Photog suspended for pic of dude who lost his pants on ski lift -is that OK?

Simple. Just give me your money.

 

Does giving you my debt count?

 

How am I going to afford to go to Vail and hang upside down and naked that way?

 

It appears that the photographer is pretty much out of luck.

From: http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20090107/NEWS/901079952/1078&ParentProfile=1062&title=Notorious%20Vail%20skier%20pic%20still%20causing%20problems

 

That poor guy on the lift. That really would suck. I mean underwear and all! As for the photog, shame on him for even wanting to sell photos of some dude, without his permission, with his ass and junk hanging out. Shouldn't there be some rule about unintended nudity and the photo being sold? I mean an accident is one thing, but nudity?

 

I don't feel sorry for the idiot photographer at all.

 

Were Eddie Adams alive, I think that he'd probably disagree.

http://vinpon.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/windowslivewritersomeofthemostpowerfulimagesfromaroundthe-1266a000895-windowslivewritersomeofthemos2.jpg

 

Good point OD, but it's not like this guy was in a wartime situation. He fell on a ski lift. I know I would certainly be pissed of someone was passing around a photo of me after I was left dangling by one foot with my pants down (or up in his situation) to my ankles.

 

The ski lift case does raise a few issues. I'm willing to bet that it will end up in civil court unless the Vail Ski Resort quietly ponies up a bunch of cash.

It could possibly be argued that the skier was not in "public" because Vail Ski Resort is on private property. Further, the photographer, by virtue of his contract with the photo agency, was an agent for the ski resort.

The photographer might be held liable for any damages incurred by his violation of the non-compete clause in his contract.

If the skier decided to sue, chances are he'll go after the ski resort, where the big money is; the photo agency, for lesser money; and the photographer, for all he has (very little).

Moral of the story? Before you sell a photo to a publication, know what the legalities are.

 

Not having seen the contract this guy had with Sharpshooters, I wonder how the company can retroactively claim to own a picture he shot with his own camera on his own time. A good intellectual property lawyer might have fun with this case.

If I were the photographer, I'd quit rather than remain in limbo (under suspension) and sell the picture anyway.

 

If I were the photographer, no way I would have sold the photo to the local newspaper.

Now, Haywood Jablome might have, if you know what I mean.

 

Fucking Haywood sell a picture of his own mother.