Images captured in a Zoo

[white.elephant]

General question: My wife captured some lovely images of giraffes in a zoo while we were visiting there one day. One image in particular was really quite lovely of a mother giraffe and her child. She was considering entering that image in a contest sponsored by a greeting card publisher. If she wins, she would get no compensation but the card would be available for purchase online and in stores, so obviously the greeting card company would make money.

She asked me whether she could enter that image in the contest because it was captured on the grounds of that zoo. In other words, what rights to the image does she have owing to the circumstances in which it was captured?

Any help or advice would be appreciated.

 

[Rick A]

If there is nothing indicatig any specific zoo, no signs or other markers, I dont see any problem. So, if her photos are location non-specific, and you cant tell where it was taken, go for it.

Rick

 

[billbretz]

If she wins, she would get no compensation but the card would be available for purchase online and in stores, so obviously the greeting card company would make money.

Sounds like the card company is the only winner. Avoid.

 

[taulen]

Watch PhotoshopUser TV Episode 168 / 169 / 170 with Ed Greenberg, they are discussing the exact situation in one of the episodes, ergarding photgraphing in a zoo, and the use of sai images.
It's photoshopusertv.com and probably not the most watched on this forum, but in this case, it's regarding legal-advice, so hope the link/information is okey.

 

[2F/2F]

Was it a public (e.g. city) zoo or a private one?

 

[DanielStone]

Sounds like the card company is the only winner. Avoid.

+1. if you'd like to see her photograph on A card, get one of those "uplo@d your file through the internet" places and have some printed.

making someone rich off of her shot isn't nice in MY book, but that's me.

-Dan

 

[white.elephant]

I agree with many of you about what should be done with the image, but what we were wondering about was, regardless of her decision, whether the zoo had any rights. 2F/2F, it was the Phoenix City Zoo, which charges admission. I'm not sure whether that would make it public or private.

 

[Eric Rose]

From the PHX Zoo's website:

Phoenix Zoo Non-Commercial Photography/Video Policy
The Phoenix Zoo encourages visitors to take personal video or still photographs while enjoying their Phoenix Zoo visit. All images and videos taken by guests and patrons are allowed free of charge so long as the images are used for a personal, noncommercial purpose. All photographs should be taken from designated visitor viewing areas, or within the boundaries as it relates to special programs, engagements, etc. and the Phoenix Zoo has the right to withhold or withdraw consent to photograph and video or to reproduce photographs or video of Phoenix Zoo and related property, which includes zoo exhibits, animals and buildings or otherwise defined.

By entering the Phoenix Zoo, all guests, patrons, employees and volunteers agree that photographs and videos of animals and other property at the Phoenix Zoo may not be used for commercial profit, for publicity, or for any other purpose that commercially or publicly exploits the photos and videos, including posting the images on the Internet.

 

[white.elephant]

Well, gosh, then they'll have to come get me and lock me up, because I certainly have posted the images I took there on the internet (my web site). Thanks to everyone who responded and helped us.

 

[hoffy]

Well, gosh, then they'll have to come get me and lock me up, because I certainly have posted the images I took there on the internet (my web site). Thanks to everyone who responded and helped us.

Are you selling the images? If not, it still may be classified as "personal enjoyment". I have contacted organisations in the past (mainly motor sport, but the same kind of rules apply) and basically they are happy unless you are using the images to make cash, which they may otherwise be making (well, that was my read of it!)

 

[Steve Smith]

It's a tricky one. You can certainly use the image to enter the competition. If you win however, the card company may be in trouble with the zoo owner if they try to sell cards with the image on (assuming that the zoo owner ever found out about it).


Steve.

 

[billbretz]

the card company may be in trouble with the zoo owner if they try to sell cards

Don't assume the card company would be on the hook solely. "Contests" like this often try to put this sort of responsibility back on the photographer. Check the language of the rules carefully. Probably some legalese in there that is particularly burdensome on the photographer. Another reason to avoid it completely.

I know the OP doesn't want to talk about this part of the issue, but this is important. Frankly, it's not much of a contest (based on the info at hand). It's a rights grab. Send us your photos, we'll pick what we want, declare you a winner, give you little to nothing else (we already know no money is awarded) and you may even be in some sort of legal hot water. Is it likely the zoo would take nasty action? Probably not in the real world. Then again, remember that lawyers make better livings then photographers!

 

[Vonder]

I'm not sure what the zoo gets out of a policy like this. Say Bob takes a great picture of a lion cub rolling off its mother's back. Super image, amazing timing, etc. The zoo isn't offering to buy it, they're simply preventing him from selling it, despite the fact there's little to no chance the zoo has, or could take (and then sell) a similar image. So they aren't losing any "lion cub rolling off its mother's back" image sales because they don't have any to sell. The world is thus denied an amazing image, and instead must buy a boring picture of the lions from the zoo.

What exactly is Bob to do with his super image? Give it away? Maybe enter it in a greeting card contest? I mean heck, he's not being paid for the image. He's giving it away. Can't he give it to anyone he wants? Can't he make 4 BILLION prints of it and stand outside the zoo every day and give copies to everyone who enters, asking them NOT to buy animal pictures inside the zoo?

 

[Q.G.]

A zoo keeps animals, and charges people a fee to enjoy looking at them. Investment and return.
If you take pictures of their animals, and then use those pictures of their animals to make money, the extra return is all yours. They don't like that. And i don't blame them.
Just like models want to earn a bit when you earn a bit selling photos they feature in, so does the zoo.

That "the world is denied [etc.]" thing doesn't fly.
As long as you don't use it to make money, you are allowed to show the world that amazing image as much as you like.

 

[Vaughn]

But I bet there is a clause on the entry form that states the photographer must own all the rights to the entered image. Based on that premise, the photo can not be entered -- and if entered, it could be considered entered fraudently (if that is the word). The card company, if caught publishing the image, just has to show the entry form to prove that the photographer, by entering (and perhaps signing paperwork giving the card company the rights to the image) stated that he/she owned all the rights to the image.

Vaughn

Added: If the card company got sued by the zoo, I bet the card company would come gunning for the photographer to cover all their costs. And the photographer probably would end up paying for legal costs for all three sides -- his/her own, the card company's and the zoo's.

 

[Vonder]

A zoo keeps animals, and charges people a fee to enjoy looking at them. Investment and return.
If you take pictures of their animals, and then use those pictures of their animals to make money, the extra return is all yours. They don't like that. And i don't blame them.
Just like models want to earn a bit when you earn a bit selling photos they feature in, so does the zoo.

That "the world is denied [etc.]" thing doesn't fly.
As long as you don't use it to make money, you are allowed to show the world that amazing image as much as you like.

Oh, I can totally see sharing the revenue with the zoo. That's perfectly fine. But as I read the policy, that's not even an option. No selling images of their animals, period.

So, the zoo can lose money (by photographer handing out free copies of his prints outside the zoo) but can't make money because they prohibit commercial use. That's insane, to me.

 

[Q.G.]

Oh, I can totally see sharing the revenue with the zoo. That's perfectly fine. But as I read the policy, that's not even an option. No selling images of their animals, period.

So, the zoo can lose money (by photographer handing out free copies of his prints outside the zoo) but can't make money because they prohibit commercial use. That's insane, to me.

I doubt that. If you want to use images made in the zoo commercially, probably all you need to do is inform the zoo beforehand, and come to an agreement. They will like the opportunity to make an extra buck as much as anyone.

 

[Vaughn]

Their photo policy also seems to try to protect themselves against images being made by anti-zoo groups and individuals. And to have some control of any negative PR. As a zoo -- shit happens. Say, someone catches a hurt animal on a phone or digicam, for example, the zoo can ask/demand for its removal from the internet if it shows up there. Not that I think the zoo monitors the net that closely, but if something pops up in the radar, they have to something to protect their (copy)rights -- or risk losing them.

Did the French extend this by law to images of buildings, etc? A building being a copyrighted object, or something like that. Can one sell an image of the Eiffel Tower in France without permission of the architect or right-holder?

Vaughn

 

[Rob Skeoch]

I know at the Toronto Metro Zoo, they maintain "Copyright" of all the animals in the zoo. You can't sell anything.

In this particular case it sounds like the company is using photographers.

-rob