photos at a zoo copyright

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Guest, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If I have paid my entrance fee to a zoo can I sell any photos of the
    animals I take or do I need the zoo's permission.
    Guest, Jun 21, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Trev Guest

    Did you get them to fill in a model release form? ;-D

    You need the zoo,s permission probably as you where on there property and
    photographing there property.
    As long as you are not showing the Zoo in a bad light I expect they would be
    happy for a mention
    Trev, Jun 21, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Bruce Guest

    If visitors are allowed to take photos, the zoo will almost certainly
    insist that they are taken only for personal use. This will be part
    of the Terms and Conditions of your visit which were no doubt
    available for you to peruse when you bought your ticket.

    You did read them, didn't you? Whether you read the Terms and
    Conditions or not, you are deemed to have accepted them by buying an
    entry ticket.

    You will certainly need the zoo's prior express permission to take any
    photos that you may intend to sell. Note I said "prior". They would
    probably take a severe view of you selling photos that you did not
    have specific advance permission to take. If taken without permission,
    the copyright in your images remains the property of the zoo, not you.

    If you go ahead and sell them, and the zoo finds out what you have
    done, you may find yourself in legal proceedings where the zoo will
    extract far more in royalties (image rights) than you ever got paid
    for your images. Furthermore, if any of your images, however
    inadvertently, show the zoo, its premises, its animals or its
    employees in a poor light, stand by for a lawsuit for defamation. Any
    members of the public shown in a bad light may also sue you for the
    same reason.

    Are you beginning to get the picture? Next time you consider going to
    the zoo, why don't you ask about image rights before buying a ticket?
    Bruce, Jun 21, 2008
  4. In the USA maybe. In Britain, unless photography is specifically
    forbidden, you can shoot and sell and many people do. And there is
    absolutely no law in Europe which assigns the copyright of any image to
    anyone except the photographer.

    We had an interesting situation with Alamy, Edinburgh Zoo and San Diego
    Zoo. I took koala pictures at Edinburgh Zoo (which makes no objection to
    the editorial sale/use of images, which must be marked as not property
    released) and Alamy withdrew them because I had identified the animals
    as on loan from San Diego Zoo, which expressly forbids any use of any
    pictures taken (in San Diego). The images were reinstated for sale, and
    have sold, because Edinburgh Zoo (and the Royal Zoological Society of
    Scotland) has no such policy, and San Diego Zoo has no jurisdiction over
    access (photographic or otherwise) to its loan animals. The current
    koalas at Edinburgh are on loan from a European zoo.

    Correct form is to identify the zoo clearly in captions, and ensure that
    commercial uses (advertising) are not permitted, and no royalty free
    sales either.

    I've even organised for Nikon to reprint multiple page articles
    featuring the zoo's staff photographer shooting with their gear - with
    pictures from me showing him in action - and the zoo didn't want money.
    In fact they later invited us to a VIP reception to photograph - the
    koalas from San Diego...

    Most zoos are desperate for visitors and welcome any and all publicity.
    That means that editorial pictures, amateur pictures in competitions,
    and similar uses have always been welcome. Very few take the draconian
    stance of banning freelance shooters from using pictures, and those that
    do are very clear about their position.

    Use of zoo pix for commercial (advertising, product endorsement etc) is
    a different matter but that is controlled by how you licence your images.

    We photograph zoos wherever we go, along with theme parks and other
    commercial attractions. They are vital for sales to the travel/tourism
    industry and they sell consistently. Our images have been used, with
    bylines, in UK national newspapers and magazines - I am sure the
    (private) attractions involved have seen them - never once in 40 years
    of selling images as a freelance has any such attraction ever sued me or
    complained in any way.

    David Kilpatrick, Jun 22, 2008
  5. Guest

    Chris H Guest

    For personal use no one tends to mind these days but... read on.

    You are not completely right . In England and Wales a Zoo is Private
    property and you would need permission as outlined above the same as the
    US. Much of the "public" space in the UK is in fact owned by some one
    who could say no to photos but in practice usually don't

    The UK magazine Digital Camera did a whole set of articles on this in
    the Feb 2008 edition. Including photographing Children
    Which is Scotland.... the Laws in Scotland are not the same as England
    and Wales... so your comment about "Britain" is incorrect anyway
    You have just proved Bruce's point. You could use the photos because
    Edinburgh Zoo SPECIFICALLY does not have a policy of no photography. It
    does not mean that Dundee Zoo and Glasgow Zoo will permit photography .
    As Bruce said Check PRIOR to taking the photos.
    Unless you have permission from the Zoo.. Ask them. At least you would
    know where you stand. Normally no one minds for personal non-commercial
    Yes... If you ask first. They may not be so happy if you don't
    Most are very clear but thanks to thousands of pedophiles and Islamic
    terrorists suddenly photographing children in potential bomb sites there
    is a lot of paranoia about. A lot of jobsworths and PCSO's at these
    now take the view that unless it says in big letters you can take
    photographs they will often try and stop you photographing.

    It is worth having the following documents with you

    UK photographers rights

    A letter from the home office in April 2008 saying there are no
    restrictions on Photography :)

    Both appertain to the UK (or at least England and Wales)

    for private places eg Zoos, churches, libraries, council playing fields
    etc if you ask them first they are usually a lot happier and will let
    you photograph unless you wear a turban, have a beard, dark skin or wear
    a dirty mac etc. :)

    Please note that terrorists and pedophiles, despite having mobile
    phones, laptops and cryptography who travel the world, are not capable
    of using street map, multi-map, google earth and the guide books
    containing maps, photos and Information Useful To A Terrorist or
    Pedophile etc etc :) and have to take their own pictures where they
    stand a chance of being caught on one of the many surveillance cameras
    in the UK.
    And how the Zoo also wants to control the images.
    So far.... however it sounds as though you are advertising them. It
    usually costs to get advertising so they will be happy.

    The problem is in the current level of terrorist/peadophile/PC paranoia
    and commercialism the knee jerk reaction is often "no"
    Chris H, Jun 22, 2008
  6. While RZSS and ZSL act much as private companies, their history is as
    societies. Edinburgh, London Zoo, Highland Wildlife Park and Whipsnade
    would find it difficult to act against a member unless something very
    serious had been done, taking a picture which was intended to be damaging.

    It pays to be a member of one of them anyway - I think we pay £65 a year
    for RZSS, and a couple of weeks ago that entitled us to free entry to
    Whipsnade - producing the membership card (which also acts as a useful
    photo ID) has secured discounted or free entry to several other zoos abroad.

    But - many zoos are private zoos and not owned by zoological societies,
    and the admission terms may specifically ban photography or
    professional/commercial photography.
    Here's a useful legal guide:

    produced in Scotland, but at this level of statute law, Scotland does
    not differ substantially from England and Wales. Common and case law
    differ a lot but Westminster and Brussels still rule.

    If photographers start getting paranoid about the legal risk of
    photographing almost anything or anyone without a permit, that's the end
    of photography, and also the end of a society worth living in.


    Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
    Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
    St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
    VAT Reg No GB458101463
    Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and - - - -
    Tel +44 1573 226032
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 22, 2008
  7. Guest

    Bruce Guest

    Much of the problem is caused by photographers asserting rights that
    they simply don't have, as in this case.
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2008
  8. Guest

    Mark Dunn Guest

    David knows whereof he speaks.
    Mark Dunn, Jun 22, 2008
  9. Guest

    Bruce Guest

    David is right in so many respects, however the massive increase in
    sales of DSLRs and digital compact cameras in recent years plus the
    publication of magazines that positively encourage street photography
    mean that there are far more photographers out there annoying people
    and, as I said, asserting "rights" that they don't have, especially on
    private land.

    For those of us who have practised street photography for many years,
    always with respect for other people, private property and the law, it
    is galling to find our freedom under threat because of inconsiderate
    and over-assertive photographers who show no such respect for others.
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2008
  10. Guest

    Chris H Guest

    I agree.

    Part of the problem is most do not know the law and you get idiots who
    think they can photograph any thing anywhere, anytime... one person (in
    another group) was saying he could photograph inside any church as it
    was Gods space and not private. It could not be private as people were
    allowed in... He got into a bust up with the security people as the
    abbey/cathedral had clear "no photography" signs .. they wanted to sell
    guide books, prints and post cards. Arguing like that gets
    photographers a bad name and the are less than helpful to the next
    photographer they see.

    It is where people think just because the public are there, churches,
    zoos, shopping malls, council owned playing fields and concerts they
    have an automatic *right* to photograph. Usually no one minds but
    there is no right as such in an owned space.

    I noticed the other month that the new Bullring in Birmingham has "No
    Photography" in the "public" areas. I meant to ask security about that.
    I wondered why the ban is there. Though it is pointless as 99.9999% of
    mobile phones have a 5MP still/video camera in them these days (or will
    do by next week :) so it must be impossible to police.

    On the other hand the Police (mainly PCSO's), schools and minor
    officials everywhere have gone overboard on the paranoia of terrorism
    and pedophiles and seem to think you can't photograph anything, anywhere
    at any time..... One photographer lost al his kit for a couple of weeks
    for using a telephoto lens and a tripod to take pictures of parliament
    across the Thames. Yes, the picture "everyone" has and from the place
    where 90% of TV crews shoot their "live from Parliament " news reports.

    Photographers need to defend their rights but it does no mean we should
    argue where there is clearly a real no photography ban in private
    places. If people break laws of this type the result is they get
    strengthened. Not a good idea and we end up worse than before. Though
    in this case, a zoo, it would be a civil matter not criminal. IMHO IANAL

    So if you want to take photos in a Zoo ask politely. You will in all
    probability be told "OK" (make a note of the name of who told you and
    the time, date and place) Some times you may be asked to sign a simple
    "non commercial " photography permit. If they say "no" you know where
    you stand so keep the 11th Commandment.

    I have no trouble at all apart from two occasions

    Once photographing a couple of buildings when an armed and armoured (as
    in military) convoy turned up to deposit bullion at the bank next door.
    They just asked me to delete any photos showing the faces of the police
    and the details of the convoy entering the bank. ie how the doors were
    operated and who did what.

    The other was also abroad photographing some tanks whilst serving in the
    military of a different country. :)
    Chris H, Jun 22, 2008
  11. Guest

    Chris H Guest

    I couldn't agree more.

    Though I am an amateur I always carry the leaflet on UK photographers
    rights, the Letter from the Home office, a model release and the sheet
    of paper with all the contact details of the news agency I have sent
    photos to.

    The legal stuff usually convinces most minor officials and the rest
    suggests I an a "real" photographer not a Terrorist with pedophile
    tendencies :)

    However on the other side the leaflet on UK law does explain about
    private property, obstruction and other things a photographer (or anyone
    else for that matter) could be caught out by if hanging around in a
    "public" place.

    Be polite and friendly is the best course of action and ask first...
    (then remember the 11th Commandment)
    Chris H, Jun 22, 2008
  12. Guest

    Bruce Guest

    "Thou shalt not get caught."
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2008
  13. Guest

    Chris H Guest

    Oh.... Is that what it is.:)

    .......I though it was sunny/16 rule. Honest Guv. :)
    Chris H, Jun 22, 2008
  14. Guest

    Bruce Guest

    I weighed up whether it was necessary to quote the 11th, but in view
    of the sheer number of idiots who make no effort to stay inconspicuous
    and who seem to thrive on disputes with Police and PCSOs, I thought it
    might be worth mentioning.
    Bruce, Jun 22, 2008
  15. Guest

    Chris H Guest

    I understand.

    The problem with the idiots is they will cause the law to be clarified
    and you can bet any money you like that due to the immanent and major
    threat of paediatricians and terrorists the law is going to be
    draconian and probably unworkable for our protection.
    Chris H, Jun 22, 2008
  16. Guest

    John Guest

    John, Jun 24, 2008
  17. Guest

    Trev Guest

    Trev, Jun 24, 2008
  18. Guest

    John Guest

    Sorry. I just read the last sentance. Didn't read about the comp.

    "You must be the author/copywrite holder of all images submited."

    When I read this I thought that it ment that I would be the copywrite holder
    and therfore own the photo.

    John, Jun 24, 2008
  19. Guest

    tinnews Guest

    It's "copyright", i.e. the rights over who copies it.
    tinnews, Jun 24, 2008
  20. Guest

    John Guest

    Sorry again. I just cut and pasted the whole sentence. I did not check the

    John, Jun 24, 2008
    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.