# Legal Question/rant: volunteer firefighter



## Destin (Mar 7, 2011)

Alright guys, this is my second legal question of the day. Although the answer isn't going to change much I would like to hear your opinions. 

I just joined the volunteer fire dept. and the assistant chief asked me to be the "official" FD photographer. I'm fine with this, and working for free in this case doesn't bother me. However the next day he dropped on me that I can't use ANY of my own camera gear on calls or drills, I can only use department cameras. He showed me the camera, and its a 4 year old olympus P&S. I asked him if he planned on getting a new camera, and he said it's not in the budget this year. 

Now I understand the sensitivity of the situation totally. But I don't see why they wouldn't let me use my camera gear, as long as I handed over the memory card as soon as the call/drill was over. I mean, I wouldn't be able to edit them on my computer, but at least they would be better photos. 

It's honestly not even worth taking the photos if I have to use their camera, especially since most of our calls and drills are at night in low light. 

What are your opinions here? Any other firefighters on here that have gone through something similar? Anyone know the specific laws/statutes involved? I'm in NY. 

I'm looking into donating like a D50 since I can grab them cheap, and using my lenses on it. At least I'd get manual control then, and could use my 50 1.8. Then again, they said NONE of my gear, so idk if lenses would be allowed.


----------



## reedshots (Mar 7, 2011)

Sounds like it might be a liability issue.  If you donated equipment (became sole property of the Fire Department) then you would not be using your equipment.  Did the chief explain why or did you ask?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 7, 2011)

Did you discuss this in more detail with the assistant Chief? I bet they have _all_ the answers.


----------



## PASM (Mar 7, 2011)

Donate a lens too


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 7, 2011)

Why don't you just tell him to get someone else to be the photographer? You have gear and experience with said gear, that would perform much better than a 4 year old Olympus Point and shoot. I'd tell him to look for someone else, and just show up at fires off duty with your equipment to take photos. He can't stop you from doing that.


----------



## JDaves (Mar 7, 2011)

If you use there gear the photos belong to them, you will have no rights to them.


----------



## Destin (Mar 7, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> Why don't you just tell him to get someone else to be the photographer? You have gear and experience with said gear, that would perform much better than a 4 year old Olympus Point and shoot. I'd tell him to look for someone else, and just show up at fires off duty with your equipment to take photos. He can't stop you from doing that.


 
Except there is no on or off duty as a volunteer. If I'm on the scene, then I'm there as a firefighter because I used my blue light and ID to get in. I won't get anywhere near the scene without either one of those, and therefore can't get there off duty.


----------



## Destin (Mar 7, 2011)

JDaves said:


> If you use there gear the photos belong to them, you will have no rights to them.


 

Right, but even if I use my gear it would be their memory card, and the local laws I look into state that whoever owns the memory card owns the photos, it doesn't matter who took them.


----------



## Destin (Mar 7, 2011)

Oh, they do! Lemme tell ya! 

I can understand not being allowed to on the scene of an accident as there are pretty gruesome images that they don't want being taken, or getting leaked. That's understandable and they feel that it is easiest to control if it's their camera, because it stays on the truck all the time, and has to be accounted for after every call. It's certainly easier to keep track of the camera than a memory card. 

What I don't get is why they care about drills. There are no victims, just our dummies trapped in cars or buildings. There should be no worry about images from training getting leaked, because it shouldn't matter if they do, there is nothing that is going to be disturbing to the public, or make our department look bad, because it's only a drill. 

But hey, we have mud races to raise money every year. At least I get to use my gear for those...


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you just tell him to get someone else to be the photographer? You have gear and experience with said gear, that would perform much better than a 4 year old Olympus Point and shoot. I'd tell him to look for someone else, and just show up at fires off duty with your equipment to take photos. He can't stop you from doing that.
> ...


 
Then get someone else to do it. Don't waste your time. That's what I would do anyway. I've walked up to many a fire. All I had to do was tell the police who's usually holding the Caution Tape down and say "I'm a photographer for such and such newspaper", and they let me walk closer.


----------



## Destin (Mar 8, 2011)

Yeah, in most cases that would work. Thing is, if there is an accident, we usually shut down a section of the road, mainly to protect us from traffic, but also so the public doesn't see anything horrific. 

I'd love to do it, but I'm not going to waste my time if I can't use my gear.


----------



## Overread (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm willing to bet its insurance linked = they don't want your gear on site because your gear isn't insured (if it is its not covered by their insurers and its another hassle of paperwork and such). If your gear were damaged on site it would raise a lot of problems, paperwork and hassle as well as having to question who was accountable. 

If you're going to donate a camera and lens to the setup I'm sure that would be fine (it would then be their property and be put under their insurance setup). 

The other possibility is size and ruggedness - a larger DSLR might be considered to be too large, bulky and get in the way - mixed in with not always being quite as rugged as some point and shoots. 



Best answer though is to ask the firechief and get the proper answer straight from there - all we can do is guess at what the possible reasons might be.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 8, 2011)

Let someone else take the photos


----------



## KmH (Mar 8, 2011)

Destin said:


> JDaves said:
> 
> 
> > If you use there gear the photos belong to them, you will have no rights to them.
> ...


Local, or state laws cannot supersede federal laws and copyright ownership is federal law.  www.copyright.gov/

It doesn't matter who owns what gear. Whoever releases the shutter owns the copyright to the photograph once it is recorded in a tangible medium, like a memory card, unless a 'work for hire' agreement is in place.

Here is a link to the US Copyright Office's Circular 9 about Works Made for Hire: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


----------



## skieur (Mar 8, 2011)

It looks like they are trying to create a semblance of a work for hire situation in which they would own the rights to all photos, but since you are a volunteer, that does not seem possible.  Their insurance by the way would not cover your camera equipment which is why they are specifying the use of their equipment.  It is also questionable as to whether they would cover your liability issues while acting as a photographer.

For example, if you were assaulted, knocked out, and ended up in the hospital as a result of taking photos for them, who would be paying the bills.  

skieur


----------



## vfotog (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm still not understanding this. You're volunteering to fight fires? They need someone to shoot too? Since it's a volunteer thing, and the images are for the fire station's use and benefit, why would it matter to you what kind of camera you're using? If the little camera suits their needs, isn't that sufficient? I assume when you offered to be a volunteer firefighter, it had nothing to do with your portfolio but instead to help. I just don't see why there's a need to rant.


----------



## Destin (Mar 8, 2011)

vfotog said:


> I'm still not understanding this. You're volunteering to fight fires? They need someone to shoot too? Since it's a volunteer thing, and the images are for the fire station's use and benefit, why would it matter to you what kind of camera you're using? If the little camera suits their needs, isn't that sufficient? I assume when you offered to be a volunteer firefighter, it had nothing to do with your portfolio but instead to help. I just don't see why there's a need to rant.



It's the fact that they want me to be the "official photographer" because they think I'm automatically going to take better photos than everyone else due to my portfolio. They don't understand that they may as well have a 3 year old taking the photos, because they could get the same results as me out of that camera. No matter how much I explain this, they don't seem to understand. 

Anyway, I told them that I'm not going to take photos with that camera, simply because it isn't worth my time. I'm much better off actually helping people. 

As far as the insurance info, I'm covered under their insurance from the moment I walk out my door for the call, to the moment I leave the hall after it. It doesn't matter what I'm doing, as long as I'm on scene I'm covered. Is my gear? I don't have any idea. I'll probably just end up donating a D70 and a 50 1.8 eventually, or talk them into buying a new camera at the next budget meeting.. we'll see.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Mar 8, 2011)

Just tell them you take too much pride in your work to shoot with that camera.  Say "I wouldn't expect you to roll off fighting fires driving a pinto".....


----------



## orljustin (Mar 9, 2011)

KmH said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > JDaves said:
> ...


 
Thank goodness someone knows what they are talking about here.


----------



## vfotog (Mar 9, 2011)

originally you volunteered to fight fires. That's a pretty terrific thing to do. OTOH, maybe it's just the reaction of some of the posters here that's coloring it, but it seems the photography has added a less altruistic element. If you're not happy with the camera the department can afford, and the conditions they want you to shoot under, maybe it's better to stick to the original idea of being just a firefighter.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 9, 2011)

vfotog said:


> originally you volunteered to fight fires. That's a pretty terrific thing to do. OTOH, maybe it's just the reaction of some of the posters here that's coloring it, but it seems the photography has added a less altruistic element. If you're not happy with the camera the department can afford, and the conditions they want you to shoot under, *maybe it's better to stick to the original idea of being just a firefighter.*


 
See: 



Destin said:


> Anyway, I told them that I'm not going to take photos with that camera, simply because it isn't worth my time. I'm much better off actually helping people.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 9, 2011)

It's not the camera, it's the photographer.

Several things come to mind as to why they have only a point and shoot and their not wanting you to use your own gear but it really doesn't matter. They are probably not looking for art work and if you know photography you should be able to get better photos out of that point and shoot than a 3 year old. At least, I hope so.

As to the copyright ownership, I am quite sure this would be seen as work for hire whether or not it is spelled out on paper. Volunteer or paid makes no difference.


----------



## rub (Mar 9, 2011)

Destin said:


> vfotog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still not understanding this. You're volunteering to fight fires? They need someone to shoot too? Since it's a volunteer thing, and the images are for the fire station's use and benefit, why would it matter to you what kind of camera you're using? If the little camera suits their needs, isn't that sufficient? I assume when you offered to be a volunteer firefighter, it had nothing to do with your portfolio but instead to help. I just don't see why there's a need to rant.
> ...



If you cant take better pictures than a 3 year old with a P&S, then maybe you shouldnt be worried so much about the photography.  Do you really believe that if an image isnt taken with a DSLR, its not worthy of your time?  Obviously they are not as worried about the overall image quality, lens used, gear specs etc as a professional photographer, but they are concerned with capturing images from the events that take place. 

What happens when your gear malfunctions?  Are you still to good to use a P&S?  Or would you rather let a moment in history go uncaptured than do something that simply isnt worth your time?


----------



## KmH (Mar 9, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> As to the copyright ownership, I am quite sure this would be seen as work for hire whether or not it is spelled out on paper. Volunteer or paid makes no difference.


But, the paper part does matter, and paid or volunteer can be a big difference if a volunteer is considered an independent contractor.

From the US Copyright offoce's Circular 9: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf (my emphasis)


> Whether or not a particular work is made for hire is determined by the relationship between the parties. This determination may be difficult, because the statutory definition of a work made for hire is complex and not always easily applied. That definition was the focus of a 1989 Supreme Court decision (
> ​​_Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid_, 490 U.S. 730 [1989]). The court held that to determine whether a work is made for hire, one must first ascertain whether the work was prepared by (1) an employee or (2) an independent contractor. If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition applies, and generally the work would be considered​
> a work made for hire. ​_*Important*: _*The term &#8220;employee&#8221; here is not really the same as the common understanding of the term*. _For copyright purposes, it means an employee *under the general common law of agency*_.​
> If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if _*both* _of the following conditions are met: *(1)* it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and *(2)* *there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire*.


----------



## vfotog (Mar 9, 2011)

KmH said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > As to the copyright ownership, I am quite sure this would be seen as work for hire whether or not it is spelled out on paper. Volunteer or paid makes no difference.
> ...



why would he be considered an independent contractor? He's a volunteer firefighter. It may not be a paying job, but it's his job. He's been asked to take photos as part of that job. It seems like some people wanna screw the fire department.


----------



## vfotog (Mar 9, 2011)

rub said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog said:
> ...



It seems like an awful lot of ego involved for charity work. If someone volunteers to help out, you might think they would care more about the needs of the group they're supposed to be helping instead of getting equipment snobby. Odds are that with a p&s, he'd spend less time shooting and more time fighting the fires! Which I would think is a good thing.


----------



## digital flower (Mar 9, 2011)

Have you tried out their camera? It might not be as bad as you think. Is it a true point and shoot or a compact camera? My Coolpix cameras, which i refer to as a P&S have manual controls that can be used. They also have User settings where you can set up things like the ISO, exp. comp etc. and save them. The down side is just about everything has to be changed through the menus and of course the power up and shutter lag but they can deliver some nice pictures. They are also a lot easier to move around with and stuff in a pocket when shooting. I would at least try it before knocking it. They may not be going for pictures for Life Magazine here maybe just to document what the department does on a regular basis.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 9, 2011)

Destin, It really isn't all that complicated and it has nothing to do with you.  Virtually all City, County, State and the Federal Government are self insured.  When you are acting on behalf of that government, even as a volunteer, that government accepts certain obligations towards you.  That would include your gear.  If something were to happen and your gear got damaged while performing your duties as that firefighter they would be obligated to pay for the repairs or replacement.  Just as they are obligated to take care of you if you were to be injured on duty.  On the other side of the coin, if you or that gear caused an issue, they are responsible as well.  The law suit would not only name Destin in it but the Fire Chief and the head of that particular government entity as well.  Destin probably doesn't have thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to pursue.  Government entities and the ones responsible for them do.  

I think that if you had insurance on your gear and you contacted them you would find that they would not cover that gear while you are acting as a firefighter.  If it were me, I would just use what they had and do the best that I could.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 9, 2011)

vfotog said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



KmH tends to look at the law his way and forget that there are different ways of reading laws as we can see in court every day. I am more interested in the way the law is more commonly used/read than the straight text and in this case, I doubt it would be seen as anything but a work for hire situation.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 10, 2011)

vfotog said:


> rub said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...


 
Did anyone stop and think that maybe if the actual image quality of the photos is not up to par with what Destin normally produces, that he may not want to be associated with it? Why wouldn't you want to put your best foot forward? If you have the knowledge and equipment to produce high quality photos, then do it. Working for a newspaper (as I did for a few years), I was told by my "boss" on several occasions that I needed to change "x" or "y" design wise. I told him why I didn't think it was a good move from a designers perspective and that I wouldn't want my name to be on the finished product if it was going to look like ****. He didn't really understand that, but the editor did. So the editor and I worked on an alternative. I wouldn't have put a low quality photo I had taken into the paper just to please anyone either. 

If he were able to use his equipment, I'm sure he could deliver much better images that with a point and shoot. You can still compose a nice image with a P&S, but what good is that going to do if it's noisy as **** and partially out of focus? It's not hurting him to respectfully decline to be the FD photographer. He'll be helping more people by being behind a camera 0% of the time at the scene of a fire.


----------



## KmH (Mar 10, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> KmH tends to look at the law his way and forget that there are different ways of reading laws as we can see in court every day. I am more interested in the way the law is more commonly used/read than the straight text and in this case, I doubt it would be seen as anything but a work for hire situation.


No I don't, and I didn't offer an opinion. I just pointed out that like so many things concerning the law, *it depends*.
But I did refer people to the actual language of the law so they can decide for themselves.

You expect everyone to accept your opinion "I doubt it would be seen as anything but a work for hire situation." with no supporting information.

Even when a clear employer-employee situation exists, if the employees main job function is *NOT* photography, work for hire may not apply, and if the employee/employer stipulate in writing that any photos made are not work for hire and copyright is owned by the employee than again what is or isn't in writing may decide how a court would adjudicate a suit.


----------



## KmH (Mar 10, 2011)

vfotog said:


> why would he be considered an independent contractor? He's a volunteer firefighter. It may not be a paying job, but it's his job. He's been asked to take photos as part of that job. It seems like some people wanna screw the fire department.


Why would he be considered an employee, since he's not being paid?


----------



## skieur (Mar 11, 2011)

vfotog: To keep it simple he is not a contractor if he is not being paid, and it is NOT his job, if he is not being paid, and it is NOT a work for hire, if he has NOT been hired (paid position). So it might be said that the fire department is trying to screw him.

I find it funny and ridiculous that anyone would allow himself to be dictated to, related to the conditions of a VOLUNTEER position.  

skieur


----------



## vfotog (Mar 11, 2011)

skieur said:


> vfotog: To keep it simple he is not a contractor if he is not being paid, and it is NOT his job, if he is not being paid, and it is NOT a work for hire, if he has NOT been hired (paid position). So it might be said that the fire department is trying to screw him.
> 
> I find it funny and ridiculous that anyone would allow himself to be dictated to, related to the conditions of a VOLUNTEER position.
> 
> skieur



don't know if Canada has volunteer firefighters, but they're common here. It's a position that has it's own set of rules and laws and they have an association and they do have some medical benefits, etc. Not just anyone gets hired to be a volunteer firefighter, so it's much, much more joblike than many other volunteer opportunities. Since they do have regulations, unions, and benefits, it's way more a job than a contract position. It's pretty ridiculous that you  think a volunteer should be able to do whatever they want. When it comes to firefighting, lives are at stake so it's really important that people do as they are instructed to do. My guess is you're not suited for volunteer work, but fortunately some people are.


----------



## skieur (Mar 16, 2011)

vfotog said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > vfotog: To keep it simple he is not a contractor if he is not being paid, and it is NOT his job, if he is not being paid, and it is NOT a work for hire, if he has NOT been hired (paid position). So it might be said that the fire department is trying to screw him.
> ...


 
You missed my point, I hope not intentionally..  Obviously volunteer firefighters need to follow instructions for safety and other reasons, but we are talking about photography by a volunteer firefighter and that is different.  There is no reason whatever for a volunteer photographer to give up any of his rights to photos, or to be dictated to, as to his working conditions.

Anyone who supervises volunteers needs to realize that you have to meet the needs of the volunteer as well as the organization.  A MUTUAL agreement is necessary.

skieur


----------

