LA Zoo over the top?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Charles, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    The zoo is perfectly entitled to ask for the images not to be made
    printable. The rights to images taken on private land rest with the
    landowner unless the landowner expressly grants image rights to a
    photographer.

    A visitor to the zoo will not have had those rights granted to them.
    However, they will normally be entitled to make images for their own
    personal use.
     
    Bruce, Feb 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles

    LOL! Guest

    Is that what you do for all your "safari" snapshots? Your camera probably
    got pinched at a nearby zoo but you were too embarrassed to tell anyone.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Feb 25, 2010
    #3
  4. After having read enough of that crap at that link to see what prompted it,
    I'm now firmly convinced that the zoo was and is 100% in the wrong. If they
    don't want anyone taking images at their zoo for their own personal
    purposes, financial gain or otherwise, then they MUST ban all cameras on
    their private property. Failure to do so only lends to further gray-area
    disagreements. Let them explain to that 6 year-old why they can't bring in
    their birthday-present camera. That's their problem now.

    You either get to take photos there for any purpose at all, or none at all.
    They have ZERO right to limit or control your actions beyond the borders of
    their own property. It's called freedom, ever hear of it?

    They're control-freak hypocrites bent on manipulating the populace for
    their own gain, nothing more, nothing less.

    I had thought of visiting that zoo at some point, as a passing curiosity
    while in the area. But now? After they've made their true values public?
    Not on your life. They can go to hell for all I care. And I'll be sure to
    tell everyone I know to not patronize the control-freaks that own and run
    it.

    The same is true of that idiocy in France with their obnoxious Eiffel
    Tower. Either take it down or don't complain about people taking
    photographs of it for their own gain. You silly-assed french twits.

    Quite frankly, I think all zoos should be made illegal. Instead funds
    should be collected to purchase large tracts of land in the animal's native
    environments. That's the only way that species will be preserved. Rather
    than exploiting their demise under the guise of "saving species"--what a
    crock. All that they are teaching humanity is that it's okay to remove
    animals from their native habitats and exploit them, and putting them in
    environments where they won't even reproduce just for their own selfish
    financial gain, no matter how few are left.

    A hypocritical continuum, from self-proclaimed purpose to policy. That's
    all that the are and will ever be.
     
    Charles Chase, Feb 25, 2010
    #4
  5. The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the
    taxpayers.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #5
  6. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    That doesn't mean that members of the public are granted unlimited
    rights to sell prints of images that they take at the Zoo.

    Photography *for personal use* is fine, but the definition of personal
    use does not extend to selling prints.
     
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2010
    #6
  7. Charles

    NameHere Guest

    It does too. Unless you live in some communist country. Even the it affords
    the same.

    Are you that much of a kowtowing moron? Some spouse-beater would love
    finding something like you.
     
    NameHere, Feb 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Charles

    NameHere Guest

    It does too. Unless you live in some communist country. Even then it
    affords the same.

    Are you that much of a kowtowing moron? Some spouse-beater would love
    finding something like you.
     
    NameHere, Feb 25, 2010
    #8
  9. I don't see why selling photos of animals taken at a public zoo can be
    restricted by the zoo. It's not as if the photog needs a model release from
    the animal :) Really, it's a public, tax-payer funded zoo. The zoo cannot
    restrict selling of prints, IMO. They may say they can, they ma say photos
    are for personal use only, but that doesn't mean they have a legal right to
    do so. I doubt they do.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #9
  10. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    The fact the zoo is owned by an entity that is publicly supported does
    not make it "public" in the sense that you imply. For one thing, if
    it was public, there would be no need for an admission charge.

    Paying to gain admission entitles you to reasonable enjoyment of the
    facilities of the zoo, including photography for personal use. It is
    not reasonable to expect paying the admission fee to grant you
    commercial rights over any images you take while you are there.

    The zoo clearly has put in place a separate arrangement whereby
    photographers who wish to sell images taken at the zoo are asked to
    pay an additional fee.

    So I'm sorry, but the zoo is right. And no amount of libertarian
    posturing is going to make the zoo wrong. If you want to sell your
    LA Zoo pictures, pay up!
     
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2010
    #10
  11. Charles

    Martin Brown Guest

    Under the same laws in the UK if as seems likely they have the land that
    the zoo stands on vested in GLAZA then they can impose any restrictions
    they like on use of photographs taken whilst stood on their land.

    These bun fights only become serious when an advertising agency steps
    over the line and uses an infringing photo in a campaign or someone is
    selling prints. GLAZA are protecting their IP. You may not like it but
    it is theirs to protect if they own the land. There was a big one a few
    years back between an insurance company and an Oxbridge college. The
    landowner won and the entire ad campaign had to be pulled and pulped.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 25, 2010
    #11
  12. Charles

    J. Clarke Guest

    Does anybody know of relevant case law on this? Or any specific state
    or local statute?

    The fact that they scream and shout doesn't mean that they actually have
    a legal leg to stand on. But the fact that others here scream and shout
    "I've got a right" doesn't mean that they do either.

    Personally my reaction would be "So sue me."
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 25, 2010
    #12
  13. Charles

    Martin Brown Guest

    Why don't you try it and see what happens?

    The landowner has rights over what you can do when stood on their land.
    This can be used to restrict commercial use of photographs taken,
    although it is seldom prosecuted unless the landowner is very annoyed.

    It is a very capitalist restriction to preserve commercial image rights
    for the zoo to exploit to its full potential. Sales of images and
    licensing professional images for commercial use.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Feb 25, 2010
    #13
  14. And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it with
    their taxes and the admission fee.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #14
  15. Sorry, you are wrong about the admission fee making it "not public". It is
    a public zoo funded by the public. The admission fee simply goes towards
    the funding, just like the taxes do. It is still public. Our state parks
    are public even though we have to pay a fee to enter them. They are not
    private. The zoo has no right even though they may claim to. Simply
    putting in place a policy doesn't make anything legal. Even laws that are
    passed and enacted are later ruled to be illegal.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #15
  16. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    I didn't say that the admission fee made it "not public". But the zoo
    is entitled to make a charge for admission, just as it is entitled to
    make a charge for commercial photography.

    If you assert that it cannot legally make a charge for commercial
    photography, then you must also assert that it cannot legally make a
    charge for admission. That would be nonsense, wouldn't it?

    The zoo grants paying visitors a privilege by allowing photography on
    its land for personal use only, but that is a privilege, not a right.

    The zoo has chosen to assert its image rights, which it is entitled to
    do. It will sell you a licence to make images and sell them
    commercially, which is entitled to do. It will allow you to make
    images for your own personal use, which it is entitled to do. It will
    assert its right to prevent sale of images taken for personal use,
    which it is entitled to do.

    It has done all this for the overall benefit of the zoo, its owners
    and the public, which it is entitled to do.


    The zoo has every right.


    Then sue the zoo.


    Then sue them.


    A reminder: You don't own the zoo. You seem to think you do.
     
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2010
    #16
  17. Charles

    Bruce Guest


    If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee.

    You do not own the zoo.
     
    Bruce, Feb 25, 2010
    #17
  18. Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo?
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #18
  19. Charles

    Paul Furman Guest

    Try filming a TV commercial in any American city with recognizable
    modern architecture in it. Advertisers take their operations overseas or
    create elaborate sets and CG rather than pay the exorbitant copyright fees.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 25, 2010
    #19
  20. Apples and oranges. The only nonsense is in that statement is trying to
    connect the two.
    The question becomes "does the zoo have any image rights to assert?". Since
    it is a tax-payer funded, i.e.
    "public" zoo, then perhaps the tax payers have the image rights, not the
    zoo.
    What benefit is their to the public?
    No, the zoo should sue the photog whom they are demanding not print their
    images for sale. Let them challenge it.
    Uhh, that's how they are ruled as illegal or unconstituional. What part of
    that do you fail to understand?
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Feb 25, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.