Copyrighting Drone Footage

[SethB]

When/if I get to the point of having projects that large, I'll definitely take a more focused perspective about agreements!

But even in this early stage, I like the notion of a confirming email. It puts the understanding in writing, without the formality of an advanced written agreement.

I talked to the editor yesterday, and we agreed that I'd retain copyright on the original footage, and that we'd share the copyright on the final production footage.

My challenge now is to find a launch site to get the footage of the front of the building. I don't think I can get while maintaining VLOS from my current launch site. Plus I'd rather avoid having to avoid flying over moving cars while crossing a busy road.

I'll get something to work!

Thx.

Sorry, I mixed my stories there.

The big write-off was about a third of the compensation on a larger project, and of course our client had signed our standard contract which was created with our lawyer. We later learned that the client, who had seemed credible, had scammed others.

All projects large or small should be based on clear agreements and clear communication.

 

[Chaosrider]

Sorry, I mixed my stories there.

The big write-off was about a third of the compensation on a larger project, and of course our client had signed our standard contract which was created with our lawyer. We later learned that the client, who had seemed credible, had scammed others.

All projects large or small should be based on clear agreements and clear communication.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes excess clarity can keep a deal from being made at all.

Most legislation is like that. Everybody complains about lazy legislatures writing vague laws, but it's not laziness at all. Sometimes the only way you can reach an agreement, is by keeping the edges fuzzy.

This surprised me greatly when I learned it, working as Director of IT for the State of Nevada, and dealing with the legislature constantly. But it is the way it is.

Sometimes fuzziness can byte you. Sometimes, it's the lubricant to make something work. The Great Enabler.

YMMV.

 

[EpicFlight]

To a hammer everything's a nail.

To a lawyer every agreement's a future tort.

 

[SethB]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes excess clarity can keep a deal from being made at all.

Most legislation is like that. Everybody complains about lazy legislatures writing vague laws, but it's not laziness at all. Sometimes the only way you can reach an agreement, is by keeping the edges fuzzy.

This surprised me greatly when I learned it, working as Director of IT for the State of Nevada, and dealing with the legislature constantly. But it is the way it is.

Sometimes fuzziness can byte you. Sometimes, it's the lubricant to make something work. The Great Enabler.

YMMV.

I guess it depends

Thanks for explaining that. Working within state government or agencies seems different than best practices in for-client work…

 

[LanceK]

Who owns the copy right when there is a remote pilot in command with a Part 107 permit and the pilot does not?

 

[karlblessing]

Who owns the copy right when there is a remote pilot in command with a Part 107 permit and the pilot does not?

Depends on the employment/contract arrangement. Usually if they're being hired for a specific job, it can usually be owned by the client if it was done as work for hire or if they're a direct employee. (Nutshell : it depends, and usually you want that arrangement figured out beforehand).

 

[SethB]

Depends on the employment/contract arrangement. Usually if they're being hired for a specific job, it can usually be owned by the client if it was done as work for hire or if they're a direct employee. (Nutshell : it depends, and usually you want that arrangement figured out beforehand).

Default is that the owner of imagery is the creator.

An employee who creates work as part of their employment- owned by the employer.

A contractor who has a work-for-hire agreement with the employer - the employer.

Who owns the copy right when there is a remote pilot in command with a Part 107 permit and the pilot does not?

Without other agreements it is the creator.

HOWEVER, it's customary that if someone commissioned the work that person owns at least a non-exclusive license to the work. Frequently professional photographers require an agreement that such a license is for a specific use, not to be resold, reprinted, etc.

Disclaimer
I am not a copyright attorney. Don't depend on rando internet contributors if you need real legal advice!