Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's part of his job to take these pictures whoever is paying him owns them. Simple solution to this is to spell it out in the contract that any images or video taken during the course of work belong to whoever is employing them.
The EMT's i know do not take pictures. They are there to do one thing, take care of patients on the scene.
Those taking photographs are usually working for the police and forensic teams.
Quote:
I know there was a few lawsuits in the past where employers tried to get the copyrights of photos taken by employees while they were working where it wasn't specifically part of their job, not sure how successful they were.
The EMT's i know do not take pictures. They are there to do one thing, take care of patients on the scene.
This is probably not part of their duties in most cases, I'm sure there is some exceptions. In any event this isn't the first time this issue has surfaced where these crime/accident scene photos have surfaced. It should be in the contract for these workers to prevent future occurrences.
Quote:
weren't successful if we haven't heard anything.
I have no idea what the outcome was, if I remember correctly it was 9/11 images and the employee used a company camera. He was a utility worker or something along those lines.
This is probably not part of their duties in most cases, I'm sure there is some exceptions.
Incorrect, EMT's show up at a scene, they render aid, if they notice additional information, they pass that on as well, for example, "Officer, as we removed this passed out individual from the car, a Meth pipe fell out of his pocket, we didn't wanna touch it, we're letting you know" - or "Officer, this guy wrapped around a telephone pole, we found some insulin medication on him, he may be diabetic, not drunk, we don't know right now".
Since the EMT is medical personnel, it violates HIPPA laws.
no it doesnt. you are wishing things to be true that arent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
If it's part of his job to take these pictures whoever is paying him owns them. Simple solution to this is to spell it out in the contract that any images or video taken during the course of work belong to whoever is employing them.
I know there was a few lawsuits in the past where employers tried to get the copyrights of photos taken by employees while they were working where it wasn't specifically part of their job, not sure how successful they were.
The standard is not if its part of his job to take pictures.. I can go to a nude beach, take a picture of you, and that photo belongs to me, even if its not my job, and you didnt give permission..
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I meant taking pictures was not part of their duties, my brother is EMT so I'm a little familiar with what they do.
But that is not the standards set in order to determine if a photo taken is legal or not..
The standard is not if its part of his job to take pictures.. I can go to a nude beach, take a picture of you, and that photo belongs to me, even if its not my job, and you didnt give permission..
If I hire you as an employee and tell you go take pictures the copyright belongs to me. If I hire you as contractor, like hiring a photographer then the copyright belongs to you. Both of course are negotiable, I could hire a photographer and stipulate in the contract the copyrights belong to me.
Now if we go back to the example of the utility worker you get into a gray area because his job was to take pictures with that camera, that's why the company was making the argument they owned the copyrights. It's a gray area because those types of images were not part his job. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a camera.
In any event as I already posted this has come up before, I think the best solution is to just put it in their contract any images and photos taken belong to the employer. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone should be in the position to be able to obtain and then publish these photos because of the job they hold.
If I hire you as an employee and tell you go take pictures the copyright belongs to me. If I hire you as contractor, like hiring a photographer then the copyright belongs to you. Both of course are negotiable, I could hire a photographer and stipulate in the contract the copyrights belong to me.
ok.. all of this is correct.. Essentially the copyright work belongs to the employer of a photographer, if one exists, if not, then the individual who took the photos, unless a contract exists to give up that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Now if we go back to the example of the utility worker you get into a gray area because his job was to take pictures with that camera, that's why the company was making the argument they owned the copyrights. It's a gray area because those images were not part his job.
In any event as I already posted this has come up before, I think the best solution is to just put it in their contract any images and photos taken belong to the employer. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone should be in the position to be able to obtain and then publish these photos because of the job they hold.
I know someone who worked as a 911 call operator. They happened to know the person who called in one day needing help. After the call the operator went out and told everyone they knew about the phone call. When word got back to the employer, she was fired.
I had a family member once who worked at a bank, lookup all of my banking information at work, and then went around telling people my financial status. When I found out, I called the bank to complain and they were fired as well.
The point here, is you cant account for stupidiity in every contract, and many employees dont need a contract in order to be employed. There ar elaws in place which regulate an employee/employer relationship, and if you were going to account for everything stupid thing an employee could do, (like taking photos and distributing them), contracts would be 100 pages long for minimum wage jobs.. At some point, reasonability needs to come into play. The employee in question was fired as they should have been, but they would still retain legal ownership of a photo because the photo was obtained legally.
Since the EMT is medical personnel, it violates HIPPA laws.
First of all, it's HIPAA.
Second, it stands for The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules
It has nothing to do with the taking and/or distribution of a photo.
Yes it goes against common decency, but it is just a legitimate as a news photographer having taken the photo and having it printed on the front page of the local newspaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, you are incorrect
