Interesting photography policy at the local zoo

[Renol]

Funny the legalities involved with photography when visiting the zoo. One part makes sense (that you can't sell photos you take there without asking permission of the zoological society). The other part raises an eyebrow: The moment you actually enter the zoo they can use images of you and use your likeness to basically sell/promote the zoo as they see fit. In other words, they could take an image of you and print it on brochures, tshirts, posters, or whatever they choose, and you in essence have no say and would be unable to receive any compensation for their use of your likeness without your permission.

When I read the actual policy as printed on their map, that second portion really surprised and bugged me a little. I realize they probably can get away with it, but I wonder how many people actually truly consider the implications of it. They can sell your likeness and make a profit off of you just by your entering the place.

 

[pbelarge]

I was at the Bronx Zoo the other day, they had a very similar statement in the portion of zoo instructions labeled photography.
I guess by purchasing a ticket one is signing away his/her rights to oneself. :mrgreen:

It still beats being put behind the cages though...

 

[Dominantly]

If you would not have read that statement on the map, you would have never known. So would their disclosure really carry weight in court, if the patrons were not properly informed? Usually when you give your rights away, you are signing a document saying you understand.
Sometimes people/companies make statements like that when they actually have no real legal leg to stand on.

But who knows, maybe over there this is legal.

 

[Garbz]

Many countries (like Australia) have a part in their contract law stating you can not enter clauses which could not be reasonably expected to appear in the contract. i.e. you can not sign away the rights to your house even if they've printed it and you've read and understood the terms printed in black and white at the bottom of the FedEx delivery docket. This is to stop just stupid crap like signing over something accidentally.

I'm willing to bet if your country has such a law the same would apply, since the overriding rule would be that you need a separate model release to allow an image of you to be used for commercial purposes.

 

[KmH]

The moment you actually enter the zoo they can use images of you and use your likeness to basically sell/promote the zoo as they see fit. In other words, they could take an image of you and print it on brochures, tshirts, posters, or whatever they choose, and you in essence have no say and would be unable to receive any compensation for their use of your likeness without your permission.

As mentioned they are claiming more than they are actually allowed, but it's a common practice to do so. They have the expectation that most people, thinking about the matter, will accept as gospel what they see in print.

Model release law varies by state but most require permission from, and the model be compensated in some way, if an image a person(s) will be used in a way that those people could be perceived as endorsing or sponsoring a business or organization.

Like anyone else, they can take your picture and sell it without your permission, because being in public view you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, there is a not well defined line where volume selling of your image could be considered distribution and they would then need your permission.

This part of law is not as well defined as is say, traffic laws.

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

Dude....I don't want my face on no T-shirt!! D:

Where is this zoo? You should take pictures of the zoo keepers and put their pictures on t-shirts.

 

[Overread]

I can sort of understand their latter part and I'm sure they consider the purchase of the ticket as your acceptance of their terms and conditions of entry to the zoo (since it is private property). However a lot of the time these terms and conditions are never stated to you upon entry and heck many zoo websites don't even have a specific terms and conditions of entry to read - so I can certainly see that this could be considered abusive.

 

[fwellers]

I'm not even sure I get the first part !
Why would they care what you do with pictures you take of their animals ? Are they worried that people will stop coming to the zoo because they'd rather look at your pictures ?

 

[Overread]

Nope but it protects them from you spending a day at their zoo and then selling your mugs, photos, calenders etc... with their animals in the photos. This can be both protection of their own financial interests (ie ensuring that they get suitable compensation/royalties from sales), but also for their image as well; as it allows them to both place a limit on the quality of commercial producats associated with their zoo; control the image of their zoo to the public (commercially speaking); and also to ensure that their zoo is represented correctly (some will log zoo/captive animal shots as wild even though they are not).

Also note that whilst you might think one tiger looks just like another such is not true - animals are just as varied in their appearance as people are and popular places will have animals that can be readily spotted by photographers and zoo keepers alike (as one guy found out recently when he tried to pass of a wolf jumping over a fence as a wild shot when infact it was taken under controled conditions in a zoo/enclousre).

All in all its quite a common clause and most large zoos and many smaller places have it in their Terms and Conditions of entry. Some of the smaller centres can often have more relaxed views/requirements and often as not will simply be happy to ensure that your photos are not presenting them in a bad light. Larger places might impose royalty costs or one time fees (depending on use) or might simple block all "unofficial" photos from being sold (they might be looking out for the finanacial interests of their own registered photographer or local pro)

 

[DennyCrane]

The zoo owns the animals. Zoos generally charge a fee to see the animals and if you go around selling pictures of the animals they own, they can conceivably lose revenue.

And when you're at the zoo, you are on their property. They have the right to take pictures of you and sell them, just as you could take a picture of them and sell it if they somehow found themselves in your kitchen.

 

[fwellers]

I see. Thanks.
To me it's just another case of corporations being greedy, anal, and taking things too far.
I guess we're lucky they allow cameras in their little animal jail. <grin>

 

[DennyCrane]

Well, you could always fly to Africa and see them in the wild. You'd then be free to photograph them without the pesky fences or evil corporations, man! That'd really stick it to them, fwellers! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

 

[skieur]

Like anyone else, they can take your picture and sell it without your permission, because being in public view you have no reasonable expectation of privacy..

They canNOT however use it for advertising the ZOO or anything else for that matter without a model release.

skieur

 

[pbelarge]

Like anyone else, they can take your picture and sell it without your permission, because being in public view you have no reasonable expectation of privacy..

They canNOT however use it for advertising the ZOO or anything else for that matter without a model release.

skieur

I am not sure, but the way the wording was on the phamplet they provide a person when they enter the zoo, I think that the ticket purchase acts as a release.
How many read the phamplet, I am not sure. I did. I also went to the Zoo regulation building and discussed my taking photographs, what I could and could not do. I will say the Bronx Zoo had very few restrictions and even allowed tripod usage.



I also vaguely remember part of the conversation was the feeding of the lions and tigers if I was to break the rules...

 

[Josh66]

Sounds like something that has to be decided by a judge.

I think the little disclaimer on the ticket is bull****, but you would have to argue that in court.

How many people do that? Not many, I bet.

On the rare occasion they lose the case, I'm sure they're not really out that much.