Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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..
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
.... I mean Texas.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Content Rights are like 50% of Slashdot posts...
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?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
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...
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.
Sorry Mr principal, "all images and likenesses remain sole property of each individual athlete. False copyright claims carry the following criminal penalties..."
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.
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!
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
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.
sig: sauer
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 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.
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.
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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.
"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?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
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.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot is about whatever the owners/editors think it's about.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.
What's your next guess?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.
Take the pictures down; repost them all the day that the diploma is received.
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.
He'll win, according to copyright the photographer owns the rights to the photos.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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.
You've apparently not been here long enough to know of the omelet.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
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
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?
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".
Wonder what the public key field is for?
It's an omelet. Always has been. Google slashdot and omelet.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Even if he is selling the photos, I believe copyright says they belong to the photographer.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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 want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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).
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"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.
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.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
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.
TO: lailsk@lisd.net
FROM: me
SUBJECT: Really?
I mean, really now?
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
college educations are overrated anyway.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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...
Evolution: love it or leave it
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?
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.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.”
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...
"... 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.
Calling his bluff just means not folding but continuing to contest the issue.
That's what you are suggesting.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
After a five minute discussion the principal will be apologizing to the student and his family.
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.
Also, as per This comment, it appears that the school has a policy that specifically says that the student retains ownership.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Requiem for the American Dream
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Were you there with the doper, the beauty queen, the goth chick, and the wrestling jock?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
But. It might end up on his PERMANENT RECORD.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
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.
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.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Kid-proof tablet..
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....
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
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?
Install a keylogger.
Well they all sound fun. But the keylogger one will land you in jail for quite a long time these days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
FC Closer
I think you win the shithead, fucked up, most stupid and ignorant post of the year award. Um, congrats?
It very well might. Today, there is a permanent record. It's called the internet.
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.
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...
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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+.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
were the athletes (actors) paid in this case? I don't think so.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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?
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...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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."
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's pretty easy to guess the average age of posters in this thread. No one over eighteen cares.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Perhaps not directly, but don't they get scholarships?
As far as I'm concerned, if you sell photos of people, then you get a model release form.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
in a high school?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
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.
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.
Unless of course it's work for hire in which case the copyright could be transfered to the employer.
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.
Given UKIP got 12% of the popular vote, and the Conservatives 36%, there's hope for the UK yet!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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?
but 100,000 people could certainly afford $1 to show this fucker the door.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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.
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.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
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?)
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)...
For your viewing pleasure...
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.
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.
Kid-proof tablet..
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.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)