Hey guys kind of need some help here , as I am new to the business of selling footage.
I will cut right to the chase and explain my issue.

I was contacted by a college and asked to do a quick shoot of their new sports field.

I quoted them $150 to take a few pictures and videos clips. He said he just wanted the raw files and I didn't need to do any editing , to keep costs down on the schools end. So I came took the shots , ended up shooting some buildings and stuff too , although this was never discussed prior and I came prepared to shoot only a field ( however he was very adamit when I arrived that the buildings were to be included ) so no big deal , I am very cool about everything and do the shoot. I give him the raw files and even edit photos and string together a very nice minute or so long clip .


I still only charged him $150 and offered him my edited clips for no charge. He declined. A couple days later he emails me and asks me to remove the clip I made off my YouTube  page as "the new field had not yet been revealed " I thought that was weird but ok. I didn't complain or question him or anything , I said no problem and took it down right away.


So a few more days goes by and I ask him "hey man when will it be cool to throw it back up on YouTube "

He responded by saying " I'm gonna have to check to see if we're gonna have a problem with that"


So just in case he tries telling me I can't put up a composition I made for my portfolio with work I did for him. Can I ?


I mean , I don't wanna look for trouble but I got paid 150 bucks , went above and beyond , made a nice composition with audio that I offered to him for free which he declined because he wants to make his own , and I feel like I should be able to show examples of my work ..... No?

Please help guys

lf you got paid to take pictures/video of something new that is going to be revealed to the public at a future date, l think it would go without saying that you wouldn't post any of it in public until after that date.

I believe it is common courtesy to wait until the revealing to post them. However, after that date then you should be free to do do what you please with that footage. This is, of course, unless there was a copyright clause in your contract with the school that provided them with the sole rights to your work, which I would never recommend anyway. As the photographer, you own the rights to the footage that you shoot.

hey guys, sorry i should clarify more.

i had it up for about an hour, and sent him the link to show him , thats when he asked me to remove it and then told me "why" . so i took it down right away.

so a couple days goes by and then i check the university's sports team instagram...... and low and behold, 2 clips , i filmed, of the "not yet revealed" sports field........ posted on the day i got asked to take it down...


so i send him a text that says "hey man, when are you guys revealing the field so i can put the clip i made up"
his response was "ill ask to see if that would be a problem for us" ............ so first it was because it apparently had not been revealed , now it "might be a problem" all together......

im wondering if maybe he billed overtime for "editing" or something to his employer and doesnt want them to find out i was offering them a sweet video for free...... ?

i should add that this is involving a big university. not some community college.

oh ya, still havent been paid yet either...... lol.
but ya.

and also , there was no contract. it was litterally a couple emails and then me running over and getting it done.

Always have clients sign a "shared copyright" release. That way it is understood that you BOTH own the footage. Our contract has "shared copyright"release and we explain to the clients that we use them for portfolio, advertising, and showcasing work to future clients. We won't do the job unless this is signed. Also, NEVER deliver the goods until at least some form of payment has been made or arranged.

tcoleyrn Posted at 2015-8-11 03:45
Always have clients sign a "shared copyright" release. That way it is understood that you BOTH own t ...

This 100%. I would include some sort of liability clause as well. Take half down as a deposit. This is all important information if you intend to do this sort of thing often.

Thanks for the help everyone!

so from what i get , i can post it if i would like too?

I was contacted by a college and asked to do a quick shoot of their new sports field.

I quoted them $150 to take a few pictures and videos clips. He said he just wanted the raw files and I didn't need to do any editing , to keep costs down on the schools end. So I came took the shots , ended up shooting some buildings and stuff too , although this was never discussed prior and I came prepared to shoot only a field ( however he was very adamit when I arrived that the buildings were to be included ) so no big deal , I am very cool about everything and do the shoot. I give him the raw files and even edit photos and string together a very nice minute or so long clip .


Are you licensed to operate the UAV as a business? If not, steer clear of escalating this.
Did you have a written contract with the college? If so, what features did they want shot, were the terms, pricing and usage of the work disclosed? Was this contract limited or full rights granted. Did you just act as being paid on a day rate as hired help, 1099? As far as a copyright, did you sign that away with the payment? This again goes back to are they issuing a 1099?

If you are being given a 1099, there isn’t much you can do but learn from the experience.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-11 04:13
I was contacted by a college and asked to do a quick shoot of their new sports field.

I quoted them ...

Yes, illegal. Unless you have an FAA exemption. End of story.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-11 04:13
I was contacted by a college and asked to do a quick shoot of their new sports field.

I quoted them ...

Sorry, Double post. Please delete moderator

jimcloud74@yaho Posted at 2015-8-11 04:26
Yes, illegal. Unless you have an FAA exemption. End of story.

Well I assume he is in Canada. Do they have their own rules up there?

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-11 04:13
I was contacted by a college and asked to do a quick shoot of their new sports field.

I quoted them ...

Maybe you didn't notice he's in Canada! The laws there might be similar to ours, but they certainly don't issue 1099 forms! Those come from our IRS.

aburkefl@gmail. Posted at 2015-8-11 04:42
Maybe you didn't notice he's in Canada! The laws there might be similar to ours, but they certainl ...

I wasn't going to go thru the trouble to find out what the form number was that Canada uses for reporting income. You got the idea.

Same thing for the FAA. Whichever agency controls Canadian airspace probably mimics what the US has for controlling their airspace.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-11 04:54
I wasn't going to go thru the trouble to find out what the form number was that Canada uses for re ...

Yeah. I assumed. You know what they say about that. In the US it's illegal. I have even heard of people getting in trouble for selling the "editing" services trying to beat the rules.

We don't need one up here to fly for work/research purposes as long as the drone weighs less than 2 kg (since late last year). l can't find anything that has changed since then.
ln order to be free to fly for work, you have to meet the requirements for Exemption, one of which is carrying liability insurance. The rest are common sense safety rules, some of which are more stringent than the FAA (height, for example) and radius around airports (9km).

CapitAn Posted at 2015-8-11 03:03
lf you got paid to take pictures/video of something new that is going to be revealed to the public a ...

AGREED. Tyler, if you are going to be in the photo/video business, you also need to research and learn the definitions of full rights, one time, fair use, first rights, etc. http://photography.about.com/od/ ... n/a/photorights.htm[/url].
Do I need to add that there should always be a written contract? And I don't even want to open the whole 333 or whatever the Canadian equivalents is, plus if you have a business license? Best to let it go and learn from this...

CapitAn Posted at 2015-8-11 05:09
We don't need one up here to fly for work/research purposes as long as the drone weighs less than 2  ...

CapitAn, I guess that a lot of aerial work is going to be shot with a Phantom type quad then.

4.4 pounds throws out just about any decent quad that has the ability to buck the wind.

If my math is correct, 9 km equates to 5.625 miles, not that big of a deal.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-8-11 05:40
CapitAn, I guess that a lot of aerial work is going to be shot with a Phantom type quad then.

4.4 ...

Yeah, the Phantoms have it made right now at 1.28 kg. They are looking at upping the current regs to include the smaller UAVs but currently exempt them. We can't fly higher than 90m though, which is really not high enough for some commercial applications.

Some of the criteria they're looking at for the 2 kg to 25 kg range for exemptions are things like low mass, low maximum speed, frangible or energy-absorbing deformable structure, protection against fire, etc.

l like that they're trying to keep it open and accessible and not trying to shut it down with heavy restrictions. One quote from the document is: "Transport Canada is proud to be at the international vanguard of UAV safety. The goal of these new proposed regulations is to support the enjoyment and development of this budding sector while keeping people on the ground and in the sky safe."

l think it's only a matter of time until they include the small P3-sized UAVs in their regs, but fingers crossed they don't.

Well, based on what "we" can currently legally fly, 292 feet isn't that far off of our 400 ceiling.

FAA, part 333 exemption, here I come.

tcoleyrn Posted at 2015-8-11 03:45
Always have clients sign a "shared copyright" release. That way it is understood that you BOTH own t ...

Do you think you could share your template?

jimcloud74@yaho Posted at 2015-8-11 04:26
Yes, illegal. Unless you have an FAA exemption. End of story.

Sorry ? What did I do that was illegal?
I need an FAA exempt to film an outdoor open grass field?

ALSO I should add I live in Canada.

I realize this forum is full of people who could never become real police officers , but please , I am asking if I have the right to post the videos on YouTube.......

If your not going to answer my question then please push along and find someone seeking policing.

And again there was NO CONTRACT (read if your gonna chime in) and YES I have liability insurance...... But again that is irrelevant as I AM NOT questioning the legality of my shoot. NO ONE INVOLVED is.

Sorry , and thanks again to those that are helping answer my question , but damn I cannot take these Internet einsteins.

And thank you too the person who ACTUALLY knows what the laws are here, and not just trying to be a smart ass. I didn't post to get flamed and told the rules , which I know and FOLLOW. I just came for some advice, on ONE matter. Ffs guys grow up.....

Lol...this is a perfect example of why asking for legal advice on a worldwide forum isn't likely to be of great help (and possible frustration).  So many different rules and interpretations that are specific to your localized laws (and change over time)...that many will ignore, or not be informed of.  The 333 exemptions VS Canadian SFOC exemptions is one example.

Ownership in regards to copyright law is another one.  In the U.S. there is provisions in the copyright law in regards to "work for hire"...which may automatically assign the owner of the copyright to the hiring entity (if certain conditions are met).  In Canada however, there is not this "work for hire" exception to the chain of copyright ownership.  In Canada the first owner of the copyright is the author, unless they are under an employment contract that deems otherwise.  A contract to do work as an independent contractor, is not defined as an employment contract for these purposes.  So, unless you as the author specifically, in writing, transferred the copyright...you still own it.  No one can take the right away from you to do with it as you please.  That may not be the case in the U.S if this could be deemed "work for hire", so US vs Canadian advice may differ..  You can look up what an employment contract is defined as in Canada, but it appears you were not working under that.  So, you automatically have all the rights of the copyright....and it really isn't confused by any "work for hire" provisions as may be the case in the U.S..  In Canada, this distinction (first owner) in regards to photographic work was reversed and  greatly strengthened in 2012 in favor of the author.  Prior to the new laws ownership of the copyright was transferred as soon as whomever commissioned the work paid for it.  After 2012, whoever "authored" the work is the initial owner of the copyright, and retains it unless it is contractually transferred.  So, if you further research, you'll want to distinguish between whether what you are reading was written prior to 2012, or after.

For reference, you can find interpretations to this change by googling "C-11 2012 copyright ownership change photography implications"

That being said (and ignoring he fact that I both said don't trust people's limited knowledge in a forum such as this, and then shared my own, which is also limited), I'd agree with advice here...the value to have a good working relationship with whomever hired you may greatly exceed any value you could gain in going against their wishes.  You may realize the same value by simply asking they acredit your work, and link to it, rather than host it upon your own web site.  Going forward at least in Canada, you likely don't NEED language in your contract to retain ownership of the copyright of work you author, without regards to payment.  However doing so may shortcut any confusion on the hiring parties side, and good business practice.

tylerstock@live Posted at 2015-8-11 07:38
Sorry ? What did I do that was illegal?
I need an FAA exempt to film an outdoor open grass field?  ...

Hey man. I said I assumed. My mistake. Don't worry. I won't assist you any further. If you come to America, shoot footage for payment, you can be fined. Just FYI.

If you release the footage early (or at all), they could go after you for "damages".  Even if you win in court it will cost you a lot in legal fees.  Is it really worth the risk?  Usually if someone hires you for footage (uav or not) it is understood that they own it unless you have it WRITTEN otherwise.

On a side note there is a very easy way to skirt the dumb USA laws.  Footage and pics by donation only.   

DrACE Posted at 2015-8-11 10:34
On a side note there is a very easy way to skirt the dumb USA laws.  Footage and pics by donation on ...

Won't work.  A donation can't have any quid pro quo attached or legally it is not a donation.

I know everyone is freaked out by the "no commercial use" FAA rule, but the reality is that you really don't need to worry if you are a small player.

I know people actively advertising their drone photography business for over two years in Florida and no one is bothering them.

You can find them in the phone book: Florida Drone Aerial Photography

Truth is only one guy got fined by the FAA for flying recklessly over five years ago and the reason the court gave for allowing the fine was that it was "commercial use". That's where the whole "rule" comes from.

They can fine you for "commercial use", but if you aren't flying like a d-bag chances are they won't bother you.

^good post suqsid.bobmail  

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-8-11 12:12
Won't work.  A donation can't have any quid pro quo attached or legally it is not a donation.

I k ...

The case involved someone associated with Team Black Sheep. DJI's own Brendan Schulman, defended him.

I don't know if I would hold this up as a major victory as Team Black Sheep has been cited around the world for flying in some highly restricted airspace. The last video I saw from them involved flying all around London.

http://web20.nixonpeabody.com/da ... +airspace+violation

http://arstechnica.com/tech-poli ... -with-quadrocopter/

http://www.droneshield.org/enforcement-actions/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ar ... r-provoke-faa-wrath

If the FAA wants to, they can still go after you, but chances are that they will have bigger fish to fry with all of the encroachments taking place in the New Jersey/New York area.

^Agree, but now that I looked into it, I have someone working to get a 333 exemption for me.  There is nobody in the remote vicinity that does drone video and pics for commercial use and I want to be the first and want to be legit because all it takes is some jealous person to start complaining and the last thing I want is the FAA knocking on my door.