Zoo Animals and Coyright

Khaos

If you take a picture of an animal in a zoo, are you allowed to sell it, or do you need a release from the zoo?

dragon300zx

Depends on the zoo. Contact them directly to find out. The detroit zoo requires 15% or $450 which ever is greater for each photo sold after it was shot, or you can setup a commercial shoot and pay a fee starting at $450+ so as to not have to pay as much later on (hopefully).

Angelo

I know the San Diego Zoo always had posted prohibitions on the photographing of the pandas with expressed declaration of copyright to their images.

Khaos

Angelo wrote:

I know the San Diego Zoo always had posted prohibitions on the photographing of the pandas with expressed declaration of copyright to their images.

Well I know the Cleveland Zoo doesn't have any warning like that on its website nor anywhere in the park that I can find, but I believe it follows Detroit Zoos guide lines of $450 per photo per a conversation I had with someone that sold their photos to a greeting card company.

It gets to be a little bit of a PITA sometimes that everyone is supposed to know copyright law.

Well, I'm off to contact everywhere I've taken pictures at and find out their protocols involving photography.

Since I've tried twice to contact an institution with no reply in the last 3 months, and can find nothing about their copyrights on the birds thay have, what should I do? What am I allowed to do with a lack of response? What is considered by law their rights no matter what. I understand Zoos are private property, but if they let you take pictures, what are the rights on how you can use them without them giving you notice or their stance on copyright of their animals?

dragon300zx

The detroit zoo's policy is clearly stated on their website. If that zoo doesn't post a policy anywhere and wont return your calls...... I say leave another message saying you are selling these photos and they need to contact you within 24 hour they have any regulations regarding that sorta thing.

wxwax

Without checking... I believe a copyright owner is under no compulsion to post their copyright for it to be in effect.

Khaos

wxwax wrote:

Without checking... I believe a copyright owner is under no compulsion to post their copyright for it to be in effect.

Exactly. So how am I supposed to know under copyright law, what I can do?
Right now google is failing me in only finding copyright disclaimers at the bottom of web pages.

If this country wasn't so sue happy with the judges allowing everyone to sue like crazy over everything, I wouldn't worry so much, but getting stuck with a big fee I'm by law required to pay is not a surprise I want.

I't easy when it comes to the obvious, like logos and products or basicly anything someone has created, but animals aren't created by humans, and the ownership is the question in rights to a photographic image. And that's the question, are captive animals owned or just captive?

dragon300zx

Hence why you call them and give them the "Hey I'm doing this so you better call me" speech. Maybe that will get them off their lazy buts, or go there and ask to speak to the general manager.

Khaos wrote:

Exactly. So how am I supposed to know under copyright law, what I can do?
Right now google is failing me in only finding copyright disclaimers at the bottom of web pages.

If this country wasn't so sue happy with the judges allowing everyone to sue like crazy over everything, I wouldn't worry so much, but getting stuck with a big fee I'm by law required to pay is not a surprise I want.

I't easy when it comes to the obvious, like logos and products or basicly anything someone has created, but animals aren't created by humans, and the ownership is the question in rights to a photographic image. And that's the question, are captive animals owned or just captive?

Osprey Whisperer

Interesting topic for sure. Never gave it much thought before. I guess this idea might be taken a bit further. What about beaches and (animals)birds in the wild (of city limits) ?? If the area is designated a bird (animal) refuge or sanctuary...and owned/supported by the county/city,what rights do they have to "your" photos ?

Is it not the copyright owner's responsibility to prove you took the photograph of their "animals" in their zoo/park? How can they prove it's their animal unless there is come clear background identifying the zoo/park...or perhaps some unusual distinguishing mark on the animal. I suppose if there are only a couple know examples of a rare animal and only one in the country of photo origin...... and you have pictures of said animal.... you might get busted. Just seems it would be very difficult...and not worth the time/effort/money to chase you down for some photos of relatively common animals. That court case would be a joke IMO. Just make sure your shots are not showing any clear details of the park/zoo...and perhaps do some slight alteration in PS of any distinctive marks on the animals. Just some thoughts. Also...isn’t there some gray area for artistic interpretation of something? Perhaps again...some minor alterations (for art’s sake) using photoshop would get you out of trouble? I might be wrong

So sue me.


BMP

Angelo

This is less complicated than everyone is making it seem.

Keep in mind that you were on private property (zoo), shooting private property. That is the measure of their rights vs. your rights and they prevail.

If you are on a public street (beach, park etc etc) and shoot elements in clear sight from that public space then the law is on the photographer's side.

Khaos

Angelo wrote:

This is less complicated than everyone is making it seem.

Keep in mind that you were on private property (zoo), shooting private property. That is the measure of their rights vs. your rights and they prevail.

If you are on a public street (beach, park etc etc) and shoot elements in clear sight from that public space then the law is on the photographer's side.

But what if the zoo, like Cleveland, is funded by local tax dollars?

There is also the point of what if I'm invited onto your land, take a picture of a rabbit running through your yard. Do you have rights to that? My guess is you'd have to prove it was your grass in the shot.

I'm apt to go with what Mike said. I wouldn't be stupid enough to take shots of a zoo building or part of the zoo that is obvious and try to sell it. Almost all my shots of animals are about the animals. The environment they're in doesn't play much unless I feel it needs to.

I will still contact the insitutions for their stand. I won't hold my breath for a reply from the National Aviary though. Maybe I should address the e-mail with "I'm going to make a ton of money from bird photos I took at your place." I bet that will get a response.":D

My thing is that I'd be fine with splitting the profits from any sale. I can't afford to go to around the world tracking and photographing these animals in the wild and the zoos can always use money. The flat fee no matter what is a little steep and in the long run can have them earning less.

Angelo

Khaos wrote:

But what if the zoo, like Cleveland, is funded by local tax dollars?

There is also the point of what if I'm invited onto your land, take a picture of a rabbit running through your yard. Do you have rights to that? My guess is you'd have to prove it was your grass in the shot.

I'm apt to go with what Mike said. I wouldn't be stupid enough to take shots of a zoo building or part of the zoo that is obvious and try to sell it. Almost all my shots of animals are about the animals. The environment they're in doesn't play much unless I feel it needs to.

I will still contact the insitutions for their stand. I won't hold my breath for a reply from the National Aviary though. Maybe I should address the e-mail with "I'm going to make a ton of money from bird photos I took at your place." I bet that will get a response.":D

My thing is that I'd be fine with splitting the profits from any sale. I can't afford to go to around the world tracking and photographing these animals in the wild and the zoos can always use money. The flat fee no matter what is a little steep and in the long run can have them earning less.

Tax dollars; That's a point that sticks in my craw too. I believe most zoos are subsidized by municpal coffers but remain independant non-profit / charitable organizations. Zoo administrators have become savvy in the need to seek out operating funds in times of tight budgets. As you stated, you can't run around the world photographing wild animals, and they know it, they have a valuable and marketable commodity at their finger-tips. Hopefully creative negotiation on your part will result in an amicable agreement. Good luck.

Sam

I think your missing the boat here. The animals are not copyrighted, they are property. Now who owns the property is another issue. If funded by tax dollars, don't we, the peope have some say in the matter? (No of course not, but that's another story)

Typically I have seen resrtictions for commercial shoots. A commercial shoot being a planned event with products, crew, etc. and a clear commercial intent.

Taking photos of animals and then finding a few that you put up for sale at a later date I think would be a different matter, especially if nothing is posted and your allowed to photograph the animals.

I think any chages like $450 or 15% whichever is larger is designed for commercial shoots, not a guy selling 3 photos on Smugmug for $2.95.

Sam

Osprey Whisperer

Just photoshop a new background...that'll really mess up their court case.




Also....what if you flew over that private zoo in a helicopter and took pictures? Is the airspace the zoo's property? Innocent until proven guilty...in this country (suppose to be anyway) Let them chase me down...and prove beyond a reasonable doubt...I took the pic in their zoo.

BMP