LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Twibil on 25 Feb 2010 03:04 On Feb 24, 4:37 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > > > LA Zoo probably has a desk jockey searching all the photo sharing sites > for references to the LA Zoo. When they find them, they send out the > threat e-mail. > It seems the solution is not to tag the shots, or label the gallery > "LA Zoo", or reference the zoo in any way. Just call them "Vacation > shots", "Incarcerated Animals" or "Animal Excursion 2010", I doubt the > Zoo image police will even find them. > > Problem solved. Thanx for pointing that out. It's the obvious solution to the problem once you hear it, but a lot of people probably wouldn't have thought of it otherwise. ~Pete
From: Twibil on 25 Feb 2010 03:26 On Feb 24, 11:44 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...(a)cia.gov> wrote: > > > > LOL! > > Well at least we have seen some of his shots. > I won't hold my breath waiting for any of your showing up in the near > future. Or ever. Relevant trivia: Among newspaper staffers it's common knowledge that you can tell a letter-to-the-editor has been penned by a guaranteed slab-sided gold-plated fruitcake if it includes the phrase "WAKE UP, AMERICA!". Likewise, Usenet contributors can safely assume lunacy on the part of anyone who regularly uses "LOL!" to try to build up his ego at the expense of others. Just like the "WAKE UP, AMERICA!" crowd, the DSLR troll is full of SOUND and FURY but signifies................................nothing.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 25 Feb 2010 07:30 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" > <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >> > > > 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. The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the taxpayers.
From: Bruce on 25 Feb 2010 08:10 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:30:19 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>> >> >> >> 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. > >The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the >taxpayers. 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.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 25 Feb 2010 10:50
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:vgtco5p1pt7hh9llmt3aef80jd983ni9gh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:30:19 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" > <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >>> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >>The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the >>taxpayers. > > > 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. 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. |