed up. And everyone deserves to know why. If a sport jumper wore a weightbelt he'd never worn and it caused him to slam into another jumper, breaking his neck, we need to know about that, too. Both are incidents of which I have video, and both are incidents that LEO's had tape of, which were returned to the DZ at which these incidents occurred. Be an asshat with the FAA, see how long it takes for the FSDO to be up your asshole with a flashlight and tweezers. And for what? Because you decided to force the issue of debatable rights that you'll lose in every instance, every time?

If that's the case then discussions about copyright issues shouldn't be here either. Oh, but I disagree. Copyrights are something videographers and photographers have to deal with every single day. There are no debates about what is legal and what isn't. There may be debates about what you might be working on to be legal, or what you might do to protect your copyrights...but that is quite different than debating Fifth Amendment laws, or being a deliberate asshole to LEA. This discussion is closer to debating whether or not one must pay taxes than it is to discussing protecting creative property.

She can uh....take me to dinner ANYTIME. :-) Debbie is a treasure. She's one of those people that like to hug, and one never minds those. Can't wait to get her into a flock.

Shhhhhhhh!!! Tony, you're obviously a selfish zombie people killer whose parents didn't raise you right. How dare you attempt to even think about bringing a semblance of intelligence to this discussion?

This topic isn't about "giving up rights." Sure...it might be a "crime" to forcibly take a tape from a videographer if he won't give it up, even though he's already signed a contract that says he will. Far as I'm concerned, that's grounds to be fired, have his ass kicked, and then take the tape/card from him anyway. Doesn't matter if it's a skydiving accident, train/truck accident, or cat-jumped-out-of-tree" accident, it's a crime scene when someone dies. Any evidence that exists that will help investigators determine the causes of death must be turned over, and they do indeed need a subpoena to take it from you if you're being an asshole not interested in helping close the case. The concept of Fifth Amendment applying here is sheer idiocy. The owner of the tape isn't incriminated in any way, and has nothing to protect. Requiring a subpoena only puts others through more pain, difficulty, cost, and gains nothing for anyone except the stupid ass that won't help close the investigation. If I laugh any harder at the ridiculousness of this statement, I'll probably lose bowel control. If you feel it's an attack, it's not. It's simply ridicule. Either way, this isn't the Bonfire nor Speakers corner. Discuss "rights" there, not here.

This guy comes into our DZ, very nice guy, and very overweight, very nervous, very everything. Turns out he's got a very unique writing style, and he wrote a nice piece for a Utah newspaper about his first jump experience. Kudos to Kyle and Chris (Parachutist) for making him feel comfortable in spite of his overwhelming fear. STORY HERE

You lost me in this story...A guy wearing a pin necklace that did a tandem was "fake" and a guy that told you he rented a 190 was fake because he didn't show up when you thought he might? Or was he fake because he didn't suck your mac when you laid it on him? Maybe I don't speak enough mac-daddy to pound it down?

Congrats to Debbie Zimmerman at SDU! She jumped a TonySuit Intro today and kicked ass with it. It was actually her second jump, Monkeyboy took her on her FFC back in April, but she hasn't jumped WS since then, and wanted to do a repeat of the course to refresh her brain. Two jumps, she was smokin' hot. Welcome to the flock, Deb!