They are always careful to state that CFAVs do not draw “pay”; we claim “remuneration”.[/quote]Seeing as the two are synonyms in terms of general English use, is there actually any legal difference?[/quote]
Both terms are correct, in that ‘pay’ is a form of ‘remuneration’. Remuneration is a broader term covering multiple forms of Reward, not solely ‘pay’.
I’d definitely argue that we claim ‘pay’, falling into this definition : ‘the guaranteed cash wage or salary paid to individual employees for performing their work for a contracted period of time’. It is however difficult to justify CFAVs being contracted to perform their work. I’m sure the argument could be made though…
Simple example: You do X activity that we are able to claim for, for Y number of hours and you will receive £Z pay. This was activity that wasn’t contractual, but uniformed CFAVs have a commitment to a minimum number of hours per month.
Again this brings up the debate whether CFAVs are employee’s or not. Is anyone aware of any cases where that status has been challenged in an Employment Tribunal?
[quote=“steve679” post=23454]yes i can…see the attached.
a case about disability discrimination in the ACF but is relevant to how CFAVs are seen as employees or volunteers under “employee law”
[attachment=215]volunteernotanemployee.pdf[/attachment][/quote]
The above ruling was only brought under Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995.
[quote]The EAT did not consider Mr Breaknell’s status as an employee under section 212 of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 (weeks counting in the computing period - series of connected contracts), as he had not raised it
at the Tribunal. The effect of the EAT’s decision may, therefore, be limited, so it is always advisable to take
advise from an employment solicitor when considering whether a person is an employee or not.[/quote]
There is no judgement under employment law.
[quote=“MRAR” post=23430]I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)[/quote]
Barber - If someone is not using ‘service equipment’ (i.e using their own), has not been trained as a Phot, is not being employed as a Phot - how in the name of Beezebub would the ACO/MOD make reasonable claim either morally or legally on a ‘privately’ taken photograph?
Discuss - I don’t want to hear piffle about ACP/policy but would prefer chapter and verse of copyright law. I think that this would help out more than a few with their concerns/queries
Which is precisely what I was hoping to find out in this thread. Sadly, the law as written seems to be annoyingly vague but there may well be other laws which help to clear it up.
An analysis of the precise situation would be useful, though I’d prefer not to have to resort to bringing a civil case in order for that analysis to be made.
I have started to take all of my cadet-related photographs in my own time now, unless I have been specifically engaged to act as a photographer or videographer for the ACO (as can happen form time to time ).
[quote=“barber” post=24024][quote=“MRAR” post=23430]I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)[/quote]
Not annoyingly vague, but deliberately vague, so that organisations can put their own spin on it to suit their purpose.
In this instance HQAC or service photographers couldn’t take the volume images required to promote the organisation, so IMO set the rules to suit their purpose.
The biggest problem HQAC would have in laying “Crown Copyright” to a photo etc is proving the photo was taken by a member of staff if they really wanted to push the Crown Servant angle.
I’ve got numerous photos given to us for use by us, taken by parents, sibings, friends and various other members of the families of staff and cadet. For many years I’ve had CWC taking photos of cadets on various activities. Then there are those taken by press photographers. Now we have the not so wonderful world of camera phones and the mess those photos can create, especially some taken by cadets and put onto the not so wonderful social media sites.
So all in all I reckon it’s fairly straightforward to tell them to poke it and in 99% of examples I reckon people could claim their own copyright.
[quote=“papa november” post=24027]
Discuss - I don’t want to hear piffle about ACP/policy but would prefer chapter and verse of copyright law. I think that this would help out more than a few with their concerns/queries :)[/quote]
apoligies that this IS ACP “piffle” but it is clear in ACP50
[quote]COPYRIGHT
15. Copyright ownership is an intellectual property right involving works that may
be literary, dramatic, musical or artistic. Text, for example, is literary while
photographs and film are artistic. Within ACO MC activities the issue of copyright is
most likely to occur in connection with external use of Crown copyright photographs.
Copyright law is covered by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988. Section
163 concerns Crown copyright.
ncontrolled copy not subject to amendment
1-9
Revision 1.02 16. The Crown owns copyright of all photographs taken by ACO personnel during
the course of their official ACO duties. The MOD Crown Copyright Administrator
administers the application of Crown copyright within the MOD and its external use.
17. The following extract from DCI GEN 304/94 applies to the use of Crown
copyright material by external organizations, and therefore is relevant to ACO PR
activities.
“MOD and Service Press and PR officers [volunteer MCOs appointed by the
ACO fall within this group] have been given special dispensation for the free
issue of material and the waiving of copyright fees in respect of:
Crown copyright material for publication in newspapers, magazines
and periodicals which are published at regular intervals of three months
or less and address a regular public readership”.
18. All requests from external organizations to use resources covered by Crown
copyright for purposes not covered by the extract above must be referred to Media
Communications, HQ Air Cadets.
19. Permission is not needed for the use of ACO material covered by Crown
copyright in the production by the ACO of publicity resources such as recruiting
stands, websites and promotional literature. Permission should be sought from
Media Communications, H[/quote]
The fact that it seems clear in ACP50 is irrelevant. I could state that all “mice are a type of tree”; that is very clear but has no basis in reality.
ACP50’s statements should be clear and it should have reference to specifics in legislation to back it up, either there in the paragraph or in a foot note.
ACP50 claims crown copyright for photographs taken by “all ACO personnel”. Cadets are ACO personnel but would surely not be considered to be “an officer or servant of the crown” which is the term used in law. Something doesn’t match up and ACP50 starts looking dodgy.
ACP50 has no legal footprint in legislation or any subsequent amendments. If challenged, it would purely be an administrative issue within the organisation. Where it become blurry is the access one might have to take such images beyond what a member of the public would have, and that’s where those high paid barristers earn their money.
The solution to all of this is don’t have staff taking photos etc or if they do use someone else’s camera and get them to copyright them in their own right. Then if HQAC start trying to nick them, charge them for the privilege.
We’ve got a good relationship with one of the local rags (the editor is a RAFA and Legion member) and we get free use of any pictures their photographers take, even though they are copyright.
I doubt any Barristers (highly paid or otherwise) will ever be involved in deciding who own the IP of photographs taken… if they do then somone has got something seriously wrong !
I doubt any Barristers (highly paid or otherwise) will ever be involved in deciding who own the IP of photographs taken… if they do then somone has got something seriously wrong ![/quote]
[quote=“MRAR” post=24032][quote=“barber” post=24024][quote=“MRAR” post=23430]I had this clause thrown at me when I complained to HQAC about one of my images (very widely published now) being used without my permission. I’d had zero recognition for it but was told I shouldn’t expect any because it fell under crown copyright which I think is complete tosh seeing as I’m a cadet and as you say not even a member of the reserve forces. It’s ludicrous.
(As an aside I watermark EVERYTHING now with my own name regardless of whether I took it ‘on duty’ or not)[/quote]
[quote]Cadet Corps
6.13 Members of cadet corps and their instructors are regarded as Crown servants in certain
circumstances (see chapter 18).[/quote]
[quote]Combined Cadet Force, Sea Cadet Corps, Army Cadet Force and
Air Training Corps
18.39. Cadets are regarded as Crown Servants for the purposes of the Firearms Acts and are
exempt from the requirement to possess a firearm certificate when shooting as a member
of the corps. Furthermore, firearms may be acquired for the corps by a responsible officer
duly authorised in writing by the unit’s commanding officer without the need for a firearm
certificate (section 54(2)(b) of the 1968 Act)[/quote]
the use of “regarded” is interesting, read as if in normal circumstances not servants, but in this case we assume yes they are…
[quote=“majorchavez” post=23450]
Again this brings up the debate whether CFAVs are employee’s or not. Is anyone aware of any cases where that status has been challenged in an Employment Tribunal?[/quote] The ACO got within a hairs breadth of an ET a few years back - senior members of this forum will probably know of it - but MoD settled at the last moment. If it had gone to the ET they probably would have found that in recognising the process that VRT (in that case) were indeed employed. We already know that the benefits system counts it as paid employment.
).