Zoos, Gardens, Hot Air Balloons, Amusement Parks--legal to sell?

Smurphy

From: Shannon
www.mfactorphoto.smugmug.com

I am starting to get a headache and intractable case of paranoia about
selling images. :0 I've been reading various threads on Dgrin and the web, have a book on copyrights, & so on. But questions remain and perhaps someone can comment on/refer to specific references on the following

> I accept and understand that selling images of concerts, sporting
> events and so on is too grey and too fraught with high-priced
> attorneys to even "go there". I am content to leaving those as "view
> only."
>
> _But... what about zoo photos?_
> Discussion suggests that it is venue-specific and based on commercial
> vs non-commercial intent. But what constitutes "commercial use",
> anyhow? If my mom orders a print, it is considered "fine art"? But a
> t-shirt is somehow "commercial"? Can you positively ID a zebra,
> anyhow? Do I really have to risk life, limb and bank account to
> sell neat animal pictures?
>
> _Hot air balloons?_ I mean, they're in the public sky. But can
> someone theoretically say "hey, that's my balloon, it's a violation of
> my privacy rights?"
>
> _Florals or butterfiles from "private gardens"?_ Honestly. It's a flower. If I didn't spend all my free time on Smugmug now, perhaps I would have my OWN flowers to take pictures of....
>
> _Images of Disneyland?_ They get you coming and going when you're
> there...are photos just another another case?
>
Events without an official photographer?_ If someone is participating in
a show or event of some type (either paid admission or free) are his/her rights of privacy waived?

> Am not looking to widely publicize our work, just to do a few local
> craft shows and events per year. So--I don't imagine that in a
> practical sense, the legal subtleties matter as much as if I were
> canvassing the Internet. But. I want to keep things clean, legal,
> happy, and organized.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Sorry if I've missed specific posts on these topics, but "zoo" and "garden" weren't linking to much.

--Shannon

Dogdots

You are asking all the questions I have been wondering about. I see that no one has posted any response yet. I hope they do so we both can learn.

I have this awesome photo of a very big guy riding a motorcycle down a stretch of highway. I would like to use it, but don't know if I can. Anyone know if I can use this?

Smurphy

Motorocyclist
As I understand it, the primary consideration would be whether the face or person is recognizable. The second would be what your intended purpose is. There is a good example of a very similar scenario in a photography/copyright book that I have.... guy shoots picture of big mean Harley-guy, sells to stock agency, picture ends up in some ad with an unsavory feel and the cardiologist (who is actually the mean Harley-guy) sues for defamation of character. I believe the case was hypothetical, but it isn't hard to go "down that road". My problem is the incredible capacity to imagine "what if" ??? Will be interested to see what is posted on the topic... photoattorney.com is also a good site, and is referenced in a sticky on this forum, I thnk.

Angelo

there's a big ole sticky at the top of this forum that directs you to a host of resources about such issues

search is your friend

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=66709


I'm not an attorney but in broad stroke terms you have to understand that "commercial" means.... if you as the photographer, sell an image to a third party, be it General Motors or the local surf shop, for them to then use for commercial (advertising) purposes. For that you would need model releases, contractual permission from the venue, fees need to be paid to all parties involved, etc...

Generally speaking, any image you sell as a one off, is considered art and not subject to the same measure. No posters, no T-shirts, no mugs, just prints.

Smurphy

Saw the stickies...
Right... I did see and follow the resource links, just didn't see these specific instances covered (in either those links or on this forum). I will continue to research, but just thought I'd canvas the experts while I was here....

I just find it interesting that a random photo gift (like a coffee mug) purchased by a relative could constitute "commercial" purpose...even though there is nothing related to advertising in that sale.

Irony abounds..nothing new there!

Thanks,
shannon

Angelo

Smurphy wrote:

Right... I did see and follow the resource links, just didn't see these specific instances covered (in either those links or on this forum). I will continue to research, but just thought I'd canvas the experts while I was here....

I just find it interesting that a random photo gift (like a coffee mug) purchased by a relative could constitute "commercial" purpose...even though there is nothing related to advertising in that sale.

Irony abounds..nothing new there!

Thanks,
shannon

because in the strictest sense of the word you're in essense licensing the image to (in the case of smugmug) smugmug to manufacture a commercial product for sale to the public.

claudermilk

An answer on a couple of things. I know the Zoological Society of San Diego (the organization that runs the zoo and wil animal park) specifically prohibits sales of photos taken at their facilities--unless you've worked something out with them (i.e., they want a cut--sems fair, it's their animals & facility). I would assume others make the same stipulations. You paid to get in, so it's private property & they get to say what the policy is.

For the model release thing, I just ran across an article on that. http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-images-and-jupitermedia-get-goosed-by-lawsuit-2.html

Seems like a real-life instance of that hypothetical situation.

Angelo

claudermilk wrote:

An answer on a couple of things. I know the Zoological Society of San Diego (the organization that runs the zoo and wil animal park) specifically prohibits sales of photos taken at their facilities--unless you've worked something out with them (i.e., they want a cut--sems fair, it's their animals & facility). I would assume others make the same stipulations. You paid to get in, so it's private property & they get to say what the policy is.

For the model release thing, I just ran across an article on that. http://rising.blackstar.com/getty-images-and-jupitermedia-get-goosed-by-lawsuit-2.html

Seems like a real-life instance of that hypothetical situation.

I find it hard to believe the photogrpaher, unless a complete dumb-dumb, working for the Virginia State Fair, could shoot a set up like that without securing a model release in the first place, or that the State office didn't know enough to require one. :nono

cyclist

I always surprised at the number of people selling photographs for commercial purposes which are clearly taken within places that forbid this. On Smugmug there are photos being sold for “commercial use” that have been taken within places like Disneyland, Sea World etc. These theme parks and many others explicitly forbid any photos taken with the park being used for anything other than personal use. In fact one of the images that Smugmug uses on its site for promo purposes appears to be of the spinning Tea Cup ride at Disneyland.

claudermilk

Yeah, it seems that State Fair photographer made a big whoopsie, it just took a while to bite him.

I could swear I saw language to the effect of "no commercial use without permission" on WAP tickets. Looking at my membership card, it's not there, just that no commercial use of photos taken during visits is allowed. I can't imagine any of these organizations passing up opportunites to take a cut of any sales if you were to work something out. Worst case, you ask & they still say "no."

S. Horton

http://photoattorney.com/

Have a look, perhaps purchase the book.