ethics question

[Los]

i am hired by a global brand company to videotape a celebrity interview. is it ethical for me to whip out my personal camera and take a few frames, with the intent of selling them later? my spidey senses didn't think it was a good idea at the time, but i'm not sure. it was a private shoot, not open to the public or news media.

[Ron Marshall]

If you make it public, regardless if you profit from it's sale, your employer would probably not be pleased.

[RDKirk]

In the countries that are signatories of the Bern Conventions (with the exception of Canada), the copyright to the images is yours anyway, unless your contract makes it clear that you have been employed purely "for hire" or specifies that the company will own the copyright.

Without words to the otherwise, you're only giving them license to use your images. Beyond that, your use of them is restricted commercially (you can't license them to be used for advertising).

Ethically, if you have been contracted with an explicit understanding between you and your employer that the photos would be private--then that understanding (in my moral philosophy) incurs an obligation of trust. But that isn't likely the case if the employer intends to broadcast them himself; then he's only buying the right to broadcast them first unless the contract says otherwise.

It's all a matter of what's in the contract.

[cyrus]

Its not just your employer you have to worry about - the celeb has to give you the OK to sell the images too (and if the shooting is done in a non-public place, you may need the celebs OK to even take the extra shots)

[Greg Lockrey]

Not ethical. Your employer is paying for your time. If they did give you the ok to make some personal shots, the subject would have to grant you permission if your intent is finiancial.

[Walter Calahan]

You should always ask before hand. Not good form to ambush someone like that.

[Peter Collins]

I am an environmental consultant, a business owner of 22 years, and have seen a few contracts. In summary, the contract governs all, but there are ethical considerations, too, as some have stated.

Generally, skilled workers/knowledge workers (this includes videotapers and environmental consultants) enter into a fiducial relationship with the party that retains (NOT hires) them. You are not an employee in that relationship, but a sole proprietor/consultant/separate business. Hence a contract. In many contracts relating to engineering, architecture, interior design, environmental, etc., the party that hires another independent business/sole proprietor is called the owner. That's a clue. Generally work product produced under such a contract (e.g., drawings, etc.) belongs to the owner, and the producer may not use it for others/other purposes or release it without the owner's permission. And in my business, we get such permission in writing.

These dimensions indicate to me that even if the contract does not forbid your private camerawork (that is, the contract is silent on the matter), you still have an affirmative obligation to ask the permission of the one who retains you for your services built on skill and know-how. Moreover, that party intends to purchase your services for a period; time on task really belongs to that party, not you.

I think there really is a bright line here.

All the best,
Peter

[Steven Barall]

The celeb might totally freak or even worse, the celeb's public relations person might totally freak. If this happens you can end up totally screwed and I mean like legally screwed. A good thing to do is just ask the PR person before hand and hope they don't walk out just because you asked. I have worked with a bunch of PR people and they are an odd bunch.

[Charles Carstensen]

Los, I think you answered your own question. If you have a personal doubt - that is the end of the story. Contracts and the word fiduciary have nothing to do with this question. You are a technician in this context. If you were the celeb would you think it is moral?

[RDKirk]

Generally work product produced under such a contract (e.g., drawings, etc.) belongs to the owner, and the producer may not use it for others/other purposes or release it without the owner's permission.

That is utterly untrue as you're interpreting it with regard to copyright. With regard to copyright, the creator--not the commissioner--is the owner of the copyright, unless the contract explicitly states otherwise. Copyright is regarded as a "natural right" of the creator under the Bern Conventions.