The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
firefighters beware- your boss may not like you posting work photos...
I landed in super hot water this week because my chief became aware of photos posted on Facebook. The photos were mild, but showed crew members in uniform. I was advised that my depatment holds the proprietary ownership of any images pertaining to the dept. I have been warned; posting these photos is an actionable offence... worthy of termination. So please be careful. I would hate to have anyone else get in trouble for something so silly.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
I had one of my crew members wanting to get a camera to take pictures of MVA's and I told him that would not be a good Idea, and could get you in hot water. I am not aware of any rules in our Dept about such a thing but I told him its best not to worry about it. save the picture taking to the media.
-
Permalink Reply by Kimberly A Bownas on
-
It is always good to make sure there aren't any rules or policies or anything that says you can't put pictures of your department on the web. Taking pictures of MVA's isn't bad as long as the patient or victim is not in the picture and as long as your department doesn't have any rules against it. If you aren't sure ask and most officers will give you an answer.
-
Permalink Reply by Kirk D. Baughman on
-
i think photos are a good way to training with to see the mistakes. i don't think you need to have patients in the photos. i think photos of firefighting can help with training.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
There are many public service departments which have policies like this. A few years ago, there were a couple of Houston Police Officers which were fired because they had worn their uniform in an advertisement. I don't recall what the ad was for, but HPD has in their policy that says essentially no officer is allowed to wear any item with the HPD logo including the badge and patrol car.
As the PIO, I have a lot of leeway in what I can provide the media. But anytime it involves images of members, apparatus, etc, I still clear it with the Chief before I let them out. With so many FD's having images and videos showing questionable practices whether off duty or not, many are clamping down on what's available to the public. My departments website even locks images and videos to make it extremely hard to copy.
Moral of the story, If you are not sure, ask.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
We actually have a Department Memorandum on this very matter. NO PERSONAL CAMERAS; NO HELMET CAMERAS; NO VIDEO CAMERAS to be temporary mounted on the rig dashboard for you tube, FFN, myspace or facebook.
The deaprtment has the right to tell you pretty much what you can and can't do, you are on their clock. This is reducing the Chief's liability of having to answer to non-released department information or media.
Lawyers love to find pictures of fires, accidents and or horseplay. Then they find "experts" to testify on the situation that has occurred to their client.
I have been told, we are to not discuss information about any of our calls on this very site. The fact that some here are runinng their department into the ground on some subject matters is just amazing.
-
Permalink Reply by turk182 on
-
The only thing we ask from our people is no photos of victims but incourage some pictures of the crowd just incase it would help in the future.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Pictures taken at the scene of any fire department incident is the property of the fire department.
Depending on what can be seen in the photo may be proprietary.
Posting of pictures in the public domain could, in some cases, break the law.
Whether you have a policy or whether you have permission, it doesn't matter, if someone in that photo sues your butt.
I would be extremely careful.
Taking a picture with a camera phone at the tavern of someone flashing their tah-tahs and posting it on the web is alot different than posting a gruesome accident or house fire.
I would caution anyone to use common sense, but I realize that it is in short supply these days.
Is the risk worth it?
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Denise Co 29 on
-
I agree no victim shots, But the pictures are great for training purposes plus history.
-
-
Tommy:
Would we agree that, if I respond as a firefighter to the scene of an MVA, take pictures with the department's camera, then do not those photos belong to the fire department?
If I am a free lancer, I must have fire department permission to photograph the scene and if you are contracted with the fire department to take those pictures, you cannot do anything with them unless the fire department waivers ownership of the photos.
Yeah; I know fire buffs who takes pictures, but they have to do it from a distance because they don't have access to the scene.
A paparazzi taking photos of Julia Roberts is different than taking one of the lifeless body of an MVA victim.
TCSS.
Art
-
-
"Use caution in your tone Commander".
Images of department logo might be considered proprietary such as a trademark. Being the images were taken by an employee/member of a department, "but showed crew members in uniform", the department may very well be considered the "owner".
From Blacks Law:
Property defined. 1. Anything over which a person or business has legal title. Property may be tangible or intangible, but it is owned by an entity and is therefore considered an asset or a liability attributable to that entity.
Now your statement about the general public and public property is pretty much straight on. But there is a difference between members of the public, and members of an organization or company.
To paraphrase Richard Nixon, Let me make this perfectly clear, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. But I have spent a lot of time in law libraries doing legal research. These opinions are my own and not intended to be legal advice. Always consult a competent attorney. (if you can find one)
-
-
Tommy:
I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence with the Julia Roberts statement.
The point there was: just because it is in the public domain doesn't make it "public property".
Fire departments will allow buffs to shoot, as long as they don't show logos and such.
But, with today's technology, extreme caution and extremely good judgment must be used.
Obviously, there is only so much control that we can exert on a scene, but if it becomes a bigger problem, have the cops sweep and set up a two block perimeter around the scene.
If we can't stop it, we should make it more difficult.
TCSS.
Art
-
-
As for Black's Law. The question goes would images taken by an individual with his camera be considered "property" of the department? It could be interpreted a number of ways. Would really depend on how a judge would rule on it.
You are correct.
It is a very gray area, which was my point. Most cases end with the interpretation of the law by a judge. In my previous reply about the HPD officers, I believe that the department had it in their policy concerning trademark infringement of their patches, badges, and even the color (at that time) of their patrol cars. I would have to go back and research it to know how it was worded.
I just like playing devil's advocate.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
