I have an interesting discussion on the topic of copyrights, credits, and dual remotes.
For still photography, when you have a pilot and a camera operator, it would seem clearcut that the camera operator actually pulling the trigger (and framing the shots) would be the copyright owner. In many ways, it would be like a traditional helicopter pilot with a photographer on board. But, in other ways, this is more of a team effort. Often the owner of the Inspire would be the pilot because that's the more risky task (specifically in terms of technical skill of flying safely and keeping the craft safe).


In motion photography, I can see the Inspire owner/pilot as the "Director of Photography" with the remote operator being more akin to AC/Assistant Cameraman. Copyright is not as strict in the world of motion as it is with still photography since it's more often a group effort.

Has anyone discussed this subject, both from a legal and business standpoint? If I'm flying my Inspire with a second camera operator, who technically owns the footage? Who owns the still photography? Sure, this can all be spelled out contractually as a "work for hire" but what's the general concensus of the industry?

I can see it from both sides. On one, you have an Inspire owner/pilot adjusting all the settings and putting everything into place for a great shot (akin to a professional photographer setting up his studio and camera). On the other hand, the ultimate final framing will be the work of the second camera operator. I lean toward the motion picture model on copyrights, where the camera operator (or AC) isn't expected to be the owner of the copyright... the person who is producing the product owns it. But at the same time, I understand still photographers (like in the world of fashion or wedding photography) would probably expect to be the copyright owner.

And then what about credits? "Photography by (slave remote), Piloted by (master remote)"?  Or "Aerial Photography by (master remote), Camera Assistant by (slave remote)"?

Perhaps the answer depends on who is ultimately "directing" the shots? If the Inspire pilot is ulimately in creative control of the shot(s), telling the second operator when to start rolling and how they want the shot framed, is that the key? As opposed to the second remote operator simply hiring the pilot as a pilot... and telling them where to go, in which case the second remote operator is creatively directing the shots? What if the second operator is framing the shots, but the pilot is hitting the shutter button?


I think this is a unique situation (in comparison to a full-sized helicopter pilot) because much of the time an Inspire and its pilot are going to be a single operator. Do they lose all legal protection and creative credit the instant they ask for help with a second remote? Is this something that must be discussed on a project by project basis, depending on the way the workload is split up?


Considering simple contracts can work out the copyright aspects, I'm just curious what everyone thinks is "fair."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/op ... y-selfie-copyright/

When a monkey takes a selfie.

UM305 Posted at 2015-2-16 10:26
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/opinion/cevallos-monkey-selfie-copyright/

When a monkey takes a selfi ...

Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. Crazy. At least we know not to hire monkeys on the second remote or it becomes public domain.

Copyright law aside, what does everyone think is right when it comes to dual operator on an Inspire? I mean, in the motion/film world, I don't think anyone defaults to the camera operator pushing the trigger as owning the footage (both through contracts and ethically).

Hypothetical: An expert Inspire operator comes to a wedding to do aerials for a still photographer with no aerial experience. The still photographer is on the second remote. They own all the photos by default and credit goes to the second remote? I'm assuming that's where the law would fall. Seems a little unfair to me.

I'm also interested in this topic... I prefer to do the photography myself and think that for that purpose you don't need a second person controlling the camera, only in video work would I see a need for a second operator...

hvilorio Posted at 2015-2-16 11:10
I'm also interested in this topic... I prefer to do the photography myself and think that for that p ...

Yeah, and when Ground Station is implemented, it opens up more opportunities for a single operator to concentrate on framing a shot. In a video situation, I suppose the pilot can insist on pushing the trigger?

I think in the past, using a full-sized helicopter or a more expensive remote platform (like the S1000), you're more likely to have a clear "work for hire" situation or all operators are employees of the same company.

Suddenly, with the Inspire you have a much lower cost platform with dual operator capabilities. We're going to see more informal situations where a pilot asks a second person for an assist to get a more complicated shot.

This is one of those questions where (like the monkey) I think the law and what's right are going to be at odds. There's something that just feels wrong about the assistant (unless they're the project owner) claiming any kind of ownership over the product. They're there essentially to help the pilot get the shot--even if they are composing.

The only comparable situation I can come up with is the camera work I've volunteered in the local independent film scene. I've shot a few shorts, unpaid. One went to a festival, and some projects certainly have the potential to make money for its owner. I can't imagine using or selling that footage as if it were my own; I had freedom in composing the shots, but it wasn't "for me," it was being done for someone else--I was just assisting. I didn't even think it was right to offer to my students as editing practice without asking for permission, even though I composed the shots AND hit record. I don't think it would be remotely ethical, even if this were the legal status quo.

joeevaristo Posted at 2015-2-16 12:40
This is one of those questions where (like the monkey) I think the law and what's right are going to ...

I'm leaning toward your line of thinking. I believe (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that still photographers have a much stronger opinion on copyright, while the motion crew members understand the client paying (or the producer who hires you) ultimately owns everything. At least, that's my experience.

I produce and direct network television commercials and the DP and/or camera operator have never once suggested they own the copyright. And I'm talking smaller crews up through agency-represented DPs shooting on 35mm film. On the other end of the spectrum, I see wedding/kid photographers very concerned about copyright notices on everything and still want to retain the formal copyright to their photos. ( I've had more negotiations on copyright with the on-set still photographers than anyone else.)

I think the main reason for the disconnect is that motion, generally speaking, is much more collaborative. Still photography often has the photographer acting as producer, director, director of photography, and camera operator all at once. So I can see their reasoning.

Where it starts getting gray to me is when the "pilot" is analogous to a "full-sized helicopter pilot." And the gimbal operator could be considered the "photographer" shooting out the window. In that case, you'd think it's clear the photographer should own those photos. Just like if someone is driving you on a safari and you take a photo, the driver wouldn't get photography credit.

So, I try to see it both ways. In the end, I think it should come down to who's "producing" the job. Who is ultimately responsible for paying and executing the creative vision? That's who I would consider "owning" the resulting footage. If a photographer hires an Inspire pilot for their project, so they can execute their vision while controlling the gimbal, then they should own the footage. If an Inspire pilot wants another hand controlling the gimbal to execute their vision, they should own the footage.

MarkNJ Posted at 2015-2-16 13:50
I'm leaning toward your line of thinking. I believe (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that  ...

Just make aggreement. Cut the cake in xx portions. (+1 banana for the monkey)
Everybody happy

My experience is similar--but on the assistant side. I work for companies that do local ads, and corporate video--I don't think I'd ever have the nerve to claim ownership of something I was sent out to shoot! The only assumption I make in that regard is that anything I shoot or edit is fair game for my reel, unless there's an NDA.

I think part of the line between helicopter and drone is intention. The helicopter pilot isn't intending to get footage, (s)he is just taking the producer to the requested location, essentially being the assistant in that arrangement. A drone operator, however, is intending to get a shot(s), often at a location of their own choosing. So they cannot be the assistant in that situation, generally.

dundee Posted at 2015-2-16 14:04
Just make aggreement. Cut the cake in xx portions. (+1 banana for the monkey)
Everybody happy

Sure, you can make an agreement to say anything. You can pay someone to ghost write a book for you.

I'm just curious what everyone thinks is "fair" and who would be considered the "photographer." (Obviously NOT the monkey.)