LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Watching the Morons on 25 Feb 2010 19:06 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:06:39 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. > Then anytime an animal is mauling a visitor that falls into one of the pens, and those photos and video are sent to news agencies, the news agencies and photographers should all be locked up and put in jail. According to you. I bet "Funniest Home Videos" is shaking in their boots now with all those zoo clips they air. I should alert all the news agencies that just made tons of money by airing those photos and videos of that Orca killing the trainer. I cheered it on. Now that's one smart Orca! Well, not too smart. He should have got them _all_ a long time ago. >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: J. Clarke on 25 Feb 2010 22:04 On 2/25/2010 3:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > "Bruce"<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2jhdo5tu3k9q2a5g2rkqcrlv5298mcghop(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:36:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >> >>> "Bruce"<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:16fdo596he7faadvrlpdj98d6ma9lbn216(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it >>>>> with >>>>> their taxes and the admission fee. >>>> >>>> >>>> If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee. >>>> >>>> You do not own the zoo. >>> >>> Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo? >> >> >> Not you. ;-) > > That's right, but if I lived in LA then I would. The people of Massachusetts own the Massachusetts Turnpike, but there are still tolls on it. Owning something does not preclude charging a fee to use it.
From: Twibil on 25 Feb 2010 22:53 On Feb 25, 4:32 pm, D.J. <nocont...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > > > >Silly person, there's no such thing as unlimited freedom in a society. > >Never has been. Never will be. > > >Because the name for that social structure is "anarchy", and it > >doesn't work. > > Hey clueless one, you already live in a world of anarchy. No, silly person, I don't. And neither do you. But if you really think otherwise, I suggest you go out and try intentionally ignoring every law you can think of. Who knows? Maybe you'll *enjoy* living in a small cell with a 300 pound roomie named "Bubba" who thinks you have pretty lips.
From: Martin Brown on 26 Feb 2010 04:42 J. Clarke wrote: > 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? In the UK yes. The landowner gets to make the rules about what you can and cannot do when stood on their land. Including take photographs or subsequent use of those photographs through image rights. I expect the same landowner laws or an equivalent exist in the USA. The last time I can recall one actually going to court was in the late 1970's Refuge Assurance vs King's College, Cambridge. The disputed photo was of a punt on the river with the college in the background, and provably taken from private land. The college won. > > 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. It is extremely Commie of these hardcore Libertarians to want to trample over the landowners rights. > > Personally my reaction would be "So sue me." Usually stopping taking any more photos when challenged is good enough. Provoking an unnecessary confrontation wastes time. Regards, Martin Brown
From: bugbear on 26 Feb 2010 04:57
D.J. wrote: > There is not ONE single law in the whole world that can be enforced on any > human if they don't want it to be. I thing you under estimate the power (in many senses) of governments. I don't WANT to pay tax. But I do. Consider this a disproof by counter example of your assertion. BugBear |