Zoo requires ME to pay a license fee for MY photos! (pics)

[Paul Richman]

Below are some of my favorite shots from recent visits to the Denver Zoo. C & C welcome. All except the last 3 are D3 + Nikkor 200 - 400 VR lens, sometimes with the TC 17E II, and mostly at ISO 1600, usually on mono-pod. The clarity and sharpness of this lens is just plain frightening. I LOVE this lens.

The Denver Zoo's policy is to require their written permission for commercial use of photos taken at the zoo. This seems wrong-headed to me. Is it legal? Do they have such legal rights? Do you know of any other zoo with such a policy?

I'm currently negotiating fees with them. Their normal fee is $250 PER PHOTO for me to have the right to sell MY zoo images in my gallery. YIKES!

























--
Paul Richman
http://PixelsByPaul.COM

 

[Anthony32599]

They may be your photos, but they are their animals.

Anthony

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

 

[rcdp]

Well... it is their zoo

 

[harry]

Why not hire yourself as a freelance photographer for the zoo and strike a deal with them? If you don't use your zoo photos for commercial purposes, I don't think there's any problem. If you do (and since you have such nice equip most of us just would drool upon), I believe the zoo would appreciate your work to promote the zoo activities/animals.
--
Harry

 

[carlsgenome]

If you sell a picture of my house I don't get to charge you $250. The big internet companies have been doing exactly that.

Seems misguided of them to attempt to charge, an ounce of thought on their part and they would be begging good photographers to make a living selling pictures of their zoo animals.

The court case of the guy who took pictures of the entire California coastline, with a helicopter and a D1 (?), comes to mind. He prevailed against Barbara Streisand, whose house was included.

Check out http://www.californiacoastline.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect if you think it may be relevant.

Good luck.

 

[Greg Zillgitt]

Since the Denver Zoo is a public institution funded by the people through taxes (some involuntary), fees and memberships, it seems to me that it shouldn't be allowed to restrict photography (other than for safety reasons). The zoo belongs to the people and that includes you.

If it were a private institution then it would be another kettle of fish.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi/wedding_portrait

 

[Flashlight]

--
Philip

 

[PHOTOFORUM 1]

Sounds like they are trying to make money off of your pictures. Did you pay an entrance fee to enter the zoo? If so i'd say they have a weak case.
--
Milt

 

[Ellis Vener]

Below are some of my favorite shots from recent visits to the Denver
Zoo. ...

The Denver Zoo's policy is to require their written permission for

commercial use of photos taken at the zoo. This seems wrong-headed
to me. Is it legal?

Yes it is.

Do they have such legal rights?

Yes they do. Just because it is a city owned facility and at least partly supported by taxes doesn't mean they give up their property rights.

Do you know of any other zoo with such a policy?

Yes I do. Most large zoos have these policies.

The way I'd approach is to make a note on your photos that for commercial (meaning not editorial, and not individual print sales -- just deiffernt forms of advertising and bulk poster sales) a property use fee of $250 is required. Yo ucould either make that explicit as aline item in the stock licensing invoice or just bury it in creative fee.

 

[Mike Oliver]

First nice pics. Even nicer equipment - you must have gotten some stares.

2nd - it is irrelevant who "owns" the animals. There are no copyrights in live animals because they are not fixed (I'll leave for another day whether a copyright can exist in a stuffed animal in a pose)

3rd - here is the real issue. When you purchased a ticket to "access" the zoo, there may have been an agreement you entered into, which may have said either no pictures, or no "commercial use" of pictures. For example, if there is a sign in the front that says "you agree to the restrictions printed in the brochure when you purchase a ticket" that can be a contract.

4th - If** there was a contract and it prohibited commercial use, then . . . the issue is what remedy they would have for a breach. Their remedy could be all of the profits you make on sale of the images, impounding or destruction of the images etc.

If there was no contract or it did not restrict what you could do with the pictures or did not prohibit picture taking, then I am at a loss on what grounds they would have to sue you for commercial use. One other basis might be if there is a law that requires a license from them. You are deemed to "know" the law, even if in fact you don't.

In another thread a question was asked about the right to sell pictures of barn, and there was some incredibly bad information given out to the OP. I always suggest you contact a copyright lawyer who can discuss this with you, call the Professional Photographer's Association (as I recall they have good info on this) or do more research online.

I am amazed at how many people capitulate to pay things that they simply do not owe (and also to how many people think they have an absolute right to do something without a license when they clearly need one). Its impossible to tell which one of these camps you are in because of not knowing whether there was a contract or whether there is a law that applies.

--
Mike Oliver

 

[EASY999]

They may have the right to ask but you also can say that you are not a commercial photographer.Are they really going to be able to track you down and say that the photo you sold was one of their animals? Anyway this would be a civil matter.You can not copyright an ape or a bird .

 

[Canadianguy]

The issue is not who owns the animals but where you shot the animals from.

You shot the animals on private property - if you shot them from public property than you would of been fine. I think that was how the internet companies gets away with selling pictures of houses without paying anyone - the pictures were taken from public spaces.

The Streisand case, I believe was about the right to privacy not about charging a fee for right to sell photos.

In Canada, you are supposed to get a permit before you can shoot in Banff. How they enforce it is questionable but if you start selling photos of Banff and it gets a lot of attention - I am sure they will come after you. If you keep it under the radar screen and sell small - no one will be the wiser.

http://www.parcscanada.pch.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/plan/plan10_E.asp

 

[EASY999]

When you go to a national state park which is not a privately owned business they dont tell you pay up for any pictures taken their and sold. Zoos that are not privately owned have to be the same way.

 

[Paul Richman]

Most helpful, even though your replies span the entire gamut.

Their policy seems ripe for some kind of class action suit. Any lawyers out there who want to take it on?
--
Paul Richman
http://PixelsByPaul.COM

 

[JasonOdell]

It's all in how you interpret "commercial use".

For example, if I go and photograph the flowers at the Denver Botanic Garden, there is no fee or restriction. But if I bring a model to the same facility with the intent of producing a commercial shoot using the garden as a setting, then I need to pay a fee to use the facility in that manner. I've been to the Denver Zoo armed with D2X and 70-200. No one questioned me or made me pay any fees.

I generally equate "commercial shoot" with advertising campaigns, model shoots and the like. I could be wrong.

-Jason

--
Author, 'The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX 2.0'
http://www.luminescentphoto.com/nx2guide.html

Author, 'The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX'
http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html

Visit my website at: http://www.luminescentphoto.com

 

[Lord of the Badgers]

Paul,

Ellis Vener's response is spot on to UK law certainly, so doubt it's different over there.

yep, zoos are private property, and they have their own restrictions which they can impose on photographers. as a general rule, private use is fine, but you'll need permission for commercial usage, and they are entitled to charge a fee.

Check with the zoo first

I highly doubt any lawyer would take it on mate

Most helpful, even though your replies span the entire gamut.

Their policy seems ripe for some kind of class action suit. Any
lawyers out there who want to take it on?
--
Paul Richman
http://PixelsByPaul.COM

--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
----------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/lord_of_the_badgers/

 

[Christian Wagner]

Most helpful, even though your replies span the entire gamut.

Their policy seems ripe for some kind of class action suit. Any
lawyers out there who want to take it on?

On what grounds? Most public places have this exact same policy.

Would you mind if I took your pictures you posted and sold them and kept all of the money? I'm guessing the answer is that you would mind and you think you should be compensated. But why is that? Because you did the work on them? You bought the camera, you went to the location, you clicked the shutter, and you did the PP work?

Well someone else built the zoo, someone else gathered the animals, someone else cares for the animals, so why should you be able to make money off of somethign someone else provided? Because you clicked a shutter? Your entrance fee does not entitle you to profit from a photograph.

Out of curiosity, how did this even come up? In other words, why are they asking you to pay? Did you ask them if you could sell them? Or did you try to sell these pictures to them?

--
Christian Wagner
http://www.lifevicarious.com
448 Days Around the World

 

[LarryK]

Somebody's got to feed all those critters.

Larry

 

[LarryK]

If you sell a picture of my house I don't get to charge you $250. The
big internet companies have been doing exactly that.

Seems misguided of them to attempt to charge, an ounce of thought on
their part and they would be begging good photographers to make a
living selling pictures of their zoo animals.

The court case of the guy who took pictures of the entire California
coastline, with a helicopter and a D1 (?), comes to mind. He
prevailed against Barbara Streisand, whose house was included.

Did she have to pay "through the nose" for court costs? (couldn't resist). The rich don't own the coast, although a lot of them think and act like they do.

Larry

 

[Paul Richman]

... You make some good points.

The Zoo offers special events for photographers, and on the event ticket and on their website for the events, they display the following text:

"Photos taken at Denver Zoo are for your personal use only (including recreational use and photo contests). Commercial photography (for profit-making like stock photography) is prohibited without written permission from our Marketing department. Commercial photography fees start at $250 per image."

Being a good citizen, I contacted them about this, and am currently discussing it with them.
--
Paul Richman
http://PixelsByPaul.COM