This was all over the local news yesterday. The Channel 9 news even had copies of the picture. So now the photographer gets suspended. For what? Covering a news worthy event. Go figure.
Oh that was featured on the Jay Leno show last night, I admit, I had to laugh, it must have been extremely embarassing for the fellow that was left hanging...Hmmm, hope he didn't get frostbite.:-)
They didn't mention anything about the photographer tho'
From what I can tell, the photographer was employed by Sharpshooters. The employee/photographer either sold or turned over the images he captured, without consent from his employer. The company, not the employee (photographer) owns the copyrights to those images, not the individual employee.
From what I can tell, the photographer was employed by Sharpshooters. The employee/photographer either sold or turned over the images he captured, without consent from his employer. The company, not the employee (photographer) owns the copyrights to those images, not the individual employee.
Was he working at the time he took the pictures or was he on vacation? If he wasn't working, those shots are his, not the company's. Unless he took them on a company camera.
From what I can tell, the photographer was employed by Sharpshooters. The employee/photographer either sold or turned over the images he captured, without consent from his employer. The company, not the employee (photographer) owns the copyrights to those images, not the individual employee.
Was he working at the time he took the pictures or was he on vacation? If he wasn't working, those shots are his, not the company's. Unless he took them on a company camera.
I read a better article this morning, I'll see if I can find it. He was not "on the clock" at the time and it was his own camera.
From what I can tell, the photographer was employed by Sharpshooters. The employee/photographer either sold or turned over the images he captured, without consent from his employer. The company, not the employee (photographer) owns the copyrights to those images, not the individual employee.
Was he working at the time he took the pictures or was he on vacation? If he wasn't working, those shots are his, not the company's. Unless he took them on a company camera.
I read a better article this morning, I'll see if I can find it. He was not "on the clock" at the time and it was his own camera.
Just because you're not "on the clock", doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for actions you take that might damage your employer.
-Employees have been terminated or otherwise punished for blogging and expressing opinions about actions taken by their employer that were contrary to the company's "official line".
-Employess can be terminated for drug use, regardless of when the use occurs or its effect on job performance.
Should this proceed through the court, the real question will be: How did the photographer's actions affect the image of his employer? i.e. Is the photographer known as "The guy from Sharpshooters"? Did he represent himself as working for Sharpshooters while off the clock?
Just because you're off the clock doesn't mean you're off the hook.
I'm not saying that I agree with it, it's just the way it is.
Aw c'mon. The guy saw a shot. He got it. If Mr Stoopid skiier didn't think he'd get snapped by everyone with a cellphone, and maybe a real photog, it's his own damn fault. Serves him right.
Aw c'mon. The guy saw a shot. He got it. If Mr Stoopid skiier didn't think he'd get snapped by everyone with a cellphone, and maybe a real photog, it's his own damn fault. Serves him right.
I agree you totally, but posting them online right after he got the shots was a stupid move. This whole mess could have been avoided if he had checked with employer before doing that.
If I was ever in his postion I would do the same thing - whip my camera out and capture the scene. :)
Legally most states have "at will" employment laws. Basically, outside a small subset of discriminatory rules (age, sex, etc) you can fire/hire/suspend someone for whatever reason you want. I think it's lame, but it's entirely within the rights of the company as long as Colorado is an "at will" state.
Legally most states have "at will" employment laws. Basically, outside a small subset of discriminatory rules (age, sex, etc) you can fire/hire/suspend someone for whatever reason you want. I think it's lame, but it's entirely within the rights of the company as long as Colorado is an "at will" state.
A contract can over-ride "at will" provisions of state law. It really depends on the photographer's specific contractual relationship with the employer, if any.
Another thing that may or may not come into play is that this guy is not the only photog to post the pictures, I don't think. Judging by the shots on the drudge report, there were a couple of different perspectives.
A contract can over-ride "at will" provisions of state law. It really depends on the photographer's specific contractual relationship with the employer, if any.
True, but could you possibly imagine the guy had the foresight or negotiating power to include "in my offtime I can do whatever the hell I want with photography" in his contract?
A contract can over-ride "at will" provisions of state law. It really depends on the photographer's specific contractual relationship with the employer, if any.
True, but could you possibly imagine the guy had the foresight or negotiating power to include "in my offtime I can do whatever the hell I want with photography" in his contract?
I think that the obligation would be on the employer to include an "anything you take any time anywhere is ours" clause in the contract.
One of my photographer friends worked at Purgatory for a company that sounds like it does the same thing as "Sharpshooters". In his contract he could not shoot anything within the boundries of the resort, it didn't matter if it was on his own time or not. I only know this because he got fired for photographing a wedding- on his own time- that was held at the resort during the summer. Might be the same kind of thing here.
The company he worked for provided advertising and web content for the resort.
A contract can over-ride "at will" provisions of state law. It really depends on the photographer's specific contractual relationship with the employer, if any.
True, but could you possibly imagine the guy had the foresight or negotiating power to include "in my offtime I can do whatever the hell I want with photography" in his contract?
I think that the obligation would be on the employer to include an "anything you take any time anywhere is ours" clause in the contract.
I'd think if the employer was "at will" then they wouldn't be required to say anything like this. I don't think the argument is whether the employer owns the photo but rather whether the photog did something that tarnished the reputation of one of its clients.
As an Engineer, anything I were to invent on my own time, if it were determined to be related to my companies products, would be owned by my employer.
Depends what his contract says...
I had the same type of an agreement with a company I worked for. If I invented anything in whole of part that pertained to my employer, any of its subsidiaries, or third party vendors my employer owned the rights to the invention. This was no contract, an "at will" employer.
I also worked for another company [not at the same time] that was located in an "at will" state but I was under contract and the contract took precedence. I was not allowed to sale for any other company while on or off the clock any product in whole or part that I sold as a representative of my employer. I was also not allowed to moon-light [take as second] job pertaining to my line or work or any line of work.
