Student Photographer Threatened With Suspension For Sports Photos

sandbagger writes: Anthony Mazur is a senior at Flower Mound High School in Texas who photographed school sports games and other events. Naturally he posted them on line. A few days ago he was summoned to the principal's office and threatened with a suspension and 'reporting to the IRS' if he didn't take those 4000 photos down. Reportedly, the principal's rationale was that the school has copyright on the images and not him.

Comments

OK, we've seen this before

[ColdWetDog]

So, another thread about some random clueless school principal.

Look, the vast majority of us (at least the non-ACs) have already graduated from high school. We know that your average principal has to check the school policy manual to figure out which leg to put in the trouser first. And then they mess it up half the time anyway.

Not much to see here. Some lawyer will be around presently to wack some sense into the the school district.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. There is another side to this. The school is so afraid of being sued they create lawsuits trying to 'fix' the issue. So he used that excuse to go on a powertrip over a kid. Working on the yearbook... Which makes you think was one of those 4k the principal doing something he shouldnt be?

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Just another clueless school administrator. Not sure why this made it to slashdot.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

> your average principal has to check the school policy manual to figure out which leg to put in the trouser first. And then they mess it up half the time anyway.

So if the manual says to put your left leg in first, and you mess up and put your right leg in first -- exactly what badness happens?

(If this were the Hokey Pokey then I'd understand how doing this might cause the end of civilization. But for trousers, no.)

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Zephyn]

> your average principal has to check the school policy manual to figure out which leg to put in the trouser first. And then they mess it up half the time anyway.

So if the manual says to put your left leg in first, and you mess up and put your right leg in first -- exactly what badness happens?

The zipper winds up in the back.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[sycodon]

It is becoming clearer and clearer every day that our schools are run by absolute morons. You know the kind I'm talking about. They manage to reach their Peter Principal level and proceed to be incompetent in all areas.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[g0bshiTe]

When they keep churning out the same, how intelligent do you expect them to be?

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

> your average principal has to check the school policy manual to figure out which leg to put in the trouser first. And then they mess it up half the time anyway.

So if the manual says to put your left leg in first, and you mess up and put your right leg in first -- exactly what badness happens?

The zipper winds up in the back.

And for a school administrator as full of shit as this guy is, that might not be a bad thing...

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[rogoshen1]

what a bigoted, able-ist post. why do you assume everyone has 2 legs, shitlord?

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

They manage to reach their Peter Principal level

which is... umm... Principal?

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Chris Mattern]

what a bigoted, able-ist post. why do you assume everyone has 2 legs, shitlord?

Equal rights for centaurs now!

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

and that's only bad half the time, the other half it's a real convenience

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

... and then those principal morons allow morons who can't spell *principle* to graduate from grade school. :(

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[lgw]

what a bigoted, able-ist post. why do you assume everyone has 2 legs, shitlord?

You must be new here. Here on /. we say "you insensitive clod". We do have our traditions you know.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Release beer from the shackles of economic oppression!

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[antdude]

Same for insects like me! :P

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

This Anthony Mazur is pining for attention. Last spring (http://lewisvilletexan.com/xoops/modules/news/article.php?storyid=338, the January 2014 school board meeting report) he was complaining about censorship on the school web proxy server. Now he's putting the football photos out for grabs (and you know how seriously those Texans take their football games!)

He might really have the right to do what he likes with the photos he takes, but I think Anthony is in the middle of a learning experience about how and when to push boundaries and challenge those in authority. Being a sophomore, I hope he learns some finesse, or he's likely to have an unpleasant high school career.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[goose-incarnated]

Same for insects like me! :P

What's the official stance on avians? ;-)

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Tatarize]

Four legs good, two legs better.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[ihtoit]

I'm a millipede, you insensitive clod!

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Four legs good, two legs baaad! Four legs good, two legs baaad!

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[ihtoit]

thank NCLB, they pre-empted it to encompass teaching staff as well. "No Teacher Left Behind"?

Not only do they stream EVERYBODY to the slowest and most hopeless case, they're streaming teching methods to the least skilled among them. How the fuck they manage this "Nu Way" of doing long math, I have no idea. I'm pretty advanced in math and it confuses the living snot out of me!

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the parent was trying to make a homonym joke, which is likely, and your Asperger's self completely missed it. No child left behind indeed.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[neurovish]

what a bigoted, able-ist post. why do you assume everyone has 2 legs, shitlord?

Equal rights for centaurs now!

I thought centaurs only wore pants on their hindquarters. Have I just been hanging around a particularly exhibitionist set of centaurs?

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Paradise Pete]

We know that your average principal has to check the school policy manual to figure out which leg to put in the trouser first. And then they mess it up half the time anyway.

It might be as much as 3/4, as they also have to get the front/back oriented.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[sycodon]

Yeah...OK...Mea Culpa.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[coinreturn]

what a bigoted, able-ist post. why do you assume everyone has 2 legs, shitlord?

So now metaphors have to be politically correct?

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Scared Rabbit]

On the other hand, I have a math degree and the new ways totally make sense to me. In fact the way they're teaching arithmetic in school now is how I do it in my head. I've talked with others I went to school with and it's the same for them.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

Because systemic incompetence has become normalized, we're just supposed to shrug our shoulders and except the inevitable slide into mediocrity? No. This guy and the apparently large set of his contemporaries need to be called out by the public and fired. This principal would be more suited to sweeping the floor on the janitorial staff.

Re:OK, we've seen this before

[david_thornley]

Also, this is one thing happening. What we know from this is that one school principal is an idiot and has no clue about copyright law. If you'd asked me if that was the case last week, I'd have suggested we probably have lots of them, given that there's about 100K K-12 schools in the US.

Multiple independent similar acts are important, as are single actions by government agencies, since it means some of us are likely to run into them. Individual people not acting in accordance with policy are unimportant. They also seriously distort our perceptions of the world, since people who read the story suddenly have more expectation that principals are stupid and arrogant and arbitrary (look up "availability heuristic").

Unfortunately, as long as they're good for clickbait, we'll have them.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a non-conformist, you indelicate slob!

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[AvitarX]

It's actually why they codified it. They found it was a technique effectove teachers taught, and how people do it in their head.

I personally think it gets too much focus, it doesn't work for everyone, and different tricks work for different people, but I assume most people that struggle woth getting it are not "math people". I also don't think teaching math people techniques to everyone is necessarily going to work.

Re: OK, we've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all at least half centaur.

Unless it was part of a contract.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless photography rights was part of a contract (either student handbook or admission ticket), the principal is smoking crack and has no claim to them.

That said, the kid is probably a minor and can not enter into binding contracts without parental consent.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[omnichad]

While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[Zeek40]

Yeah, I can't see any way that the school could have a copyright claim to the pictures unless they were paying the student to take them, and unless things have really changed since I was in high school, "student photographer for the school yearbook" is not a payed position.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[TemporalBeing]

While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.

Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[omnichad]

If he's using photos of individually identified people and posting them commercially he does. The only exception to that is for news media.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[random coward]

Everyone is news media now.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[schlachter]

Speaking of legalities, wouldn't the right recourse for a principal who thinks the student is intentionally violating school copyright to file a civil complaint and not to suspend them or kick them out of school? Seems like he's using suspending the student as a punishment for "not doing what I want".

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[bhiestand]

No, that is a completely incorrect interpretation.

Anyone can publish photos taken in public places in a reasonable way (i.e. not using a ladder and a supertelephoto on a sidewalk). They can publish these images in any way, with or without editorial, in nearly any way... as long as it's not exploitative of a protected attribute.

Coca-Cola cannot take a picture of Michael Jordan having a soda at a public event on public property, slap the Coke logo on it, and make that into a marketing campaign. The National Enquirer cannot edit that image to show Michael molesting a child, then publish it. But any person can take the unaltered photo, put it on twitter, and say "Hey, check out this photo of Michael!"

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[meta-monkey]

The only issue is whether 1) the subjects of the photographs had a reasonable expectation of privacy and 2) whether their likeness were used for commercial purposes.

Clearly 1) does not apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when playing a sporting event in front of hundreds or thousands of people.

The vagaries of 2) depend on the individual case and the state. From reading the article (I know, I know) I didn't see anything that indicated he was using their images for commercial purposes.

Next you have different definitions of "commercial purposes." For instance, if he were selling these players' images as stock photos (and the individual was identifiable), that would be right out. You can't take somebody's picture and slap it on a product as if they endorse it or something without their permission.

Taking the pictures to sell to the players and parents themselves (which again, I don't think he was doing) is a little murkier, but still usually fine.

Some states have privacy laws that require a written model release between the photographer and the subject. Others are fine with verbal consent or "implied consent." For instance, a wedding photographer contracted by a bride and groom takes pictures of the people dancing and then hosts them on his website for friends and family of the bride and groom to purchase prints of. There's implied consent there. You're at the wedding, in public, there's a person there with a giant camera, pointing it at you, snapping the picture, you know this is what they do. You will have a hard time arguing this was done invasively or without your knowledge and consent. And if you do see something on the photographer's website you don't like or find unflattering, no problem, contact them and ask them to remove it and you've got about a 100% chance they'll apologize profusely and take it down. A random picture of a guest is not going to make or break their after sales and a refusal will bring down the wrath of the bride and groom (as you have wronged their friend/family member) and severely hurt your chances of getting future jobs from their circle.

Basically, there's 0.00001% chance the kid would have any real legal problems. The pictures are DEFINITELY his. He pressed the button, he owns the copyright (without a work-for-hire agreement handing them over to somebody else, natch). That's how the law works.

The school has ZERO claim.

The players could complain, but 1) they probably want pictures of themselves looking awesome, 2) could simply ask him to remove pictures of them from the gallery, 3) for further action they would have to argue he was using the pictures commercially and then 4) show some kind of damages, otherwise a legal remedy would just be an order to remove the pictures.

Kid's fine, and we need to stop scaring people that they need to be ON GUARD 24/7 because every innocuous thing they do might set themselves up for DIRE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[omnichad]

He's a celebrity. They have lost some of their rights to publicity due to that status. That doesn't apply to individual high school students - especially if they were the only one in the photo.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[bhiestand]

Citation needed. The celebrity actually has more rights in my fictional case because, effectively, it's easier to appropriate their image.

Look up case law on street photography. You will find that, in most places, there are very few restrictions.

Re: Unless it was part of a contract.....

[kenh]

Taking the pictures to sell to the players and parents themselves (which again, I don't think he was doing) is a little murkier, but still usually fine.
Some states have privacy laws that require a written model release between the photographer and the subject. Others are fine with verbal consent or "implied consent."

Where did I agree/give consent to photographer at the local amusement park to take my picture as I'm riding their roller coaster? I'm not saying I didn't, but was it when I walked on the property, when I bought the ticket, or when I got on the ride? I'm not aware of giving consent in any of those events, but that doesn't mean I didn't consent. (There could be a small sign as I enter the park, a waiver on the ticket stub, or a notice as I enter the roller coaster.)

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[TemporalBeing]

He's a celebrity. They have lost some of their rights to publicity due to that status. That doesn't apply to individual high school students - especially if they were the only one in the photo.

That doesn't apply in this case, and what you're thinking of is not in relation to this, but in relation to slander.

Re:Unless it was part of a contract.....

[TemporalBeing]

If he's using photos of individually identified people and posting them commercially he does. The only exception to that is for news media.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

As others have said, that's incorrect except in the case of trying to use it for a business purpose such as marketing where they are trying to use the individual (or other trademark) to promote their brand. There is no real exception for news media as news media are not suppose to be promoting a brand with the photos - just reporting what is happening, which any individual can do as well.

If a celeb just happens to be in the background, completely unrelated to the point of the picture, then they probably do not. But, as always, consult a lawyer first.

Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[teambpsi]

Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..

Don't Mess With Taxes

[dcollins]

.... I mean Texas.

Re:Don't Mess With Taxes

[I-am-a-Banana]

Hmmm interesting, where I am the private schools that aren't unionized generally have better pay for the teachers, better class room conditions, better resources for the students, better standardized test results, better equipment and it really shows. If I was a teacher I would be gunning for the private schools....

Re:Don't Mess With Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

And then you learn that those "charter" schools aren't really fulfilling the terms of their charter, and that private schools elsewhere have one advantage over public schools.

They don't have to put up with shit. Public schools? They do. So do public officers like courts and the police. Sometimes this leads to issues, including getting people to put up with the crap others have a propensity to spew.

But hey, at least they teach you all there is to know about small arms.

Re:Don't Mess With Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. Where I am, public schools (which aren't unionized because public employees aren't allowed to unionize in our state) have better pay for teachers and more resources for the students than private schools, but they also have a higher ratio of impoverished students to rich students and end up scoring consequently less on standardized tests.

Because, in the end, school performance has jack shit to do with teachers or minor funding differences and everything to do with the parents, whether or not they taught the kids to read early and life and whether they continue to expect good academics of the kids. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you send your kid to private school, a public charter, a talented-and-gifted program inside a normal public school, or what have you, so long as it requires some minor, token effort to get your kid into that school or program instead of the default, lowest-common-denominator stream, where you find the kids whose parents just don't give a damn. Schools are a giant switch block, and any case statement is better than the default.

Re: Don't Mess With Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically he said private. Not charter. There is a difference you know. The main one being I pay 4000 a year in taxes to send your to school and then spend another $8000 a year each to send of my 4 kids to a better school than the you get for "free".

Charter is still public. Just not as many restrictions.

Re:Don't Mess With Taxes

[Lunix Nutcase]

All of that is easy to accomplish when you can simply exclude huge swaths of kids.

Re: Don't Mess With Taxes

[jeffb (2.718)]

The main one being I pay 4000 a year in taxes to send your to school and then spend another $8000 a year each to send of my 4 kids to a better school than the you get for "free".

If you're spending that much to send them to a "better" school, the least they could do in return is proofread your posts for you.

Re:Don't Mess With Taxes

[w_dragon]

You see this a lot in Canada, where you generally have at least a couple choices of publicly-funded schools in any area. Catholic schools are considered slightly better than secular, and French are better than English (outside of Quebec and New Brunswick, anyway). The reason is just that the default choice is secular English. The more work the parents have to do to get their kid into a school, the more support there will be at home for the kid to succeed.

Re: Don't Mess With Taxes

[ihtoit]

+1 "Hilarious".

Um... that's all I've got.

Streisand Effect

[Archangel Michael]

Dear Principal,

Do you really want to bring this kind of publicity to you and the school you're representing? I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to handle the backlash, and you might actually have to resign or ... get fired.

Unless you have a Board adopted policy, predating the photographs, you're in a really tough position.

Sincerely,
The Internet Community.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and let them know:

http://fmhs.lisd.net/apps/staf...

Lail, Sonya Principal

lailsk@lisd.net 469-713-5192

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem that you are unaware of the 1st Amendment, and barring a prior contract entered into with the parents of Anthony Mazur which states that you retain the rights to all images he produces, you have no rights to his copyrighted works. Not only that, but you abused your position of authority to threaten punishment of a minor in your care, not just once, but multiple times, including threatening to make a false report of a federal crime--itself a federal offense.

I hope you are familiar with the Streisand Effect. Good luck salvaging your career.

Sent!

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well contact the school district's board of trustees as well.

http://www.lisd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=118449&type=d&pREC_ID=234350

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm including these links and PDFs.

The Photographer's Right

ACLU Photographers' Rights

Photography, The Law, and Photographer's Rights

Legal Rights of Photographers

Re:Streisand Effect

[VorpalRodent]

Where is the line between having a spirited discussion on how an administrator can lack common sense...and providing their contact details (regardless of how public they may be) to a public forum?

Re:Streisand Effect

[Archangel Michael]

Public Available Records, from a Public Employee? I have no sympathy. They have other perks

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no line. They're a public figure. They put the information out publicly, act in a public capacity, and what was published was their contact details at their place of employment--not their private contact information.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the line between asking a question like this and asking a null value rhetorical question?

Re:Streisand Effect

[SeaFox]

Where is the line between having a spirited discussion on how an administrator can lack common sense...and providing their contact details (regardless of how public they may be) to a public forum?

The contact details exist for the express purpose of allowing people to contact them, and you're saying we shouldn't post them because folks might contact them? They can always take them down if they don't want people emailing them.

You're also assuming this is a real personal email account and not a general "bulk mail" contact address that's really handed by someone else.

Re:Streisand Effect

[orlanz]

REALLY SLASHDOT? Ok, we got random annoying ACs out there along with this principal. But our moderation system reflects us on the whole... The parent post should have been modded to 0.

So what is the point of the parent? By promoting it to +4 Informative, what are we saying? That we should be mob hammering this person into submission by DDOSing them? That mailbox and phone number will become useless for the purposes that it was actually meant for.

Some stupid school read their stupid policy & guidelines book and it impacts one student. We can let the system take care of itself here and wait for more instances before going "One time at band camp" on it.

Re:Streisand Effect

[silas_moeckel]

Public figure perfectly acceptable, they accepted this when they took a public job. Posting their home info etc would be improper.

Re:Streisand Effect

[sjames]

Since the contact details are her work details posted to a public website and in regard to a work matter, it's not a problem. Private contact details would be over the line.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

When it's abuse of power there is no line. That's why bullies should think twice about throwing away the rule book. It protects them too.

Re:Streisand Effect

[adolf]

Where is the line between having a spirited discussion on how an administrator can lack common sense...and providing their contact details (regardless of how public they may be) to a public forum?

I believe such a line is defined in post #49746421.

Either way, it already was public information. There is no such thing as information being more public or less public -- it either is public information, or it is not.

That already-public information might be more-popularized in one instant than it was in the last instant doesn't seem to matter much.

Re:Streisand Effect

[Anubis IV]

The line would be at posting their private contact details, home address, or other personal information. But their professional e-mail address that's posted on a public-facing site for the sole purpose of providing the public-at-large with a way to contact them? Absolutely fair game.

Re:Streisand Effect

[ihtoit]

public servants have no expectation of privacy, in any forum.

  - Munby LJ, in Re: Stafford.

Re:Well, this should be interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Content Rights are like 50% of Slashdot posts...

It's the same in professional sports.

[BitterOak]

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[FranTaylor]

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different.

can we count the differences?

professional sports teams play in private settings where access is limited to ticket holders

professional sports teams are paid for their work, they have signed contracts explicitly detailing their rights to their likeness in photographs and other media

high school sports teams play in public settings where anyone is free to view and take pictures

high school athletes are not paid for their work, they have not signed any contractual agreements governing the distribution of their likeness in photographs

if joe sports reporter is free to take pictures for the newspaper

if the parents are free to take photos of their own children

then surely the students are free to take pictures

Re: It's the same in professional sports.

[PatrickNarkinsky]

Clearly you've not had a child eho played football...

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[mysidia]

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble.

Only if you're a player or party to an agreement that prohibits tweeting the score.

They only own copyright to the media they produce.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The game is played on posted grounds. The school charges an admission fee to the game. Many Texas schools have agreements with local TV/Radio Stations for broadcast rights. The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.

Re: It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot copyright facts.

Re: It's the same in professional sports.

[FranTaylor]

we played on a public field, open to the public

even in private school the fields are usually 100% visible from public property (the sidewalk)

if people can watch the football game from public property, there is no expectation of privacy

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[FranTaylor]

The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.

so at football games and graduations, the press must get releases from the parents of all of the students who appear in their photographs? Do they really track down all of the spectators visible in the background of photos, determine whether or not they are current students, and then get releases from all of their parents?

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[multimediavt]

The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.

so at football games and graduations, the press must get releases from the parents of all of the students who appear in their photographs? Do they really track down all of the spectators visible in the background of photos, determine whether or not they are current students, and then get releases from all of their parents?

No, not even close, but there may be a stated release in the invitation or program that lifts the restriction for certain events like graduation, but all of it still seems like it would be impossible to enforce in the modern Internet world anyway, even if it's a real rule. AFAIK, there's no foul unless you're profiting from the pictures or every student that's taken a picture of themselves or their friends at school would be culpable, because what high school student doesn't post pictures on the Internet of themselves at school events these days. Texas is more than a little batshit crazy these days, anyway, so who knows.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

School handbooks cannot and do not supersede state, federal, or in this case, the Bill of Rights. The school cannot revoke a student's freedom of speech to to publish photographs.

The school may establish rules prohibiting photographs or photography equipment, and discipline students for taking pictures in defiance of said rules, but once pictures are taken, the school has no legal basis to prevent the pictures from being transmitted or issue sanctions for the act of publishing them.

What Lewisville ISD did is a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment and if litigated, they would lose in court.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything in the US that isn't monetized? You'll be paying corporations for oxygen soon, after signing an EULA - you won't own it, you'll just pay rent on it.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[j33px0r]

You can't actually copyright the description of a game nor can tweeting scores get you into trouble. You can get false warnings but that is all that they are. Copyright does not extend that far regardless of what the NFL and other groups say.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anubis IV]

Having attended Texas high school back in the late '90s and early '00s, it's my recollection that there are privacy laws on the books protecting students on school grounds or engaged in school activities from having their likeness used without parental permission (I think there were a handful of exceptions, such as yearbook photos, however). The school passed out waivers at the start of the school year in an attempt to get that permission from parents, and most parents signed them since otherwise their student wouldn't appear in the yearbook aside from for their standard photo, as I recall.

Again, this was all around 15 years ago at this point, so my recollection is fuzzy, but it's entirely possible that even though this kid may own the rights to those pictures, he may be barred from using them on account of privacy laws regarding Texas students. If so, that wouldn't be a copyright issue, but it would be a situation where the principal may need to get involved.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

The public school in Texas that my son attends

The public school

public

Where does that "expectation of privacy" come from? It's not a private place.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[ihtoit]

Even safe drinking water is monetised. Nestlé themselves said a couple years ago that access to clean, safe drinking water is NOT a basic human right.

Thus was born the meme: Why is it easier to get access to free wifi than it is to get access to free drinking water?

Hell, even the UN have their oars in. They're pushing universal internet access (thanks also to Google and Elon Musk) over and above clean water. They're spending thousands of times more money on the bullshit than they are on the essential.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many professional sports organizations makes threats like that. But in reality only certain aspects are copyrightable and simple facts like the score are not subject to copyright protection no matter what the NFL claims.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[ihtoit]

like a paying spectator.

(UK ice hockey game tickets have the stipulation on each ticket: no still or video cameras. They will kick you out if they spot you with a cam).

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[mysidia]

They will kick you out if they spot you with a cam

That doesn't necessarily mean they can enforce the terms on the ticket in any way. Once you have the photo, or the footage, you legally own the footage. They cannot, for example: legally prevent you from posting your photo or reselling your footage, they also cannot force you to delete or destroy anything, they cannot take your camera or damage it or operate its controls, or your film or storage media, or hold you or your equipment hostage, etc, etc.

Any of those actions would be illegal, whereas your action of taking a photograph is not a crime.

Yes, the property owner or their legally appointed representative definitely has the option of kicking you out if they spot you holding a camera. They can have their personnel ask you to leave; their personnel have to be prepared to show convincing legal proof that they are an agent of the property owner.

In that case, you still have and own any photos or video you took before being forced to leave, AND you may be due a refund for the ticket, and the venue may be liable for the cost, since your admission has then been dishonored, once they have failed or refused to provide the access paid for.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[TemporalBeing]

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.

They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.

Re:It's the same in professional sports.

[gregroush]

I shoot as a fan at professional sports events all the time. Some places put limits on the gear you can use (e.g., big lenses), and many prohibit video recording, so check the venue policies before you go, but most are happy to let you shoot as long as you're not bothering anyone else. I've posted handfuls of those pictures online, and never once have any of those teams said anything. Now, if I tried to make a business out of it by selling the pictures, I would expect to hear from them. The smart ones understand the buzz generated by pics on social media is good for them. And most have learned that smartphones made the "no cameras" policy all but unenforceable.

It is their right, though, to have such policies. Just like a business can prohibit firearms on their premises, even in an open carry state. Or like how it's legal for me to drink a Coke, but they can prevent me from bringing one into the stadium with me.

As far as the IRS, etc., this principle is clearly grasping at straws. He would need to demonstrate a clear policy violation or some other illegal activity (e.g., privacy violations, trespassing, harassment). An actual contract wouldn't be necessary because it's within the principal's power to enact penalties for violations of school policy. If the policy or some agreement the student signed grants copyright and/or publication rights (not the same thing) to the school, then he may be in the right. Otherwise, he's just making things up.

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're claiming copyright over the rights of the venue. Can't there be a fair use clause for a student who posts pictures of his favorite teams? Or is it a serious business the one he has setup?

Re:Of course...

[FranTaylor]

They're claiming copyright over the rights of the venue.

Even still the photographer would have "fair use" rights to publish photographs that illustrate the football games. The posting of photographs of game action is "news reporting" and thus "fair use" would allow the photographer to publish the pictures.

in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[SpeedBump0619]

Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...

Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[taustin]

Particularly if they do not post - and enforce - a general prohibition against photography by everyone else, including the press.

Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[rastos1]

Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs

How can you say that when Olympic Committee clearly gives an opposite example?

Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[FranTaylor]

because olympic events are privately events held by private entities on private property (leased for the event counts as private property)

everyone who participates in the olympics, athletes, press, etc. signs a contractual agreement that limits their rights

public high school students, have not signed any contractual agreements, are not able to sign any such agreement, and besides, they play on public property and the games are usually quite visible from the public sidewalk around the school, so there is no expectation of any sort of privacy

Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[spire3661]

The Olympics are a special case. They have a very special version of copyright law carved out via international treaty. Its not really a fair comparison.

Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership

[TemporalBeing]

Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...

Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?

If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.

But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.

Button Press

[Anonymous Coward]

Whomever presses the shutter has copyright. That famous Ellen DeGeneres Oscar selfie supposedly worth a fortune? Her phone (or at least a loner), but she does not hold copyright, Bradley Cooper does, since he actually took the photo with her phone.

would like to see this kind of reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Mr principal, "all images and likenesses remain sole property of each individual athlete. False copyright claims carry the following criminal penalties..."

Re:would like to see this kind of reply

[gnupun]

I think copyright should be shared between the school and the individual athletes. After all, the school organized and funded (invested) these events. But the principal claiming 100% copyright on the events is a total greedy grab.

Re:would like to see this kind of reply

[Overzeetop]

Copyright goes to the creator/composer of the image, not the participants or the venue, by default. Unless there is a prior agreement in place, they belong to him. There are special niche cases (photography of an art work, or of an event staged as a creative endeavor - i.e. not a sport or contest).

Re:would like to see this kind of reply

[SecurityGuy]

After all, the school organized and funded (invested) these events.

They most certainly did not. I checked, and that school district and therefore that school is funded by tax revenue. Taxpayers funded those events. The school employees organized them, yes, but because they were paid by taxpayers to do so.

Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

All copyright resides with the photographer, unless otherwise stated in a contract. Of course, this is a student who we're talking about so he doesn't have any leverage. He will have to yield, unfortunately. People in power are always right, even when they're wrong.

Camer was owned by the school

[Anonymous Coward]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school. If he had used is own camera, then they are his to keep.
Just like in the work place, any personal data on company computers used on company time belong to The Company and not you.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the guy who owned the cameras that were grabbed by the monkey and then the monkey took the selfie. Yeah, that guy - he doesn't own the copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.... It sounds like it may be more open than you posit.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Mr. Slippery]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

No. It does not work like that. If you borrow my guitar and write a hit song, it's your song, the copyright is yours. If you borrow my camera and take a Pulitzer-winning photo, it's your photo, the copyright is yours. Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[FranTaylor]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school. If he had used is own camera, then they are his to keep.
Just like in the work place, any personal data on company computers used on company time belong to The Company and not you.

the school loaned him the camera. if I rent a camera, do the pictures belong to the rental store?

"just like in the work place" NO, it is NOT just like the work place.

In the work place, the worker has a contractual agreement with their employer that governs the rights of the employee in such matters

High school students are not of the age of consent and thus they are unable to make a contractual agreement, in any case, no such agreement exists.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[dwywit]

"The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school. If he had used is own camera, then they are his to keep.
Just like in the work place, any personal data on company computers used on company time belong to The Company and not you."

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[banda]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school. If he had used is own camera, then they are his to keep.
Just like in the work place, any personal data on company computers used on company time belong to The Company and not you.

Maybe read the article next time? The school board's policy is that students retain the ownership of works they create even when using school equipment and supplies. Says so right in the article.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[nanoflower]

If you read the article it points out

the District's Board Policy Manual explicitly states "a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources."

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[jcr]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

What's your next guess?

-jcr

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Oligonicella]

Nope - fta:

In addition, the Districtâ(TM)s Board Policy Manual explicitly states âoea student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.â

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[mysidia]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and the conditions the student was allowed to use the camera under did not include an assignment of copyright ownership.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Nice try Coward, but both copyright law AND the school's own policy disagree with you. This is even in TFA itself: "Title 17 of the United States Copyright Law, which denotes that the “Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work”; in the case of photography, the individual who presses the shutter is the ‘author’. In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”"

I hope you don't have a job that depends on you giving them advice like this, because if you do your company is probably violating the law all the time based on your "idea" of how the law works, as opposed to reality.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[rahvin112]

Which is the reason there was recently a story about a photographer that claimed copyright on a photograph that a monkey took of itself using the photographers camera. There was no copyright on the photograph because the one that took the photo isn't eligible for copyright.

Just as in this case, even if the school owns the camera, the paper and all the developing gear the student still owns the copyright. The only possible way the school could even hope to claim copyright would be by declaring that the student was doing work for hire. Needless to say the courts aren't going to look on that line of thought very highly given the lack of paycheck and the compulsory nature of school.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Areyoukiddingme]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

No. It does not work like that. If you borrow my guitar and write a hit song, it's your song, the copyright is yours. If you borrow my camera and take a Pulitzer-winning photo, it's your photo, the copyright is yours. Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

A state of affairs that will undoubtedly be "fixed" in the next Mickey Mouse law...

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Anonymous Coward]

Errrr.....no.

Read the article.

In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[FranTaylor]

A state of affairs that will undoubtedly be "fixed" in the next Mickey Mouse law...

I don't think so, Disney rents cameras from Panavision and they probably don't want Panavision to own their copyrights.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[multimediavt]

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

No. It does not work like that. If you borrow my guitar and write a hit song, it's your song, the copyright is yours. If you borrow my camera and take a Pulitzer-winning photo, it's your photo, the copyright is yours. Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

Correct, but the ownership of IP relating to student work is murky in some states, but someone posted above that the article states students using state equipment own the rights to the work they've done with said equipment. I checked TAJE and ATPI and found nothing about release forms or any weird IP laws regarding Texas high school student photography. The student owns the images and may do with them what he will. I don't know what the IRS would want out of this. That part of the threat made no sense at all.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Whiteox]

School property (like cameras/computers etc) are in use by students who in one way or another lease/rent the property as part of the school curriculumn. In some cases, additional fees are asked for by the school for certain subject resources (eg woodwork/cooking/art etc). As far as copyright is concerned, there needs to be specific written conditions on the use of school equipment. For example, are graphic arts product made on a computer by a student is the student's property because it is assessed as such.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Guru80]

This isn't true. For a fun read on who is copyright holder just search for the post about the chimp that stole a camera and took pictures posted here a while back.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[Anonymous Coward]

> Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

Not true. In cases of 'work for hire' the copyright goes to the employer. If the camera operator is working as an agent (paid or unpaid) for the camera owner then the copyright belongs to the owner.

Do you think that camera operators own the movies you see in the cinema ?

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[ihtoit]

Nope.

Simply put, the student didn't sign any contract transferring copyright of any work produced by him with that equipment. Being a minor, he COULDN'T sign such a contract. Ergo, he owns the copyright.

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[gregroush]

So, you're saying my strategy of loaning a pencil to every aspiring author at Starbucks so I can stake a claim if one of them writes the next Harry Potter is not a valid retirement strategy?

Re:Camer was owned by the school

[gregroush]

That's also a really deep rabbit hole. Did you do your work in an apartment that is owned by someone else? Do you generate your own electricity using your own equipment and transmission lines? Did you do any part of the work using the W-Fi provided by (but owned by) a store or restaurant? Did you borrow a pencil from somebody?

That reductio ad absurdum why the creator owns the copyright by default. Any variation from that requires a written agreement that anything you create using the provided resources belongs to someone else. Many or most of us signed that sort of agreement at our jobs --- anything I create using company resources belongs to the company. There are surely some nuances there (IANAL).

That's why people are asking if there is a school policy or other written agreement. That's the only thing that would transfer copyright to the school. The fact that he used school-owned equipment is immaterial.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[countSudoku()]

Is this "evil student" charging, or making ad revenue, for views of said photos? Is the lighting on campus somehow owned by the school district and they forgot to charge for it? Just have some CS students wipe out the principal's iPhone, and he'll have something more important to do than not understand Fair Use media.

I'd say put them under a password and then not offer them to the yearbook crew. Everyone copyright your memory! Let's copyright old cigarette butts and empty bags of potato chips! IP is IP!

PUBLIC school

[ichthus]

The article isn't clear on this, and I'm too lazy to google the school, but it looks like this is a taxpayer-funded, public school. And, the sporting events look an awful lot like public performances. No privacy violation and, since the school is not [supposed to be] a for-profit corporation, no rights can be claimed on the photos.

Re:PUBLIC school

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a public performance. Admission is required to attend the event as a spectator. And it is on school grounds, which is not a public space. Many Texas schools have exclusive broadcast agreements with local stations.

Re:PUBLIC school

[thegarbz]

Wait what? Can a lawyer chime in on this? I don't think it works like that. Just because some group isn't for profit, or is part of the government surely doesn't limit their ability to hold copyright. Now a more important question is did he take the photos during school time? That's typically how it works, if you're on the clock for someone else then they own the copyright. If this was a weekend sporting event and he was just along to watch then the school doesn't have a leg to stand on.

All of this is beside the point really. I was in a similar scenario in highschool. I got summoned to the principles office for doing the same thing.
I was thanked and given some memorabilia.

Re:PUBLIC school

[FranTaylor]

if the football field can be viewed from public property (the sidewalk next to the school) then there is no expectation of privacy.

Re:PUBLIC school

[FranTaylor]

That's typically how it works, if you're on the clock for someone else then they own the copyright.

When you are "on the clock" it is because you have a contractual agreement with your employer.

High school students do not have a contractual agreement with the school, and since they are not 18, they are unable to consent to a contractual agreement.

Re:PUBLIC school

[diamondmagic]

and since they are not 18, they are unable to consent to a contractual agreement.

This isn't true. Assuming the student is under 18, they can still enter contracts; details vary by state, purpose, and age, but at the very worst, they just can't be held responsible if they don't fill their end. The other party (non-minor) is still legally obligated to fill their part.

If minors were unable to consent to a contract, business dealings with minors (employment, subscriptions, purchases, bank accounts) wouldn't be legally binding, and minors would be able to defraud people by lying about their age - a literal anarchy.

Re:PUBLIC school

[FranTaylor]

they just can't be held responsible if they don't fill their end.

so in other words the school can't take down their pictures because they cannot hold the students responsible

Re:PUBLIC school

[thegarbz]

No. The contractual clause assigning copyright is not something that has to do with responsibilities of a party. If the school can prove they have the copyright as a result of a student doing something during school time then the discussion moves from one of contractual obligations to one of breach of copyright law. And in America of all places we've proven that you don't need to be over 18 to breach copyright law.

Re:PUBLIC school

[ihtoit]

Government can't (usually) claim copyright. They have something else that offers similar protections from "unauthorised" distribution called Official Secrets (in England this is covered under the Official Secrets Act 1911) which ordinarily can only be used to mark documents for restriction if they pertain to national security. I forget where it is but there is a stipulation that any and all content produced by the US Government falls directly into the Public Domain; similarly, in the UK the Crown Office holds copyright on anything produced by Government but all published content should be made available without restriction. Which, generally speaking, it is. There are certain documents that have since been "disappeared", like the various CSA portfolios and particularly the Schofield List, but they will resurface...

Re:PUBLIC school

[ihtoit]

minors can't consent to contract which is why they have this thing called a PARENTAL RELEASE FORM!

Re:PUBLIC school

[diamondmagic]

Not for all cases, no. Just some.

1. Get a layer

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Stop whining

Re: 1. Get a layer

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Get 7 layers.

Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[Pollux]

This guy would be -any- yearbook adviser's dream to have. Look at his photos...they're incredible. He gets in close to his subject, captures the action vividly, and makes very good use of lighting. And for a sophomore? Simply amazing.

This district is handling the situation all wrong. Regardless of whether or not they can or cannot make a claim to the ownership of the photos, they should be lifting this young man up for the talent he has and putting him on a pedestal. Enter him into national photography competitions. Get national recognition for his work, and put the trophies in your trophy case. And make him proud of his talent. He deserves it.

Suing him? Simply ridiculous.

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[dwywit]

It makes you wonder if they've had that opinion from their own advisor, and realised they might have to pay the student to be able to use the photos in their yearbook - so they try to bully him into a deal to use the photos for free. Threaten first, to frighten him, then back off with a new deal - "You sign the yearbook publication rights over to us, and we'll forget about the lawsuit"

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[JimSadler]

Insanity by officials in Texas seems like an ever repeating issue. Why is this principal still in his job and why has the kid not sued the principal into the next universe? Kids getting threatened like that is a huge violation of their rights.

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the best way to get national attention in today's world?

cause a controversy.

#tinfoilhat.

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

Get national recognition for his work, and put the trophies in your trophy case. And make him proud of his talent. He deserves it.

Shut up. It's the principal that deserves national recognition for this student's work!

YOU HEAR ME? THE PRINCIPAL!!!1(*#@!&$(*!@)@i$!$@

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[Oligonicella]

Get national recognition for his work

In one sense (although they will ultimately lose to their own bosses) they have done him a huge favor and his work is now a national discussion and is being seen by someone who will snap this kid up. I wish him the best, he's a great talent.

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[Anonymous Coward]

Which for your post, points to the principals, and presumably that school districts mentality of, totalitarianism over that which they think they control. This reaction is an institutional problem, likely all the way up through the ISD. It's pretty obvious.

Re:Speaking as a former yearbook adviser

[penguinoid]

This guy would be -any- yearbook adviser's dream to have. Look at his photos...they're incredible. He gets in close to his subject, captures the action vividly, and makes very good use of lighting. And for a sophomore? Simply amazing.

This district is handling the situation all wrong. Regardless of whether or not they can or cannot make a claim to the ownership of the photos, they should be lifting this young man up for the talent he has and putting him on a pedestal. Enter him into national photography competitions. Get national recognition for his work, and put the trophies in your trophy case. And make him proud of his talent. He deserves it.

Suing him? Simply ridiculous.

As a result of the school's actions, the kid is in fact up on a pedestal and getting national attention.

As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual you are only hearing PART of the story. The real story is that this guy was selling the photos. And he was using school provided equipment. And he wasn't paying taxes.

Now you know the REST of the story.

Re:As usual...

[Sowelu]

That school's policy clearly states that copyright is retained by the creator even when using school equipment.

Re:As usual...

[ravenshrike]

The threat to report to the IRS is blackmail. Pure and simple. Also as of the article, invalid. As for using school equipment, unless contracts were signed or he was explicitly told not to do it, all that happens is the principal can stop the equipment usage.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Untrue. But don't let that get in the way of a good ranting. Plus I was explaining why the IRS was mentioned. He wasn't paying taxes on income.

Re:As usual...

[aitikin]

As usual you are only hearing PART of the story. The real story is that this guy was selling the photos. And he was using school provided equipment. And he wasn't paying taxes.

Now you know the REST of the story.

I'd like your source for this. Why does it matter that he wasn't paying taxes? Did he sign a contract saying that he could not use school equipment for private profit? None of the information you've provided* changes the fact that he holds the copyrights.

*"provided" in this case indicating that you have stated it as fact with no supporting evidence.

Re:As usual...

[mysidia]

The real story is that this guy was selling the photos. And he was using school provided equipment. And he wasn't paying taxes.

Selling the photos online isn't a crime. The conditions he was allowed to use the school equipment under allowed him to retain his copyrights, and he didn't sign an agreement promising not to sell photos for money.

Most likely, no taxes are due; he obviously hasn't been running this for years, probably less than 6 months. In order for taxes to be due and unpaid, he would have to be successful in his sales and profit from them, AND have sufficient profit to require filing a return, AND fail to file the required returns for state and federal.

Re:As usual...

[Sowelu]

Untrue? This is from the article: "In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states 'a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.'"

Re:As usual...

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I hope you never have a job that asks you for your opinion on this type of issue, since you couldn't be more wrong. It's even in the article...

Title 17 of the United States Copyright Law, which denotes that the “Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work”; in the case of photography, the individual who presses the shutter is the ‘author’.

In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”

Re:As usual...

[0bject]

STUDENTS A student shall retain all rights to work created as part of instruction or using District technology resources. From the district policy: http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Dow...

Re:As usual...

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

that's why their posting as an AC, their afraid to attach their name to their statements because they know their flat-out lying. I'll bet they are actually either a friend of this principal, or somehow tied back to the school itself.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm go read the article, it is very clear on the fact the districts handbook says the student owns the copyright for everything created, even with the schools property.

IRS? Yeah you pay taxes when you file your taxes. How long was he selling the photos, how much was he selling them for, how much did he make? He might not of even made enough to bother reporting it to the IRS.

The school has no leg to stand on here, and the IRS was clearly thrown in as a threat to scare the kid.

SO you are the one spewing "untruths"

Re:As usual...

[avandesande]

This does make things a little more fuzzy. I wouldn't be surprised if a local professional photographer was already given an exclusive contract to sell photos. I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat to report to the IRS is blackmail. Pure and simple.

Depends on the communication, the principal could have legitimately said that any incomes may need to be reported to the IRS, but not have used it as a threat.

Or she could have, depending.

Re:As usual...

[aitikin]

This does make things a little more fuzzy. I wouldn't be surprised if a local professional photographer was already given an exclusive contract to sell photos. I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

That would mean the school would have to notify EVERY attendee with a camera that they are not allowed to sell photos due to an exclusivity contract. The only reason the student is in the wrong is if he were notified that such an arrangement exists and therefore he cannot sell them. Even then, I doubt such an arrangement is enforceable.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

How would the school know if he was paying taxes, or not?

Re:As usual...

[FranTaylor]

I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

taking pictures is not the same as engaging in commerce

no contract can trump the fact that things and people that are visible from public property have no expectation of privacy.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not lying. I'm just trolling. Personally I don't care about some kid and his camera. But I love the Slashdot SJW frothing over this!

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you have to pay taxes on income. I am just responding to the question "why was the IRS mentioned"? It is mentioned because he isn't paying taxes and that is illegal and the principal was using that fact as leverage.

Re:As usual...

[mysidia]

I wouldn't be surprised if a local professional photographer was already given an exclusive contract to sell photos.

An agreement with a photographer does not bind third parties. Unless you required third parties entering the property to assent to an explicit agreement not to photograph, or an agreement restricting the usage of photographs taken, then they can use the photos they took and own rights to in any lawful manner once they leave.

I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

In most places, it is probably not lawful as a business/food vendor to go onto someone else's property without permission and conduct sales on-site; you can lose your license that way, also.

On the other hand, there is no restriction on taking pictures anywhere you are lawfully present. Although, in some municipalities, taking pictures of certain public objects (Such as the Hollywood sign in California) for a commercial purpose requires a permit issued by the local authority, but that is a matter of special local law used to help fund the maintenance of those public works.

Re:As usual...

[mysidia]

That would mean the school would have to notify EVERY attendee with a camera that they are not allowed to sell photos due to an exclusivity contract.

Mere notification does not suffice. Each one attending would have to agree to a contract restricting the usage of photos they take as a condition required to enter the property.

If the event is being held on school grounds, which is public property, then the administrators might not have the right to even condition entry to surrendering such publication rights.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

But ma' photons! I own those!

Re:As usual...

[ihtoit]

even a MINOR who doesn't even get to VOTE?

"No taxation without representation"? Isn't that one of the grounding principles of American Independence?

Re:As usual...

[nosferatu1001]

WEll, not in the UK. If your income is below ~£10k p.a. you will pay no income tax at all.

I imaginme the IRS has a similar level at which under this point you pay no tax to them.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes even minors need to pay taxes on income. Is that a serious question?

Re:As usual...

[ihtoit]

yes.

I was a full time earner the day after I left school at 16. I didn't start paying tax on income until I turned 18.

Re:As usual...

[avandesande]

I wasn't arguing that a contract with a professional photographer means anything to people attending, just that they have the ability to restrict vendors to these events. The student running around taking pictures and then selling them online could be construed as acting as a vendor.

Re:As usual...

[Anonymous Coward]

they're

Re:As usual...

[mysidia]

no contract can trump the fact that things and people that are visible from public property have no expectation of privacy.

Correct. Also, no contract not agreed to by the party in question can surrender any of their rights.

For example: your next door neighbor whose backyard is visible from your property or the public street cannot sign a contract with a photographer for exclusive landscaping rights and then take away your right to photograph the portion of their property that is visible from the street or visible from your property.

They can sign an "exclusive" agreement, but it's not worth the paper it's printed on, unless they conduct physical actions on their own such as installing high fences to protect the exclusivity.

You retain those rights, and so long as you do not commit a grievous breach of privacy: such as trespassing onto their property to open a gate or create a hole in a fence or covering, or conduct an intrusion upon seclusion such as photographing your neighbor naked in their backyard behind a high fence, from your ladder (It's not a breach if you use a taller tripod or climb a ladder on your property or public property to get an aerial view of their lawn, not photographing anything offensive or invasive to their person): there is no legal authority against you as a 3rd party to stop or prevent you from photographing just to support their obligations under an exclusivity contract.

Know what he should do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hire a hacker.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[taustin]

If you bothered to read the article, or the summary above, you might notice that there's no threat of a lawsuit, only of a suspension. The burden (and expense) of filing a lawsuit would be on the kid (and his parents). And while they might win, odds are, they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.

Zero Intelligence Strikes Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that only the asshats get to be the Principlal.

Photography, copyright, & photgraphing the pub

[benro03]

First, the principal is breaking the school's own rules that state anything created BY a student is OWNED by the student. This has been pretty much true since the first student to take shop class showed off the hammer he made on a metal lathe.

Second, it's the person using the camera, not the owner of the camera that has ownership.

Third, all the subjects are in plain view in public, on public land, and have no expectation of privacy. That's how you can take pictures on the street and not be sued.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[stephanruby]

Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..

Don't call his bluff.

A principal has all kinds of power over your life as a student. Litigation takes time. And a principal can easily destroy your chances of getting into college or tarnish your record (before litigation can straighten everything out)

Get a school board parent on your side, preferably someone with a law degree, or married to someone with a law degree. Or barring that, find a regular parent at your school with a law degree. The principal won't refuse to talk to a parent, especially someone who appears neutral and who appears to know what he's talking about.

If the principal still doesn't want to listen to reason, I suppose the student could file an injunction to prevent retaliatory actions against him by the Principal, but that should really be his last resort. These types of misunderstandings usually work themselves out by getting enough parents on your side, without ever needing to go to court.

great photos

[Anonymous Coward]

The photos he took are great, one person's career will advance from this publicity, the other's will fade into the past.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[FranTaylor]

there's no threat of a lawsuit, only of a suspension.

if there is no threat of a lawsuit, which is the only legal mechanism that the school can use to have the pictures taken down, then the school would not have threatened the kid with suspension. The suspension is not a legal relief for the posting of the photographs, a lawsuit is.

Re:Well, this should be interesting...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Slashdot is about whatever the owners/editors think it's about.

Goddamned idiot bureaucrats.

[jcr]

I'm sick to death of these apparatchiki pretending to be educators, throwing their "respeck mah authoritah!" tantrums. I really hope that this kid refuses any settlement that lets that asshole principal stay on the public payroll.

-jcr

School equipment, though

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff. Since this guy is using a school camera, I think this might be the policy he's running into.

From his Flickr site: "At the end of the [Texas Association of Journalism Educators] class, I approached the teacher confused, and asked that because I was using a school camera, and using a school press pass, do I still own my pictures? She replied that I did."

If he were using his own equipment on his own time, I'd be first in line to tell the school to blow it out his ear. But if he's covering these sporting events as a member of the yearbook staff for the school and he's turning around and selling yearbook pictures privately for his own profit, then no, I don't think he should do that.

Re:School equipment, though

[FranTaylor]

I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff.

so if a student comes up with the idea of a comic strip while sitting on the school bus, the comic belongs to the school?

Re:School equipment, though

[EvilSS]

I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff. Since this guy is using a school camera, I think this might be the policy he's running into.

From his Flickr site: "At the end of the [Texas Association of Journalism Educators] class, I approached the teacher confused, and asked that because I was using a school camera, and using a school press pass, do I still own my pictures? She replied that I did."

If he were using his own equipment on his own time, I'd be first in line to tell the school to blow it out his ear. But if he's covering these sporting events as a member of the yearbook staff for the school and he's turning around and selling yearbook pictures privately for his own profit, then no, I don't think he should do that.

This would require a separate agreement that he (and his parents, since he is a minor and therefore cannot enter into a binding contract) would have had to agree to. He's not an employee of the school (and even then would have to sign an intellectual property agreement first), so the press pass means squat. School board policy even states that students retain ownership of their creative works. As for the camera ownership doesn't matter by itself in the eyes of copyright law (see the monkey selfie fiasco).

Re:School equipment, though

[ColdWetDog]

I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff. Since this guy is using a school camera, I think this might be the policy he's running into.

Perhaps, if it was written down and his parents signed it or there was some valid way for all parties to agree with the rule.

From his Flickr site: "At the end of the [Texas Association of Journalism Educators] class, I approached the teacher confused, and asked that because I was using a school camera, and using a school press pass, do I still own my pictures? She replied that I did."

If he were using his own equipment on his own time, I'd be first in line to tell the school to blow it out his ear. But if he's covering these sporting events as a member of the yearbook staff for the school and he's turning around and selling yearbook pictures privately for his own profit, then no, I don't think he should do that.

Being on the yearbook staff does not preclude him from doing things on his own. It isn't a contractually bound obligation. Unless the press pass bound him contractually (which would be odd for a high school), it's just and ID to let you into places where the public is restricted.

In any event, the principal (at least according to TFA) is being an ass. Instead of sitting him down and discussing this rather complex real world issue, he / she (?) threatens with blackmail and suspensions. Not exactly role model material here.

Re:School equipment, though

[phorm]

Also, as per This comment, it appears that the school has a policy that specifically says that the student retains ownership.

Re:School equipment, though

[FranTaylor]

In any event, the principal (at least according to TFA) is being an ass. Instead of sitting him down and discussing this rather complex real world issue, he / she (?) threatens with blackmail and suspensions. Not exactly role model material here.

This is a lot more than just being an ass. If his actions result in extra costs to the school from lawyer fees, or if his actions tarnish the reputation of the school, then he's probably in violation of his employment contract with the school and should be terminated.

Re: School equipment, though

[Anonymous Coward]

No because kids get their own pens and notebooks.

Re:School equipment, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he is attempting to demonstrate to the student(s) how broken and stupid our copyright laws have gotten? We can only hope.

Re:School equipment, though

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff.

You may clearly spell this out, but that isn't necessarily legally binding. People try to do a lot with contract law that is neither legal nor ethical (this problem is not limited to contract law, but affects pretty much every major area of US law). Contract law is superseded by the Bill of Rights, which James Madison created to be open ended, allowing the public to assert rights as needed. It is not within the authority of the legal profession or government to create or enforce laws or precedents contrary to this.

Go re-read the Bill of Rights, and think about the meaning of the 9th Amendment, and the 10th. Search through prior Slashdot discussions if that helps.

Irregardless of what state law may say, the principal here acted contrary to the Bill of Rights. That in and of itself disqualifies that person from holding any position of public trust or responsibility.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[FranTaylor]

A principal has all kinds of power over your life as a student. Litigation takes time. And a principal can easily destroy your chances of getting into college or tarnish your record (before litigation can straighten everything out)

So presumably college admissions people don't read the internet and they don't watch the news? Someone who is hiring a journalist will not bother to check out the journalist's online reputation? Really? If a school administrator succeeds in doing what you say, the public overwhelmingly favors the student's position and the buzz on facebook and other social media will be inevitable. Whether you agree or not, your internet profile is an indelible part of your "permanent record" and will be factored into decisions.

Unfortunately for the school and principal

[Anonymous Coward]

that their principal lacks a basic education and has zero common sense.

Parents are wrong to file an appeal with the principal or school. They just need to call a lawyer and the next call to the school is from their attorney. The school can't win this, period.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Darinbob]

Take the pictures down; repost them all the day that the diploma is received.

The school might have a case on privacy grounds

[Applehu Akbar]

UNLESS...all of the pictures are of school sports events, where there is no expectation of privacy.

This is why I think that intellectual property needs to be recast as an individual right of the actual creator of work, as specified in Art. 1 Section 8. Copyrights and patents should not be any more fungible than your right to free speech is. Shadowy "rights holders" with legal teams have no business owning IP created by others. You want to make money off IP, then maintain a contractual relationship with the creator.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[93 Escort Wagon]

Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..

This being Texas, I imagine there's a good chance the kid and his parents think the ACLU is an evil organization - they're a bunch of liberals after all.

In His Favor

[g0bshiTe]

He'll win, according to copyright the photographer owns the rights to the photos.

Re:Well, this should be interesting...

[EvilSS]

Slashdot isn't about anything except marketing to teenager children any more. This fights right in to their sense of self righteousness.

Yea because when I think "young and hip" slashdot is the first thing that pops into my mind.

$commentsubject

[Falos]

One more reminder that thoughtproperty, for right or wrong, simply isn't sustainable.

This reality will only become more evident as time passes, not counting the leaps that new techs cause.

Re:Well, this should be interesting...

[g0bshiTe]

You've apparently not been here long enough to know of the omelet.

Nice photos, awful school?

[xarragon]

I have read the article and the associated Flickr post by the kid being the target of the school. The article features some of the photos; they are breathtaking. This kid got a knack for it, I tell'ya!

Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/...

The kid started to sell the pictures to parents, having confirmed with his teacher that he indeed held copyright to the pictures. Apparently the school did not take lightly to him earning money using school equipment and first incorrectly claimed that they owned the rights to the images. The kid knew more about copyright than they did, so they then changed their allegations to him invading peoples privacy by publishing photos where they could be identified on his Flickr page.

IANAL, but that might actually have some standing as opposed to the intial copyright claims. Funny how copyright has turned into a general-purpose, first-line-of-offense tool for media control these days. Anyway, the school itself actually did the same thing, by allegedly posting similar images on their social meda pages.

It should be possible to post images where the models can not be identified or where they have signed a model release form. Selling pictures to the parents should never be a problem.

I find it rather surprising that such an enterprising artist would not be supported. I can understand that the school might not want him to monopolize the equipment or similar but I doubt that was the case here.

The threats about being 'reported to the IRS' are also dubious; as long as he declares that income I doubt it would be any problems? In Sweden, where I live, you can earn quite a bit of income on the side, as a hobby, as long as you report it and pay taxes. Which you just do on a field in the income tax form.

Is there more to this story? We have no comment from the school (they have not responded). Maybe the school expected to be able to use these photos for free? Or maybe someones buddy sports photographer felt threatened by this kid's artistic merit and sent the principals after him?

CAPTCHA: disaster

Re:Nice photos, awful school?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S., minors can earn many thousands of dollars and not worry with Federal taxes... however, there is likely a sales-tax (like VAT but not really) levied by most states and some cities on goods sold (and even traded sometimes). However, most small time operators 'fly under the radar' as there are enough big fish cheating (on accident or deliberately) to keep the investigators busy. Really, even if his 'business' was wildly successful by teen standards, the taxes owed would likely be much less than it would cost to collect.

Principals/Administrators are often on the end of landslide and only really know what they want, or what the school board wants, and not usually why... which is what always infuriates the geeks like us. (because we research things while they are filling out performance evaluations and dealing with that kid that keeps wiping boogers on little Mindy)

Bullying in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Amongst all the hand-wringing about bullying in schools, it seems to be generally forgotten that a significant proportion of it isn't at the hands of other children. This is a classic example of how it comes from the top down

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[diamondmagic]

It doesn't matter what the public reaction is, we're talking about college admissions people whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.

Going up against the principal at your high school is almost certainly classified "trouble".

Re:Well, this should be interesting...

[g0bshiTe]

It's an omelet. Always has been. Google slashdot and omelet.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

As a native Texan, if push comes to shove, the principal can have the kid arrested... and in school, all charges pressed are adult charges. Yes, there are elementary school students with felonies on their rap sheets because they got an "obstruction of justice" charge when a school cap tells them to shut up and they don't.

It is extremely easy to get arrested in a Texas school. Get the runs and the coach refuses to let you go to the bathroom, so you crap your pants? Felony hazardous waste spill. Of course, marijuana can mysteriously appear in the kid's locker, even though the same bag was once mysteriously was in the school's evidence room.

Remember, in Texas, possessing more than four dildos is a felony here.

My advice: Follow the parent's advice and appeal to the school board. Pissing off the principal can get him to easily call in the SWAT team and throw so many charges at the kid that they will bury the kid -under- the jail... and here in Texas, if a judge doesn't maintain their conviction ratios, the private prison lobby will make damn sure the next judge will come election time.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[g0bshiTe]

Even if he is selling the photos, I believe copyright says they belong to the photographer.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[g0bshiTe]

No but it's bad enough pub for the school board that a legal threat over a suspension for something the student rightfully owns may need to be done.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Shakrai]

they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.

$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated. My legal fees for two felonies were slightly more than $5,000. It's not going to cost six digits to get judicial relief in a circumstance like this. It probably doesn't even get the lawsuit stage, a demand letter sent to the school district and reviewed by their attorney would probably suffice. "Yeah, we're going to lose this one. Wipe the student's record clean, tell him you're sorry, and move on."

There's plenty of stupidity in the American legal system to make fun of without making stuff up.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing an important aspect: The principal's motivation. Why is he suddenly intervening? Do you think he's doing it because he just felt like it? I have a feeling that if you look closer, you'll find an influential parent forcing his hand or some other motivation that we're not reading about. Maybe this already is him trying to fuck this kid over for something else.

Either way, to students it may look like school is everything, but there's a big world out there. I'd suggest that the kid simply find new things to take pictures of. You know, people who appreciate his art. He certainly has the talent.

sounds like the NFL

[slashmydots]

"All pictures, videos, and accounts of the game are prohibited" even though that would never stand up in court and probably illegal to say in the first place.

Re:sounds like the NFL

[Anonymous Coward]

"All pictures, videos, and accounts of the game are prohibited" even though that would never stand up in court and probably illegal to say in the first place.

Congratulations on being the only person on Earth to have less understanding of the law than the principal in the article.

Re:sounds like the NFL

[slashmydots]

Okay, I'll walk up to you and tell you that you need to leave a public place because they don't allow people precisely your height to be there. That's illegal. I can't lie about the laws and force you to do something or you can sue me for damages.

Re:sounds like the NFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'll walk up to you and tell you that you need to leave a public place because they don't allow people precisely your height to be there. That's illegal.

No, you retard, it isn't. I don't have to listen to you, but that doesn't mean you're breaking the law by making a spurious claim. You'd have gotten the chair years ago if that was the case.

I can't lie about the laws and force you to do something or you can sue me for damages.

First, there's a huge difference between "illegal" and "can sue for damages if you do this".

Second, since you're talking about the NFL, they damn well can make you leave if you're taking pictures or whatever. A football stadium is private property, which you'd probably know if you weren't the product of crackhead incest.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Phil Urich]

My advice: Follow the parent's advice and appeal to the school board. Pissing off the principal can get him to easily call in the SWAT team...

Sure, but won't appealing to the school board piss the principal off? Sounds like it's lose/lose (and extra loses for each additional option) for the kid here.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, restricting the legal use of a photo that you don't own the copyright to is, in itself a copyright violation. Therefore, the kid could sue. If he had registered the copyright with the US Copyright office (cost ~= $50), he could get upwards of $600,000,000. Even if he didn't register the copyright, the kid can still sue for actual damages. Which would cover the legal fees.

Plus, he could also sue the district for 1st amendment violations.

If I were this kids parent, I'd be tempted to go that route and tell the school board this will all go away, all you have to do is fire the principle, and agree not to hire him back in the state system for 30 years.

TO: lailsk@lisd.net

[Phil Urich]

TO: lailsk@lisd.net
FROM: me

SUBJECT: Really?

I mean, really now?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[shadowrat]

college educations are overrated anyway.

What about local news paper?

[rlh100]

I know in my town the local paper carries pictures of the high school games. How is this significantly different than the student taking the pictures? Yes, I know, a press pass and an official newspaper. It would be interesting to hear why the principal thinks this students pictures are different?

RLH

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tompaulco]

I think you're missing an important aspect: The principal's motivation. Why is he suddenly intervening? Do you think he's doing it because he just felt like it? I have a feeling that if you look closer, you'll find an influential parent forcing his hand or some other motivation that we're not reading about.

Yes, this is probably the issue. Most likely he has taken a picture and published on the internet a picture of someone who indicated on their annual information sheet that they don't want photos of their child posted on the internet. However, the school was not responsible for the posting, so they cannot be held liable. But the parent probably browbeat them and threatened a lawsuit.
Additionally, I have to imagine there is some sort of agreement when a student signs up for yearbook. Clearly some of the photos they take end up in the yearbook. Either they must give them away wholesale to the school and they are the schools property completely, or at least the student relinquishes license to the picture and may not demand compensation for the money which the school receives for publishing the picture.
Clearly it is all conjecture without having all of the information. But that is what we are here for, right? To fill in our own facts and come to our own conclusions.

Mixed....

[steppin_razor_LA]

I think it is pretty open/shut that these are his photographs and his property.

That said, the school probably has a leg to stand on when it comes to protecting the privacy of it's students at school activities.

It would be a reasonable general rule (that should be enforced as such and not just applied to one person) that you cannot publish photos of students on the Internet taken at school events. They can presumably enforce this for students but they would presumably need to also enforce a "no photos" policy at games/etc with the parents (i.e. in order to attend the game, you must sign this waiver).

If student privacy is the real issue, then they need to follow this through all the way. Half measures seem less likely to be enforceable or even useful...

Re:Mixed....

[FranTaylor]

It would be a reasonable general rule (that should be enforced as such and not just applied to one person) that you cannot publish photos of students on the Internet taken at school events.

if the football field or the students are visible from public property then there is no expectation of privacy, and no contract or agreement can change that.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[pr0fessor]

He is a taking a yearbook class, using the schools equipment, and at the end of the year the book will be sold to the students. If the school did it correctly his parents would have signed a consent form giving the school the rights to the work for publication in the yearbook. The question is did they give the school ownership of the copyright like work for hire, exclusive publication rights for a time period, or just nonexclusive rights to publish the work?

Suck to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you didn't notice, but this is Texas.

And Texas, being a freedom loving states intends to protect the people.

Now this doesn't mean what you think it means, this means: "Protect the people who control the money". Since the school was generous enough to furnish the student with an education i.e. employment, and resources i.e. the camera; the school retains control over both. It's only fair.

Also the kid's family obviously don't have lots money to burn because the school loaned him the camera.

Another thing to remember is the kid isn't one of the privileged under-class either since he was photographing sporting events instead of playing in them. That mean the kids with money, and the jocks are free to beat the living hell out of him. Especially since he's pissed off the coach's best friend, the principal.

So sucks to be him, because in Texas if you don't fall into line and play the game right; you will be hammered down.

Yeah freedom loving Texass!

Not getting the whole story.....

[Puls4r]

If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues. At our school, staff and volunteers are banned from taking anything home that has children's names on it like seating charts, absent logs, or even track schedules. It has something to do with the kids being minors.


That said, the principal should have handled this way, way differently.

Re:Not getting the whole story.....

[FranTaylor]

If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues.

if people can take pictures of the students from a public place (the sidewalk surrounding the school) then there is no expectation of privacy by anyone, and any contracts asserting otherwise are moot.

Re:Not getting the whole story.....

[NoKaOi]

If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues. At our school, staff and volunteers are banned from taking anything home that has children's names on it like seating charts, absent logs, or even track schedules. It has something to do with the kids being minors.

No, it has nothing to do with the kids being minors, it has to do with FERPA, the law that is the education analog to HIPAA. It protects education information. It does not affect playing sports in a place anyone can see. Similar to how HIPAA protects a doctor disclosing your medical information, but it doesn't protect somebody else seeing your car in the parking lot of the doctor's office, or exercising in a public park even if it's because the doctor advised exercise, or even another patient posting on Facebook that they saw you in the office. Photographs of students participating in athletic events in view of the public is most certainly not FERPA protected information.

Re:Not getting the whole story.....

[Derling Whirvish]

At our school, staff and volunteers are banned from taking anything home that has children's names on it like seating charts, absent logs, or even track schedules. It has something to do with the kids being minors.

So teachers can't take homework home to grade (has students' names on it)? No one can take home a yearbook (names AND photos, oh my!)? School newspapers (has bylines)? And so forth...

and why is this on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is totally lame and lacks any sort of merit.

as a principal dude you have alot to learn with regard to public dealings,
As for the student, as a student enrolled in a public institution aren't there certain protections with regard to this incident?
I mean, In college I rebuilt the school radio station transmitter to go over 45 miles away when we were only licensed to the campus,, when the fcc came down to fine me 10k+ the school stood up and used a protection scheme to thwart those attempts which worked fine based on the fact that I was enrolled in an educational institution..
Now, that was my last year, but the point is. The kid is a minor, the adult he is supposed to look up to is showing poor judgement and leadership skills, cant this go somewhere else and the principal fired?

I mean realy folks, can u find a more mundane way to waste time?

Principal man, your dumb, get your poor, short sighted judgement should not be pushed opon todays youth, out..

people like u whom are supposed to mold the youth of tomorrow make me sick.. no wonder society is so fu*ked up..

c ya

Re:and why is this on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed. why is this here?
Why is the principal not flogged?
how long is the kid going to be in therapy over this?
and eventually when this kid goes crazy and goes on a mass rampage, who's going to pay for that? My and my Taxes??

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hyperbole. 5 dildos is fine. More than 6, however ...

As if he hadn't done that already

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely he has already reported his ad profits to the IRS as any law abiding citizen has. He did use his own equipment to take pictures and didn't use the pictures as a part of a course of any kind, right?

except he's not a jock

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Texas and he isn't a jock; of course they're going to hammer him down .

He probably doesn't even attend the same church as the principal!

Texas & Football

[PopeRatzo]

Clearly, the principal is an absolute goof. It's high school sports, for chrissake. I mean, I know it's Texas and all, and in Texas, high school football is sacramental, but geez. It's bad enough that public universities have become big-money football programs with a little school on the side, but can you at least pretend that high school sports is about the students and not about revenue or aggrandizing adults?

Let it go, or maybe next time the kid will post the pictures he has of the football coach snapping towels and playing grabass in the showers with the defensive secondary.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[stephanruby]

Yes, appealing to the school board is another thing entirely.

Ideally, that student should try to resolve this disagreement privately and through the back channels first. If you ask to be put on the school board agenda right away, you may back the Principal into a corner and if you win like that, you may even make him lose face.

It's better you ask a school board parent (or a normal parent) to appeal to the Principal privately first. Use the least amount of force necessary to reverse the decision, and no more. The Principal may still lose face privately, but at least, his loss of face will have been kept to a minimum.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[dcollins117]

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[nbauman]

He is a taking a yearbook class, using the schools equipment, and at the end of the year the book will be sold to the students. If the school did it correctly his parents would have signed a consent form giving the school the rights to the work for publication in the yearbook. The question is did they give the school ownership of the copyright like work for hire, exclusive publication rights for a time period, or just nonexclusive rights to publish the work?

From the article:

In addition, the District’s Board Policy Manual explicitly states “a student shall retain all rights to work created as part of the instruction or using District technology resources.”

He has met the school board before

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an interesting kid: "(1:35:00) Anthony Mazur - a freshman at Flower Mound high school, is concerned about the consistency in proxy filtering on the LISD network. It censors different viewpoints on different topics. When he researched Muslim terrorism using his iPad, sites were blocked. When he researched Christian terrorism, he could access radical sites. Websites in favor of gay marriage aren't blocked. Some opposing gay marriage are blocked. The KKK is blocked, but a black supremacy website is not blocked. Mr. Mazur wants to know what criteria were used to select sites that are blocked, and who makes those determinations."

Re:He has met the school board before

[weilawei]

Good. I'm glad someone has the balls to stand up and point out double standards--even if you don't agree with someone's views. Especially when you don't agree with someone's views.

Don't like a story? Don't read it.

[Futurepower(R)]

"... isn't this completely unrelated to what slashdot is about?"

Please don't post comments to stories that don't interest you.

The sociology of technology is something I must deal with every day. It's interesting to me to read stories about that.

what you are suggesting is calling his bluff

[YesIAmAScript]

Calling his bluff just means not folding but continuing to contest the issue.

That's what you are suggesting.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of lawsuits from the principal WOULD be pretty idle, which is why they weren't made. Besides, when you have so many ways at your disposal to fuck up a kids further education and career prospects, why would you even need to get lawyers involved. Unless this kids family somehow have wheelbarrows of money to burn it's probably not worth their while taking it to the courts either, which is why he's using pretty much the only leverage he has i.e. publicity. Which is still risky because the principal coukd suspend them him for whatever reason they like if sufficiently pissed off ('bringing the college into disrepute' or something). Other schools and the college industrial complex would then play their part in ensuring this troublemaker spends the rest of their life flipping burgers.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[drosboro]

That’s why many schools now do the “In-School Suspension”. Sit in the principals’ office and work all day on the mounds of homework the teachers send down. Not quite as much fun as the vacation format.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[FranTaylor]

whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.

Students who understand and exercise their civil rights are not "more trouble than they are worth" if the student is pursuing a career in law or journalism.

This is the future Republicans want for us all

[Anonymous Coward]

They have taken over the school systems and are now destroying them and literally killing the children. Just look at how many children have died from their guns while at school. They are literally killing children. Killing them. That is the way of their kind.

Re:This is the future Republicans want for us all

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that shooting is the only academic sport which has never had a fatality or injury in the U.S., right?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[pr0fessor]

That is a high level overview of policy that must have exceptions otherwise every kid that snapped a picture or wrote an article that ended up in a yearbook or school newspaper would have a copyright claim. At some point they have to grant use to the school.

Usually the parent would have to sign a consent form for yearbook class it would grant publication rights to the school district to be published in the yearbook and may hold an exclusivity clause for a term probably one year from the initial publication of the yearbook.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup and ditto for any corporate hiring department just about anywhere. Good luck becoming a respected freelance photographer without a college degree or professional references. Although I guess he could spend the rest of his life snapping weddings or something.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Blrfl]

Additionally, I have to imagine there is some sort of agreement when a student signs up for yearbook. Clearly some of the photos they take end up in the yearbook. Either they must give them away wholesale to the school and they are the schools property completely, or at least the student relinquishes license to the picture and may not demand compensation for the money which the school receives for publishing the picture.

Nope all the way around. The LISD's own IP policy says that students retain the rights to all works unless they were an employee of the school system. If the student wasn't being paid to do what he did, the district has no rights to the images.

The fact that the administrators shifted their reason from copyright to privacy says they're not looking for a reason to punish this kid, they're looking for an excuse.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[multimediavt]

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

You're, apparently, not the only one and why one of my English teachers got her Ph.D. on the concept of Saturday Suspension in the late-1960s, early-1970s, where you have to go to school on Saturday (or a series of Saturdays) as punishment. I really disliked Dr. Kershes!

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[FranTaylor]

otherwise every kid that snapped a picture or wrote an article that ended up in a yearbook or school newspaper would have a copyright claim. At some point they have to grant use to the school.

if the picture "ends up in the school newspaper" then the photographer has explicitly or implicitly granted the publication right to the yearbook. The pictures do not just magically appear there, the photographers must provide the yearbook with the pictures.

No punishment

[Etherwalk]

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

It's not punishment for the kid. At the most it's punishment for the parent that makes a good parent make the kid see sense.

I got detention once in high school and it was just ridiculous. They didn't make you *do* anything, you just hung out in the Cafeteria for a few minutes and could read or do your work or whatever you wanted. They should have been at least making us mop up or something.

Re:No punishment

[FranTaylor]

They should have been at least making us mop up or something.

yeah violate child labor laws and the union contract with the employees, all at once

Re:No punishment

[tehcyder]

They should have been at least making us mop up or something.

yeah violate child labor laws and the union contract with the employees, all at once

Fight the power, man.

Principal Needs to Talk to an IP Attorney

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

After a five minute discussion the principal will be apologizing to the student and his family.

Re:Principal Needs to Talk to an IP Attorney

[flopsquad]

I'm thinking of starting a hotline, staffed by IP attorneys, where misguided belligerents and would-be Streisanders can call in.

"Hello, if you were thinking about making an absurd intellectual property claim that might get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 1 now." (normal advice line)

"If you were thinking about making a perfectly reasonable threat, and you're positive it won't get you fired, sued, or laughed at by the entire internet, press 2 now." (emergency intervention line)

Copyright and Public Places

[youngone]

I have done some research on just this issue, for the camera club I belong to. I live in a different jurisdiction to this guy, but some of the principles that apply to me might also apply to him. From my research I have discovered that copyright belongs to the person taking the photo. That's not even debatable and can only be changed with a specific agreement between parties. Also any photography in public places is totally protected, in a public place people have no expectation of privacy, and can be photographed without their consent. A public place is defined as any place the public have reasonable expectation of access to. So a shopping mall would be a public place under our law. These issues arose when a member of my camera club took some photos of a traffic accident recently. A Police Officer instructed him to delete the photos from his camera citing "privacy". He complied, but was very unhappy.

Re:Copyright and Public Places

[gnupun]

So a shopping mall would be a public place under our law.

Interesting... So under this law, you can go into all mall shops, take pictures of their products on shelves, and post that on the internet without the shop owners going all "school principal" on you?

Re:Copyright and Public Places

[tehcyder]

Also any photography in public places is totally protected

A school is not a public place.

To test this, go to a random school and start taking pictures of the kids, then have fun explaining to the security guard or cop that will soon appear that you're exercising your right to take pictures of school children without their (or their parents') knowledge or permission.

Re:Copyright and Public Places

[youngone]

There are no cops or security guards at schools in the place I live. I'm not American. Also makes no difference, it's still legal.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, appealing to the school board is another thing entirely.

Always give your enemy a bridge to retreat over.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[taustin]

they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.

$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated.

In all likelihood, the second the kid shows up with an attorney in tow, the school board will consult with their own attorney, apologies will be offered, and the idiot principal will be reeducated (preferably in a camp in Siberia). If not, odds are, the whole thing will be settled quickly after the suit is filed, at minimal cost to both sides. But counting on either of those is foolish, at best.

If the school board is as stupid as their principal, and it goes to trial, then, in fact, $100k is about the average to get to a jury decision in most states. Depending on the state, it would also take six months to several years to get to that point.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Etherwalk]

they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.

$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated. My legal fees for two felonies were slightly more than $5,000. It's not going to cost six digits to get judicial relief in a circumstance like this. It probably doesn't even get the lawsuit stage, a demand letter sent to the school district and reviewed by their attorney would probably suffice. "Yeah, we're going to lose this one. Wipe the student's record clean, tell him you're sorry, and move on."

There's plenty of stupidity in the American legal system to make fun of without making stuff up.

Were they felonies where you confessed guilt or that were fairly routine? 100K might be a bit inflated, but not necessarily if you were to go all the way to trial... you have civil discovery costs on both sides and over 4000 photos, plus electronics experts on posting, plus the cost of motion practice, plus trial time, plus appeals. It really depends who you get to do the case, but it could certainly go to $30K pretty easily, and $100K under certain circumstances.

That being said, it's likely 5K before settlement.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[easyTree]

Maybe this already is him trying to fuck this kid over for something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Wrong Principal

[pubwvj]

The principal doesn't know what he's talking about and needs to study law, or hire a lawyer. The student created the art and is the copyright holder. That is the law. The kid should sue the principal and the school for trying to violate his rights, etc. Opportunity knocks.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[taustin]

While that is arguable, in theory, in practice, you're not going to find an attorney who would take that case on a contingency. Which means writing a five figure check as a retainer just to get it started. And collecting legal fees is virtually impossible, no matter what some cop show you saw on TV tells you.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[taustin]

Suspending someone for non-school related behavior is extremely illegal.

Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to agree. I was just correcting teambpsi's error (based on not even reading the summary, which is accurate on that point) in claiming there was a threat of a lawsuit.

It's illegal, but it's illegal under entirely different laws than threatening a bullshit lawsuit. And when you want to start a fight over something like this on the internet, it helps to make that distinction.

If you were fired from your job because became a registered Republican, the Republican party would go to war for the right to represent you in court.

Which is an entirely different issue. People have rather more expansive rights regarding their jobs than students (or minors in general) do, and political activities (on one's own time) get special protection that few other activities do.

Plus, of course, good luck getting the party to actually spend that kind of money, unless you have some real connections to begin with, but it's certainly possible.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Em Adespoton]

The suspension is not a legal relief, but as a legal ward, the school can issue suspension for all sorts of legal behavior that it disagrees with, if it feels it is in the best interests of the district as a whole. So while suspension is not a legal mechanism (in the sense that it doesn't use the legal system), it is also not an illegal mechanism (in the sense that suspending the kid for behavior deemed inappropriate, like releasing photos of children online without the proper release forms), and so suspension is perfectly fine. Of course, calling it a copyright issue is way off; it's a disciplinary issue, a privacy issue, and a "think of the children" issue.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Em Adespoton]

they couldn't possibly hope to recover the $100k+ in legal fees.

$100,000? That's just a tiny bit inflated. My legal fees for two felonies were slightly more than $5,000. It's not going to cost six digits to get judicial relief in a circumstance like this. It probably doesn't even get the lawsuit stage, a demand letter sent to the school district and reviewed by their attorney would probably suffice. "Yeah, we're going to lose this one. Wipe the student's record clean, tell him you're sorry, and move on."

There's plenty of stupidity in the American legal system to make fun of without making stuff up.

I'm assuming that for that $5,000 your felony charges were dropped? If you were convicted, than that indicates that more expensive lawyers were required.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooookay, so he does know how to pick a fight. I suppose the web sites explaining what Godwin's Law is are also blocked on his school iPad?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[magarity]

Take the pictures down; repost them all the day that the diploma is received.

Heck, use a smartphone to trigger that posting from the graduation ceremony

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[painandgreed]

That’s why many schools now do the “In-School Suspension”. Sit in the principals’ office and work all day on the mounds of homework the teachers send down. Not quite as much fun as the vacation format.

I happened to get in school suspension when I was in school 30 years ago. Sat in a classroom with all the other trouble makers and was handed a sheet where all my teachers had written my work load on it. Only then did I realize how little I was actually doing in high school. Each day, only half the classes had anything of substance written for them, including homework, and I was done with that by 10 AM. I spent the rest of the day reading books for English "extra credit" or drawing for art "extra credit" as written on the sheet by my teachers. Since I was an honor student in a class of actual trouble makers, the I got to watch them act up and get into more trouble and never got into any myself, which was all quite entertaining. The only real drag was lunch where we ate in the half hour between everybody else's lunch and couldn't speak a word. If I could have had my normal lunch with friends, I would have seriously contemplated getting into more trouble on purpose so I could get more in school suspension.

greenwow is an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

And a bad troll. It is the way of his kind.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[i.r.id10t]

Were you there with the doper, the beauty queen, the goth chick, and the wrestling jock?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, restricting the legal use of a photo that you don't own the copyright to is, in itself a copyright violation.

Actually, no. That doesn't even make sense.

If you take a photo for hire and you don't own the copyright, but you refuse to give owners the picture to use legally would you be committing a copyright violation?

Or restricting a person from reading or selling a book that you don't own the copyright to is a copyright violation?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[cfalcon]

How about, they are his fucking pictures, he can charge whatever he wants for them- from free to a hojillion dollars, if he can find a buyer.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

A license to use is NOT copyright transferal. Just because they have a (implicit) right of use for the yearbook that does not terminate his copyright in all other areas.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[jrumney]

You can grant permission for use without handing over "all rights". If the student is taking a yearbook class, and submits his photos to the class, he has a pretty good idea what those photos are going to end up used for. Making a copyright claim against the school later would be as stupid as what the principal is trying to do here.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[slew]

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

You're, apparently, not the only one and why one of my English teachers got her Ph.D. on the concept of Saturday Suspension in the late-1960s, early-1970s, where you have to go to school on Saturday (or a series of Saturdays) as punishment. I really disliked Dr. Kershes!

Or as in the '80s the movie the "Breakfast Club" (of course not realistic). However, there are some actual real school districts that implement Saturday School.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh.

As someone who was constantly harangued by an overzealous school administration, the threats finally stopped when my father went to see the school principal, picked him up, pinned him against the wall, and promised to lay his entrails across the office if the bullying didn't stop. And magically, it did stop.

School administrations are filled with petty tyrants, who know they have the law and authority and their side. You deal with them as you would any bully: show of force and that there are easier targets to focus their attentions on.

(Not advocating physical violence, but god bless my father for showing what its like to be on the loosing side of the balance of power.)

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Pikoro]

But. It might end up on his PERMANENT RECORD.

Re: Well, this should be interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

YRO has always been a big part of /. attracting a large numbers of posts.

I do not see how this does not fall into the category.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. The movie is a separate work of art, the rights to it are a separate matter from recording real life events.

And movie theaters take pains to remove recording devices, unlike school athletic events.

Where recording is promoted and encouraged.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically they didn't force him to take it down through force. They did so by intimidation and an abuse of authority. They did punish him or otherwise threaten to do so.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly I'd not let my student go to school on a Saturday. The school only has authority within the course of the school day and not outside it. Then again I'm not sure I'll send my kid to a government school to begin with. i saw how it was. I'm not about to send them to a private one either necessarily. At least not the normal private school. Hopefully my kid(s) will partake in un-schooling instead (check out the Free State Project).

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[gnupun]

the rights to it are a separate matter from recording real life events.

Here are the restrictions for cameras at the Olympics:

Large photographic and broadcast equipment over 30cm in length, including tripods and monopods. You cannot use photographic or broadcast equipment for commercial purposes unless you hold media accreditation.

IOW, there are restrictions against taking commercial quality photos/videos at many/most sporting events, unless you pay or get permission.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Shakrai]

It went to Grand Jury and was no-billed.

A lawyer that can't work out a resolution for the issue at hand in TFA without going to jury trial is a fucking moron.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more fun, then you can fuck with the principal every time he turns his back.

Purposely screw shit up they give you to do.

Install a keylogger.

Hide something that generates a mystery smell.

Don't bathe on purpose.

Eat lots, and lots, of beans.

Mary the SOBs daughter, then get divorced because the only thing you had in common was hating her father.

And so on and so forth, be creative.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[lgw]

If you were fired from your job because became a registered Republican, the Republican party would go to war for the right to represent you in court./quote

A great many people have been fired for being Republican, most famously the editor of Playgirl. Oddly, political party is not a protected class and you have no recourse in most states.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[adolf]

Similarly, if I create a chalk drawing of a foot or a bicep or a car tire in art class, using school materials and equipment time and instruction, I expect that this drawing will be mine at the end of the day.

If someone wants to use a copy of it for their own work, that's a slightly different matter.... but it will always remain mine unless otherwise and explicitly negotiated and agreed upon.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ArcadeNut]

That’s why many schools now do the “In-School Suspension”. Sit in the principals’ office and work all day on the mounds of homework the teachers send down. Not quite as much fun as the vacation format.

When I was a kid, that was called detention....

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[brantondaveperson]

IOW, there are restrictions against taking commercial quality photos/videos at many/most sporting events, unless you pay or get permission.

There may be 'restrictions', and a sporting venue is presumably within their rights to throw you out of they feel like it, but has a restriction on the use of photographs taken at a sporting event and subsequently used for commercial gain ever been tested in court?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[brantondaveperson]

Install a keylogger.

Well they all sound fun. But the keylogger one will land you in jail for quite a long time these days.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[nbauman]

That is a high level overview of policy that must have exceptions otherwise every kid that snapped a picture or wrote an article that ended up in a yearbook or school newspaper would have a copyright claim. At some point they have to grant use to the school.

Usually the parent would have to sign a consent form for yearbook class it would grant publication rights to the school district to be published in the yearbook and may hold an exclusivity clause for a term probably one year from the initial publication of the yearbook.

Every kid who snapped a picture or wrote an article for the school newspaper does have copyright ownership of that work. He can assign part of the rights to the school to use them in a yearbook.

Interestingly, copyright rights can only be assigned in writing, in my understanding. If I write for a publication, we usually have some back-and-forth emails in which we discuss the terms under which I'm writing it, and the rights that I'm transferring.

If I were the kid's lawyer, I'd ask the principal for the written contract the school and the kid signed for transfer of the rights to the photographs to the yearbook. If the principal can't present a signed contract, he doesn't have any rights.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[fafalone]

That was presumably the fee for a private attorney to negotiate a plea bargain. Had you taken it to trial, even lower tier attorneys would set you back 10x that. Either that or you live someplace with really cheap representation.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anubis IV]

My parents tried grounding me once. After I thoroughly enjoyed having so much free time to make progress through my stack of novels, they started adding the stipulation, "...and no reading!" whenever they'd send me off to my room. Getting grounded stopped being so much fun after that.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

So they do have a copyright claim, so what? You do know that if you write an article or take a photograph and a magazine publishes it, you still own the copyright, yes? You're exercising your right as the copyright holder to allow them to publish it, possibly in return for compensation.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[TapeCutter]

We used to call it "the hot seat" back in the 70's, there was no such thing as 'suspension', you were either punished or expelled.

OT: "Olympic" word trademark ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful bandying about the word "Olympic" (TM). That the word is trademarked by the Olympic Committee. Under no circumstances can it be used a commercial setting, and I'll assume that applies to Facebook and Twitter as well. You cannot say "Olympic medal winner" without their express consent, which I'm sure costs lots of ${monies}. If they can determine who you are, you'll get a lovely cease and desist letter requesting (demanding) that you delete/remove the offending material.

Then again, if you don't defend your trademark, it becomes public domain. See zipper, aspirin, escalator, laundromat, etc...

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tompaulco]

Nope all the way around. The LISD's own IP policy [tasb.org] says that students retain the rights to all works unless they were an employee of the school system. If the student wasn't being paid to do what he did, the district has no rights to the images.

If the students own the images, then how are the students compensated for the use of those images in the yearbook? There must be some sort of agreement.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[LocalH]

Nope. Detention was after school. ISS is during the school day - instead of reporting to your normal first period class, you report to the ISS room.

what a bunch of bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

copiright should be banned . . . .in a perfect world.Maybe in tne next 1000 yearsyears

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Dog-Cow]

I think you win the shithead, fucked up, most stupid and ignorant post of the year award. Um, congrats?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[epyT-R]

It very well might. Today, there is a permanent record. It's called the internet.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[multimediavt]

As a former troublemaker, I never understood how suspension is a punishment. I considered a three day vacation from school to be supreme good fortune.

You're, apparently, not the only one and why one of my English teachers got her Ph.D. on the concept of Saturday Suspension in the late-1960s, early-1970s, where you have to go to school on Saturday (or a series of Saturdays) as punishment. I really disliked Dr. Kershes!

Or as in the '80s the movie the "Breakfast Club" (of course not realistic). However, there are some actual real school districts that implement Saturday School.

What? Did you think Dr. Kershes's idea (and Ph.D. from the late 60s, early 70s) wasn't implemented by the 1980s? I met the hag in 1983 and Saturday Suspension was alive and well in northern Virginia by then. I know, I had her for 6th grade English and after spending a Saturday in detention (which I had never heard of as an option before then) found out a week or two later that it was her dissertation that more-or-less created the practice. The Breakfast Club hadn't begun principle photography when Saturday Suspension was in practice. Good movie, but by the time it went public I had been there, done that. BTW, it's still used today, but thanks. The only unrealistic things about the movie were the camaraderie among everyone in SS and the monitor leaving the room. That never happened, but people were ditching and getting in even more trouble when they'd dip out for a pee break.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

They are.. The ACLU would just as soon side with the school.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but rig it for remote detonation as he's crossing it. Dead men don't come back to fight another day.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will happy if my son reads when I ground him. unless he is reading porn magazine...

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[gnupun]

but has a restriction on the use of photographs taken at a sporting event and subsequently used for commercial gain ever been tested in court?

Why restrict the question to sporting events when there are already general guidelines for photographing strangers (athletes in this case)?

What you can't do

Use photos of people to sell a product without their permission. This is called commercial use. That usually means that if I am identifiable in your photo, you will need my permission to use it in your marketing or advertising.
...

How will you get my permission? The industry standard says you get a signed release. Most releases will grant permission to use a subject's likeness in commercial applications, not to mention a broad range of other uses.

http://www.photocoachpro.com/h...

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

nope.

Movies cost money to make. Actors are paid. Joe Scumbag making an iphone recording and then uploading it to Jurkatorrent has (potentially) caused loss (in revenue) to the movie maker. Although, that argument could only hold water if he'd sneaked in without paying, in which case the damage would be provable. The rest is pulled out of the prosecutors arse. The cameraman doesn't own the copyright to that movie, he's working for hire. Working for hire means you don't own copyright on materials you make for your employer - he does.

Minors can't engage in "work-for-hire" contracts, for the simple reason that they're minors ergo can't engage in contracts. The way around this is 1. not to renumerate the work, and 2. get the parents to sign a consent form stipulating that the child is doing unpaid work for the school and that the school owns rights on the production. Note that BOTH conditions have to be met to get around your usual child labour laws.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[ihtoit]

not a problem, use a 4K palmcam on a Tyler mount. That's pretty compact. And WAY better than broadcast quality.

(I'll be filming a wedding tomorrow with just such a setup).

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

definitely not realistic. I never went to school with Ally Sheedy or Molly Ringwold. Most of the girls at my school looked like Kelly McGillis or Rosie O'Donnell. Either one where the iron had been left on their face for too long.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

even outside the US: a foster parent had a child removed because he became a member of UKIP. I bullshit you not. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...

(Rotherham Council have since made a public apology but have offered no restitution, and continue to waffle over the unrelated systemic child abuse scandal).

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

you need reputation for wedding photography. You're talking about the most important day of a couple's lives. You're immediately and permanently unemployable if someone posts a bad review on G+.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Except compliance with school administrator's orders is the law in most states and suspensions are typically not subject to judicial process of any kind, so for all practical purposes principals can use the power of law to compel just about any action not worth going to jail over.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[gl4ss]

he didn't go to take pictures of pictures.

if you're allowed on the movie set, allowed to take pictures there.. no contract was made and the pictures are not a work for hire.

you think disney owns copyright on everything that discusses star wars? the school doesn't own shit - and furthermore what's telling is that the principal thought that the kid was making money(irs?).

like, what the fuck? that's extortion.

what maybe had taken place was that the principal had previously taken a bribe or hired his own photographer? or maybe the principals cousin was getting paid by the school to be the "official photographer of stuff everyone was free to photograph anyways"(tm).

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[gnupun]

Movies cost money to make. Actors are paid.

I think the school's argument is along similar lines. The school has to pay to rent, maintenance and other fees to organize the sporting event at the stadium. It also has to pay long term for coaches/trainers, training area and equipment to train its football player students. So it's a huge cost in time and money to organize this event.

All the kid did was spend a few hours taking pictures with a cheap camera and make oodles of money off someone else's work -- therefore he's a leech.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[gnupun]

if you're allowed on the movie set, allowed to take pictures there.. no contract was made and the pictures are not a work for hire.

But will any movie studio allow strangers to capture video of all their movie scenes on their set and then release that (edited) video for free or commercial use? I highly doubt it. Such a video would dilute/harm the value of the movie released by the studio.

is he employed ...

[Skapare]

... by the school or using school equipment?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

were the athletes (actors) paid in this case? I don't think so.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tehcyder]

I think you win the shithead, fucked up, most stupid and ignorant post of the year award. Um, congrats?

So, you don't agree with him then?

The OP made a not unreasonable analogy. Just because you subscribe to the slashdot hivemind belief that (a) copyright is bollocks and (b) everyone has a god-given right to make money in any way they like *cough* uber *cough* does not mean that there aren't valid counter-beliefs you can argue for.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[tehcyder]

has a restriction on the use of photographs taken at a sporting event and subsequently used for commercial gain ever been tested in court?

It would be settled (or rather thrown) out of court because its's fucking illegal to make commercial use of a model without a signed release form.

But of course, on slashdot, as long as something makes money it must be good because it's not the government.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were this kids parent, I'd be tempted to go that route and tell the school board this will all go away, all you have to do is fire the principle, and agree not to hire him back in the state system for 30 years.

If you were my kid, I'd parachute you into an ISIL held part of Syria wearing a "fuck Mohammed" tshirt.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[jabuzz]

See recent James Bond filming of Spectre on the River Thames. Large numbers of people saw the filming and footage was taken, some of which was no doubted posted on YouTube and elsewhere. There is nothing the relevant movie studio can do about that.

You where saying?

Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but.

1. He did not "violate the privacy" of the subjects in the photos. They were in public, hence there was no expectation of privacy. Hence it was legal for him to make the photos.
2. He owns the copyright on any photos he made, UNLESS he was shooting them, for someone else, for pay.

Principal can't have it both ways. If principal paid for the pictures, and if there's a violation of privacy going on (there's not), then principal is responsible for that. If he didn't pay for the pictures he should just stfu.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tehcyder]

We used to call it "the hot seat" back in the 70's, there was no such thing as 'suspension', you were either punished or expelled.

You were lucky. In my day you were flogged with a cat-o-nine-tails even if you'd done nothing wrong. If you did something really bad (like getting a Latin declension wrong) then you were summarily executed. Twice if it involved girls.

And you try telling that to kids today...

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tehcyder]

My parents tried grounding me once. After I thoroughly enjoyed having so much free time to make progress through my stack of novels, they started adding the stipulation, "...and no reading!" whenever they'd send me off to my room. Getting grounded stopped being so much fun after that.

"Anubis, you've been a very naughty boy, so you have to go out and play football in the park with your friends, chase after girls, and go to bed late."

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[tehcyder]

whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.

Students who understand and exercise their civil rights are not "more trouble than they are worth" if the student is pursuing a career in law or journalism.

I hadn't realised that "making money illegally" was now a civil right in the US. Presumably the relevant constitutional amendment was sponsored by Uber?

Hatred of High School Principals

[tehcyder]

It's pretty easy to guess the average age of posters in this thread. No one over eighteen cares.

Re:Hatred of High School Principals

[TVmisGuided]

It's pretty easy to guess the average age of posters in this thread. No one over eighteen cares.

Wrong. ALL photographers, no matter the age, should care about this case. School bureaucracy aside, it would set an incredibly dangerous set of precedents if left unchallenged.

I'd be willing to send that student a copy of the book The Law (In Plain English) For Photographers. Perhaps the principal should read it as well; it would show the principal exactly how wrong he is, before he has to sign off on spending a huge chunk of district money on legal fees.

Re:Hatred of High School Principals

[SecurityGuy]

I'm well over 18, and care because I saw this sort of thing when I was a kid. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The fact that it doesn't impact me directly means I care less than the student in question and less than when I was in school, but I still think this sort of abuse of authority should never go unchallenged.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[gnupun]

Perhaps not directly, but don't they get scholarships?

Money

[tehcyder]

There might be a point to the outrage here if the photographer hadn't been making money off these snaps.

As far as I'm concerned, if you sell photos of people, then you get a model release form.

Re:Money

[Hognoxious]

if you sell photos of people, then you get a model release form.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com....

Off you go. Be careful, they steal pens.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Blrfl]

If the students own the images, then how are the students compensated for the use of those images in the yearbook?

Compensation is being able to point at some of the pictures and say "I took those" and put "yearbook photographer" on your college applications. If you're in a school system where yearbook is a for-credit class, taking the pictures is classwork for a grade.

Other than a desire not to be a dick, there would be nothing to stop a student photographer from demanding compensation for his work before allowing it to be published. Of course, there's also nothing preventing the photo editor (a job I did for two years) from telling anyone who pulled a stunt like that to turn their school-owned equipment to someone who understood why we were all there and what we were trying to produce and go alphabetize student portraits instead.

There must be some sort of agreement.

Why must there be some sort of agreement? Back when common sense prevailed, it was implicit that taking a picture for the yearbook and providing it to the editors meant it might be published and you were okay with that. These days, I'd have to imagine that our overlawyered world would require a bodily fluid transfer agreement before it would be okay to take a leak in a school bathroom.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think so? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the school can abuse it's power that way. Some sort of harm is coming to the student, even if it's simply missing out on days of school.

How about we escalate a hypothetical? Student shows up to school while suspended. Will the school physically remove the student? Will the cops be called? Will the student be charged with trespassing?

Also... those photos probably have some sort of value attached to them.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Linkreincarnate]

Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel about it.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up Francis.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

in a high school?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[RavenLrD20k]

Scholarships are not a guaranteed payout to all the athletes on a team. In other words you can play a sport and be good at what you do, but your application for a scholarship can still be rejected if they don't feel you're good enough. It's the same with any other academic field. Good at art? You can apply for an art scholarship and hope. Good at Math? Go for the Math Scholarship. Scholarships are not compensation; they're a hand up to students that show themselves to be over-achievers to give them a better chance of succeeding in their demonstrated passion.

That said, going to your other post above: The kid taking pictures isn't a leech. There's a reason that Photography is a paid profession (that's quite expensive). Yes anyone can take a picture, or snap a few hundred shots and be lucky to come out with one or two in the batch that might be worth money. When you want the really good shots, you hire a photographer. Someone who understands what kind of lighting and shadow make a good shot. Someone who knows when you want blur in the action or a solid frozen still. Someone who knows how to use Depth of Field to isolate a subject from the background. A really good photographer will usually have a ratio of every 4th shot is production quality good.

Also, in reference to your claim of the student using a cheap camera, looking at the sample of shots in the article that are credited to the student he is very well acquainted with whatever camera he's using; whether it's a cheap sub $500 model or a more expensive $1,000 plus. I doubt he used a cheap/disposable camera in the sub $100 range because those are very difficult to manage exposure and depth of field let alone focal point, which, as evidenced in the images, the photographer had shown substantial control over. It doesn't matter how expensive a camera is, so long as it has a way to manually adjust f-stop, shutter speed, and focus a good photographer can do amazing things with them, but having those three aspects as a manual option is required. Cheap throwaways don't usually have any manual options.

The school at best might have a case on privacy, albeit a very weak one. This is a sporting event which very likely was covered by local news crews as well (if they're anything like the local news outlets in Big-Smalltown, Georgia). The students/athletes don't have any expectation of privacy in these situations. They're going to be photographed, by their parents, other parents, other spectators, news crews... what they do is already going to be public record. The student here, like the athletes on the field, is learning the skills of a profession and penalizing him for performing a function of that profession (publishing where he sees fit) is disingenuous and careless on the school district's part. They'd be best to concede now and stop penalizing the kid, or be prepared for this to go to court and possibly lose a lot more; especially if the parents get a good lawyer.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[omnichad]

And how many parents sign or click agree to an agreement before entering a high school stadium. The most they could do is construe violating those policies as being trespassing and kick them out. They would still retain rights to the photos they took.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[pr0fessor]

That's the point. There are some terms under which the copyright is granted to the school for publication in the yearbook but we don't know what they are. It could be anything from work for hire to a nonexclusive publication rights. You are correct however that it should be in writing and signed by him and his parents.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[pr0fessor]

Unless of course it's work for hire in which case the copyright could be transfered to the employer.

Re: Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later...

[jmac_the_man]

Remember, in Texas, possessing more than four dildos is a felony here.

I'm all for keeping the government out of people's bedrooms, but why would you need to possess ANY dildos in a public school? Leave that shit at home.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[lgw]

Given UKIP got 12% of the popular vote, and the Conservatives 36%, there's hope for the UK yet!

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[pr0fessor]

You are correct it should be explicitly negotiated and agreed upon but you are missing something the yearbook class is entirely about creating a publication "the yearbook" which will later be sold. If the school setup the class properly they would have asked for some kind of terms at the beginning of the class to avoid later disagreements. Since the yearbook is being sold there should be some kind of exclusive grant of publication rights for a specific time period.

We have no idea if the school handled getting consent or setting terms for that class correctly or at all.

Cell phone ban at that school too?

[Anonymous Coward]

lolz....

I bet they still have a cell phone ban at that school too. Really need to reprint that school manual.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[ihtoit]

3.5 million votes and just one seat.

SNP took 1.5 million votes and gained every seat in Scotland. 56?

The system in the UK is utterly broken.

Sexual Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anyone remember the case of the cheerleader who had to cheer for her rapist, because she was an "agent of the school"?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/06/164194/scotus-texas-cheerleader/

She had to pay $45,000 in legal fees. For not cheering for the guy who raped her.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Install a keylogger.

Well they all sound fun. But the keylogger one will land you in jail for quite a long time these days.

Unless your Sony!

sounds like a crowd funded effort is needed

[schlachter]

but 100,000 people could certainly afford $1 to show this fucker the door.

way off on your $5K estimate

[schlachter]

I recently sued someone for fraud and was quoted $30K to $50K for going to trial and this wasn't a super complicated case...so $100K isn't so crazy. Consider an average lawyer making $330/hr and you're at $5K with only 15 hrs of work. Enough to start doing research and begin drafting a complaint at most.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..

Just because I hate these kinds of threats (which is really the principal being a bully - sorry to use that overused term), I would love to see the school district sued for causing distress to this boy. Threatening with the IRS? Really?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of lawsuits are mostly idle. Call his bluff and see what happens when the ACLU gets involved and crowfunding his defense sends the principal looking for a new job..

Problem is that they don't need to sue - he's a student, so they can (and did) use those levers against him. Take these pictures down or we'll suspend you. Take them down or we'll ban you from all extracurriculars (which can include walking the stage for grad). And they have the power to sit you in the office until you sign the paperwork. Oh, you missed a test? Well, that's a 0 for you.

Good for the parents to standing up to the school, and I hope he kept the pics so that the moment he's beyond their reach he reposts the portfolio. And remember, kid - when they need a photog for an event, remind them of this little adventure.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[anyGould]

In all likelihood, the second the kid shows up with an attorney in tow, the school board will consult with their own attorney, apologies will be offered, and the idiot principal will be reeducated (preferably in a camp in Siberia).

Unfortunately, they're just as likely to bring the house lawyers in, dig in their heels, and wait for the kid to graduate and it not to matter anymore.

School boards have time on their side. This kid is a senior, so he's going to graduate in a couple months. Once that happens, how much money are the parents going to spend chasing after this? This is why the principal is threatening the suspension and loss of extra curriculars - that tends to include graduation ceremonies and prom night. Why threaten lawsuit when you can just say "nope, you don't get to walk the stage with your peers. Shoulda respected my authoritah." And by the time the appeals get done, it won't change the fact that he missed the event.

And the update on the article, while completely ditching the BS "I'ma gonna call the IRS on you" line, is apparently now claiming that he's in trouble for using school equipment to post non-school work. Which would seem to imply that if he takes the memory card home and uploads them from his personal computer, they don't have a concern? (Which leads to: how do you tell the difference?)

wtf happened to texas

[Anonymous Coward]

and their love of 'freedom'?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[slew]

definitely not realistic. I never went to school with Ally Sheedy or Molly Ringwold. Most of the girls at my school looked like Kelly McGillis or Rosie O'Donnell. Either one where the iron had been left on their face for too long.

Speak for yourself, Bond girl Carey Lowell attended to my high school (not that I ever met her)...

Nobody has mentioned

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a PUBLIC school paid for with PUBLIC funds. The pictures were taken at PUBLIC events by the accused, who is not an employee of the school. Why, exactly, does the school think that it has any ownership rights?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[slew]

For your viewing pleasure...

IRS ... Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy - What does the IRS have to do with copyright enforcement?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no threat of a lawsuit, only of a suspension.

if there is no threat of a lawsuit, which is the only legal mechanism that the school can use to have the pictures taken down, then the school would not have threatened the kid with suspension. The suspension is not a legal relief for the posting of the photographs, a lawsuit is.

OK. But if you can't graduate from high school and you can't get into college and your entire future is destroyed, it is a small consolation that you get to keep a few pictures posted online...

... Because why?

[Anonymous Coward]

*IF* the student was on class time they might have a case in the same way an employer could claim your creativity if it was on their time.

However: if it was on class time and cameras had nothing to do with class, there's a problem.

If it wasn't on class time, the only case the school has is if the student explicitly signed copyright over.

Basically, they can probably get bent unless there's something really weird in US copyright law that doesn't apply anywhere else...

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Em Adespoton]

I wish, when I was in school, I understood exactly what the permanent record was.

Of course, by the time I graduated and had the right to pull my record and see what was in it, I really didn't care anymore, as it said nothing that would influence the rest of my life in any way.

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[adolf]

The issue is not, AFAICT, that the pictures may have been used for a yearbook: I'll sign up for that being fair use any day of the week. (I mean, sheesh: Where's the fight there, on either side?)

The issue is that the principal threatened a student with a bogus raft full of bullshit (including "reporting to the IRS") over a display of some 4,000 pictures he'd taken of school activities using school equipment, and subsequently displayed on a non-school website.

I had a problem with a principal once...

[mgcarley]

Not in the US, though... anyway, long story short: my punishment ended up being some minor work on the school website.

Hopefully this kid has a clue and tells the principal to fuck off (in a more diplomatic way, of course) and encourage the principal to report him to the IRS: chances are he's not earning a cent OR if he is, whoever is buying the pictures or paying the advertising probably has a W-9 or something (if he's making over $600 per customer, otherwise so long as he files, he's good), and an IP lawyer would surely LOVE for the school to claim copyright when there is no formal or informal contract/agreement in place for the kid to be taking photos on behalf of the school.

And if he gets suspended? Well, that could be a problem for the principal because there's no legal justification (the kid wasn't doing anything actually wrong, especially since he is, in fact, the owner of the images under law) and violations of privacy can't really occur in a public place, can they?

The only questions I have are: was he using his own camera and did he upload the images at home? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", the kid should be in the clear.

If copyright lies...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with whoever pressed the shutter button (and apparently substantiated with the recent legal case involving the monkey), then where does the copyright lie on all the automated stills cameras, such as traffic (red light, speeding) where the critical decision is made, like a human brain, on a judgement call?

And what about film cameras, such as CCTV, which is technically pressing of the shutter at least sixty times a second?

Re:Force his hand..."Sue me! Sooner than later..."

[Anonymous Coward]

whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.

Students who understand and exercise their civil rights are not "more trouble than they are worth" if the student is pursuing a career in law or journalism.

You don't know that. Admissions people are pretty conservative. How do I know? I wrote two different admissions essays and applied to a bunch of schools. One was about physics, the other was about why I don't do drugs anymore. Guess which recipient schools all accepted me? Guess which recipient schools all rejected me?