school district demands student photos

I don't know the law, but we've all seen the game too many times:

Attorneys from both sides will spew emotional froth from their jowls, pandering to their respecitve clients for questionably large sums of money (some publicly funded, of course). News reporters will flock to the scene of the crime with ferverous bias, and while they report - you deide, just after American Idol is over. Parents will yell. Children will cry. Taxpayers will suffer and writhe. Let them eat cake.

ljfinger said:

brent collins said:

You don't get it. He was there as a rep for the school. Just like a press photog who is hired by a paper.

Click to expand...

Only if he was "hired" by the school, i.e. a paid employee on staff

Lee Jay said:

tko said:

If I loan you my hammer does the house you build become mine?

Click to expand...

If I loaned you a hammer to build me a house then the house is mine. Hammer being the camera, house being the photos and me being the school or owner of the house being built. Get it. I have no idea how your example is fitting to the situation.

Click to expand...

If a couple hires me to shoot their wedding, who owns the images? Yep - me, even though they are paying me to do it. I'm not their employee, I'm a contractor.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

Sure you want to go with those examples, Lee? Sounds a bit contradictory.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

People are giving the school too much credit. The school's covering its butt and that all it is. I guarantee that the only thing the school's worried about is that the kid might have taken a photo that showed that the injured student's injury was caused by some negligence on the school's part. If they comandeer the photos then they have full control over what gets shown about the incident and can quash any proof that they may have been at fault, thus avoiding a potentially expensive and damaging lawsuit. What they've done is unethical and illegal, but they don't care because whatever the outcome, it's going to be potentially less damaging than a liability lawsuit if there's clear evidence they could be held liable for the student's injuries.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Frank LoPriore said:

Sure you want to go with those examples, Lee? Sounds a bit contradictory.

Click to expand...

On staff as a hired employee and paid an independent contractor are two different things entirely, and not on-staff or being paid (most likely the student's position) is even farther away from being a hired employee.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Yup. I kind of like the fantasy that the school attorney would manipulate or destroy evidence myself.

ljfinger said:

Frank LoPriore said:

Sure you want to go with those examples, Lee? Sounds a bit contradictory.

Click to expand...

On staff as a hired employee and paid an independent contractor are two different things entirely, and not on-staff or being paid (most likely the student's position) is even farther away from being a hired employee.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

You should reread the article. He was executive editor of the school paper and worked as a photographer for the yearbook, hardly an independent contractor. As far as your "contractor status", if a couple pay you to take photos of their wedding, they are entitled to a copy of those photos, even though you may retain ownership. If you refuse to give them a copy of the photos they paid for, (one time use understood) you would not remain a paid wedding photographer for long.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Chikubi said:

People are giving the school too much credit. The school's covering its butt and that all it is. I guarantee that the only thing the school's worried about is that the kid might have taken a photo that showed that the injured student's injury was caused by some negligence on the school's part. If they comandeer the photos then they have full control over what gets shown about the incident and can quash any proof that they may have been at fault, thus avoiding a potentially expensive and damaging lawsuit. What they've done is unethical and illegal, but they don't care because whatever the outcome, it's going to be potentially less damaging than a liability lawsuit if there's clear evidence they could be held liable for the student's injuries.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Click to expand...

Or..... the student may be protecting a friend who may have caused the injury.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

brent collins said:

brent collins said:

brent collins said:

The school should have whatever comes out of that camera since it belongs to them. I don't care what the Student Press Law Center has to say.

Click to expand...

I really don't know. If you lent me your camera, would the pictures belong to you?

Click to expand...

If you borrowed my camera for a project I sent you out to photograph then yes, they belong to me. This is the case here.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, but did the school ask the student journalist to use school equipment to photograph the event, or did the student just borrow school equipment and cover the event. BIG BIG difference.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

GodSpeaks said:

brent collins said:

GodSpeaks said:

GodSpeaks said:

The school should have whatever comes out of that camera since it belongs to them. I don't care what the Student Press Law Center has to say.

Click to expand...

I really don't know. If you lent me your camera, would the pictures belong to you?

Click to expand...

If you borrowed my camera for a project I sent you out to photograph then yes, they belong to me. This is the case here.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, but did the school ask the student journalist to use school equipment to photograph the event, or did the student just borrow school equipment and cover the event. BIG BIG difference.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

Click to expand...

He worked as a photographer for the yearbook. The school was entitled to at least a one time use of those pictures he took as "staff" photographer.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

.... there are several points that are being mangled in the comments appearing in this thread. The bottomline for me is that I think that the Kickapoo school authorities have overstepped their authority but it is fortunate that there is legal support for the student who was pressured to turn over the images and was asked to delete all copies. The comments on the news webpage range are colorful/emotional and sometimes pretty ignorant but the one from ccyankee is worth reading.
--
Marabou Muddler
http://MMuddler.smugmug.com/Sports

District lawyer Ransom Ellis III doesn't come across so good in this article. Don't think he be very good at English, questionable on law. Meebe we ask Lonesome Polecat and Hairless Joe to opine on this case..... think they graduated from kickapoo many years ago.--
Marabou Muddler
http://MMuddler.smugmug.com/Sports

Yeah, it's called stealing.
.

GodSpeaks said:

Ahhh, but did the school ask the student journalist to use school equipment to photograph the event, or did the student just borrow school equipment and cover the event. BIG BIG difference.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

Click to expand...

Frank LoPriore said:

GodSpeaks said:

brent collins said:

Frank LoPriore said:

Frank LoPriore said:

The school should have whatever comes out of that camera since it belongs to them. I don't care what the Student Press Law Center has to say.

Click to expand...

I really don't know. If you lent me your camera, would the pictures belong to you?

Click to expand...

If you borrowed my camera for a project I sent you out to photograph then yes, they belong to me. This is the case here.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, but did the school ask the student journalist to use school equipment to photograph the event, or did the student just borrow school equipment and cover the event. BIG BIG difference.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

Click to expand...

He worked as a photographer for the yearbook. The school was entitled to at least a one time use of those pictures he took as "staff" photographer.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Click to expand...

But the school isn't asking for one time use. They claim the images are owned 100 percent by them.

For all I know, with the facts at our disposal this may be true, but then again maybe not.

Dave

Its an interesting case.

I was a yearbook photographer at my High School, then a yearbook photographic editor. Won an award from the yearbook company. President of the Camera club.

Our school had its own darkroom and equipment but cameras were not supplied. Film, darkroom supplies, and paper were, through an account at the local camera store.

We weren't given direct assignments. We met as a group and were expected to come up with our own. Our teacher advisor might weigh in, but we were expected to make decisions.

In that time things to me were clear. If I was shooting for the school, on their film, using their darkroom and chemicals, they had rights to the stuff I shot. They didn't deny me the right to make copies for my personal use. But if they had asked for the negatives, I would have handed them over.

But this case is muddier because while the camera was school owned and the student was "assigned" to shoot, the content of what was shot was electrons. The student clearly had previously established a pattern of shooting with the school equipment for other purposes, so its not clear that they had established exclusivity.

Chato said:

For all I know, with the facts at our disposal this may be true, but then again maybe not.

Dave

Click to expand...

Just have to see how this plays out.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Frank LoPriore said:

Chikubi said:

People are giving the school too much credit. The school's covering its butt and that all it is. I guarantee that the only thing the school's worried about is that the kid might have taken a photo that showed that the injured student's injury was caused by some negligence on the school's part. If they comandeer the photos then they have full control over what gets shown about the incident and can quash any proof that they may have been at fault, thus avoiding a potentially expensive and damaging lawsuit. What they've done is unethical and illegal, but they don't care because whatever the outcome, it's going to be potentially less damaging than a liability lawsuit if there's clear evidence they could be held liable for the student's injuries.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Click to expand...

Or..... the student may be protecting a friend who may have caused the injury.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Click to expand...

True, there could be that situation as well, though I would still bet on the first situation more than the latter.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Chikubi said:

Frank LoPriore said:

Chikubi said:

People are giving the school too much credit. The school's covering its butt and that all it is. I guarantee that the only thing the school's worried about is that the kid might have taken a photo that showed that the injured student's injury was caused by some negligence on the school's part. If they comandeer the photos then they have full control over what gets shown about the incident and can quash any proof that they may have been at fault, thus avoiding a potentially expensive and damaging lawsuit. What they've done is unethical and illegal, but they don't care because whatever the outcome, it's going to be potentially less damaging than a liability lawsuit if there's clear evidence they could be held liable for the student's injuries.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Click to expand...

Or..... the student may be protecting a friend who may have caused the injury.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Click to expand...

True, there could be that situation as well, though I would still bet on the first situation more than the latter.
--
http://www.emasterphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emasterphoto/

Click to expand...

If he was trying to protect a student, he would have either deleted the images, or not turned them in. Neither of those things happened, so they need not be considered.

Dave

JamesRL said:

Its an interesting case.

I was a yearbook photographer at my High School, then a yearbook photographic editor. Won an award from the yearbook company. President of the Camera club.

Our school had its own darkroom and equipment but cameras were not supplied. Film, darkroom supplies, and paper were, through an account at the local camera store.

We weren't given direct assignments. We met as a group and were expected to come up with our own. Our teacher advisor might weigh in, but we were expected to make decisions.

In that time things to me were clear. If I was shooting for the school, on their film, using their darkroom and chemicals, they had rights to the stuff I shot. They didn't deny me the right to make copies for my personal use. But if they had asked for the negatives, I would have handed them over.

Click to expand...

Even in those days, photos could be (and were) copied.

JamesRL said:

But this case is muddier because while the camera was school owned and the student was "assigned" to shoot, the content of what was shot was electrons. The student clearly had previously established a pattern of shooting with the school equipment for other purposes, so its not clear that they had established exclusivity.

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but I don't know how a minor can enter into a legally binding contract. Did your parents sign off on this?

My read of the situation that the OP stated is that the school is trying to cover its liabilities. Blurring out people who don't want to be shown in a photo is hardly rocket science.

--
Gear listed in profile under "plan."

Someone stop me before I buy again, please!
Dave

Chato said:

Chato said:

Frank LoPriore wrote:
Or..... the student may be protecting a friend who may have caused the injury.

Chato said:

--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Chato said:

If he was trying to protect a student, he would have either deleted the images, or not turned them in. Neither of those things happened, so they need not be considered.

Dave

Click to expand...

Well, He did refuse at first to hand over the images. It would seem that the school district was trying to find out what happened, including whether they were libel or not. Why would the Op have a problem with giving up the pictures he was assigned to take? At any rate, given no outside cause, the school district would have been libel for injuries at a school function anyway.
--
Frank
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/8399701700