LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 25 Feb 2010 11:06 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:50:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >"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. 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!
From: Martin Brown on 25 Feb 2010 11:32 Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > "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. 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
From: J. Clarke on 25 Feb 2010 11:41 On 2/25/2010 10:50 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > "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. 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."
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 25 Feb 2010 12:42 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:rg7do59vk85t6dp6tl8c4gem3destjvsgh(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:50:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" > <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > >>"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. > > > 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! 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.
From: Bruce on 25 Feb 2010 13:08
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:42:02 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote >> 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! > > >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. 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 no right even though they may claim to. The zoo has every right. >Simply putting in place a policy doesn't make anything legal. Then sue the zoo. >Even laws that are passed and enacted are later ruled to be illegal. Then sue them. A reminder: You don't own the zoo. You seem to think you do. |