If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
Hello all,
I just had a few odd questions. I was wondering about release requirements. I have been going to a few zoos and have shot a hell of a lot of film. A few shoots I think I could sell. but I am not sure if I am allowed to or not. Kind of in a quandary. Is a property release required for selling of a shot of an animal? No humans and very little terrain being my norm. Do zoos ever purchase shots from people who swing through and take photos? I am just wondering do to how much every person I have shown a few of my penguin chick pics to have fallen in love (male) or melted (female). My fiancée is pushing me to see if I can sell a few, or she can collage a few and make a poster (she is MY penguin fanatic). I also have baby rhinos, giraffes, elephants, etc. And of course. I go see them all the time (I even proposed in a penguin exhibit). Thanks for any suggestions in advance! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
"Robert Meyers" wrote in
: Hello all, I just had a few odd questions. I was wondering about release requirements. I have been going to a few zoos and have shot a hell of a lot of film. A few shoots I think I could sell. but I am not sure if I am allowed to or not. Kind of in a quandary. Is a property release required for selling of a shot of an animal? No humans and very little terrain being my norm. Do zoos ever purchase shots from people who swing through and take photos? I am just wondering do to how much every person I have shown a few of my penguin chick pics to have fallen in love (male) or melted (female). My fiancée is pushing me to see if I can sell a few, or she can collage a few and make a poster (she is MY penguin fanatic). I also have baby rhinos, giraffes, elephants, etc. And of course. I go see them all the time (I even proposed in a penguin exhibit). Thanks for any suggestions in advance! First off, there are no specific rules or laws concerning this. They can not only change from area to area, but the interpretation may be up to an individual judge as well, and precedents can be found for just about anything. That said, in most cases, owned animals are considered "property" and as such, frequently require a model release for commercial usage. Most zoos fall very firmly into this category - the property is private, and access is by permission. The zoos that I have spoken with have all required releases, and moreover, did not want to issue a 'blanket' release to photographers. They have a reputation of their own to protect, and zoos have come under fire before from animal activists and such. So they work to prevent images from being published that might have a negative impact on themselves and their work, and this can only come from controlling the usage. As for sales to the zoo, you can but try. This might be a lot harder than you imagine. Many have their own staff photographers or preferred providers, and they are inundated with photos from people attempting the same thing. Many also have a limited budget, so while they might accept donated images, they may not offer much, if any, pay at all for the shots. The best approach is a highly professional one. Put together a very slick portfolio, contact the PR department, and ask if you can arrange a meeting. Show them what you have, ask them very politely what they require and will allow, and see if you can work out a deal with them. Make sure you understand their position on things and be willing to respect that. Give them a few nice shots, no restrictions, for their trouble, *if* they appear willing to work with you. Just make sure they don't have exclusive rights (which means they own the shot from that point on and you can't use it anywhere else). By getting on good terms and knowing the people there personally, you'll have a major advantage to getting releases, and quickly, which is a necessity to many publications (who seem to operate perpetually on the fine-edge of deadline). Good luck! - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:
First off, there are no specific rules or laws concerning this. They can not only change from area to area, but the interpretation may be up to an individual judge as well, and precedents can be found for just about anything. Lets see some precedents of Zoo's suing photographers. That said, in most cases, owned animals are considered "property" and as such, frequently require a model release for commercial usage. Most zoos fall very firmly into this category - the property is private, and access is by permission. I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Only humans have rights. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. This is just MHO. The zoos that I have spoken with have all required releases, and moreover, did not want to issue a 'blanket' release to photographers. They have a reputation of their own to protect, and zoos have come under fire before from animal activists and such. So they work to prevent images from being published that might have a negative impact on themselves and their work, and this can only come from controlling the usage. Sure that is what the Zoo's are going to say, but does that mean that a photographer HAS to have model /property releases? Has there been any documented case where any Zoo actually sued a photographer and let alone actually winning the case. I highly doubt it. Show it to me. -- PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
PWW writes:
I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Only humans have rights. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. This is just MHO. That's an interesting statement. Kindly give the citations for this statement; what are the articles and where can I find them? -- Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@ http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
As I said I saw it somewhere on some professional email list. There are some
links on a google search but I don't have the time to go through them. It just made sense to me. It's like, I also read that, you don't need a release for a dead person, because they can't be harmed. But take it for what it's worth. It's My Humble Opinion. Could be wrong. PWW On 3/15/04 11:14 PM, in article , "Phil Stripling" wrote: PWW writes: I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Only humans have rights. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. This is just MHO. That's an interesting statement. Kindly give the citations for this statement; what are the articles and where can I find them? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
I think something else needs to be "factored in" here ... namely that *most* Zoos are
somehow publicly funded, or run by some form of Government body. At least that's the way it seems to be here in the USA. "PWW" wrote in message ... As I said I saw it somewhere on some professional email list. There are some links on a google search but I don't have the time to go through them. It just made sense to me. It's like, I also read that, you don't need a release for a dead person, because they can't be harmed. But take it for what it's worth. It's My Humble Opinion. Could be wrong. PWW On 3/15/04 11:14 PM, in article , "Phil Stripling" wrote: PWW writes: I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Only humans have rights. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. This is just MHO. That's an interesting statement. Kindly give the citations for this statement; what are the articles and where can I find them? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
Kibo informs me that PWW stated that:
"Al Denelsbeck" wrote: That said, in most cases, owned animals are considered "property" and as such, frequently require a model release for commercial usage. Most zoos fall very firmly into this category - the property is private, and access is by permission. I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Well no, of course not. It's not the property that has the rights, it's the owner. Only humans have rights. Or corporate entities. If you're not clear on the difference, try publishing a photo containing an image of Mickey Mouse(tm), & I'm quite sure that the Disney laywers will be very, very eager to explain the similarities to you. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. Unless you wish to avoid being sued by the owners of the thing you took a photo of, that you tried to publish... This is just MHO. Indeed. The zoos that I have spoken with have all required releases, and moreover, did not want to issue a 'blanket' release to photographers. They have a reputation of their own to protect, and zoos have come under fire before from animal activists and such. So they work to prevent images from being published that might have a negative impact on themselves and their work, and this can only come from controlling the usage. Sure that is what the Zoo's are going to say, but does that mean that a photographer HAS to have model /property releases? No - as long as you have the funds to cope with being sued to within an inch of your life. Has there been any documented case where any Zoo actually sued a photographer and let alone actually winning the case. No idea. I wouldn't be silly enough to risk it, & I doubt that many other photographers would be either. I highly doubt it. Show it to me. How many documented cases can you show me where someone has been sued for taking a **** on the golden arches on top of the McDonalds HQ, then taking a photo of it? - None? Well then, I guess that proves it's legal to do so, eh? -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
PWW wrote in
: "Al Denelsbeck" wrote: First off, there are no specific rules or laws concerning this. They can not only change from area to area, but the interpretation may be up to an individual judge as well, and precedents can be found for just about anything. Lets see some precedents of Zoo's suing photographers. You're welcome to do the searches yourself. And it's a moot point either way. It's not whether it's actually occurred before (See what I said about precedents and judges decisions), it's whether the publisher wants to stick their own neck out. And bluntly, the publisher, with the larger insurance package, is gonna take the hit. It's easy enough to research the number of animal photo publishers that specifiy "no owned animal shots accepted without releases". That said, in most cases, owned animals are considered "property" and as such, frequently require a model release for commercial usage. Most zoos fall very firmly into this category - the property is private, and access is by permission. I am not to sure about this statement. I have read elsewhere and it makes sense to me that this type of "property" really does not have rights. Only humans have rights. So unless it is a trademarked image a release is not really necessary. This is just MHO. Humans and corporations - same thing from a law standpoint in a case like this. And in the event that a photo has been used in such a way as to be considered detrimental to the human or corporation, through reputation or defamation or even association, yes, there's plenty of precedents. The zoos that I have spoken with have all required releases, and moreover, did not want to issue a 'blanket' release to photographers. They have a reputation of their own to protect, and zoos have come under fire before from animal activists and such. So they work to prevent images from being published that might have a negative impact on themselves and their work, and this can only come from controlling the usage. Sure that is what the Zoo's are going to say, but does that mean that a photographer HAS to have model /property releases? Has there been any documented case where any Zoo actually sued a photographer and let alone actually winning the case. I highly doubt it. Show it to me. Why? Is it your approach that ignorance is an acceptable excuse? You take the responsibility for your actions as a professional, and part of that is maintaining good relations with your bread and butter. Even been to a venue where cameras weren't allowed, such as a concert? Ever wonder why that was? The situation arises from a few photographers who feel they'll dare the system to come down on them, and act in defiance of the wishes of the subjects or representatives. Everybody suffers. The same issue comes up when papparazzi are discussed. And it was in this group a couple years ago that the extremely heated discussion concerning Mike Fatali's behavior at Delicate Arch kicked around several times. I seem to recall it was overwhelmingly in favor of lynching the guy because of his transgressions, and nature photographers were exceptionally concerned with how badly their *own* reps, and future access to parks and monuments, was going to be adversely affected by association. Call it the way you see it - doesn't matter to me. I've given my advice and will continue to support it, regardless of whether anybody believes there's a significant legal risk. There are plenty of court cases around demonstrating that there's always a first time. And moreover, I'm well aware that the photographers that get the positions such as "staff photographer" or favored provider didn't do so by thumbing their nose at their subjects. Burn bridges or build them - see which one leads to more work. - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:16:03 GMT, Al Denelsbeck
wrote: Humans and corporations - same thing from a law standpoint in a case like this. And in the event that a photo has been used in such a way as to be considered detrimental to the human or corporation, through reputation or defamation or even association, yes, there's plenty of precedents. One exception: if the photo is news. For example, if I get a shot of a guy in a Mickey Mouse suit robbing a bank, I would not need a release. If I got a shot of you beating your kid in the parking lot of Walmart, I would not need a release. If the photo showed animal abuse at a zoo, I would not need a release. That kind of thing. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Releases, general question
"Robert Meyers" wrote in message ...
Hello all, I just had a few odd questions. I was wondering about release requirements. I have been going to a few zoos and have shot a hell of a lot of film. A few shoots I think I could sell. but I am not sure if I am allowed to or not. Kind of in a quandary. Is a property release required for selling of a shot of an animal? No humans and very little terrain being my norm. Do zoos ever purchase shots from people who swing through and take photos? I am just wondering do to how much every person I have shown a few of my penguin chick pics to have fallen in love (male) or melted (female). My fiancée is pushing me to see if I can sell a few, or she can collage a few and make a poster (she is MY penguin fanatic). I also have baby rhinos, giraffes, elephants, etc. And of course. I go see them all the time (I even proposed in a penguin exhibit). Thanks for any suggestions in advance! I've only shot in one Zoo, and each could be different. I went to the office and essentially asked the same questions. The person I talked to said it was alright to shoot and market my images. I told them, if any sold, I would make a donation to the zoo. He seemed to appreciate this. I also told him that I wasn't there to make trouble. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Lens ZOOM question.... | advid | Digital Photography | 11 | June 30th 04 10:07 PM |
another newbie question | John Bartley | Large Format Photography Equipment | 17 | May 24th 04 04:11 AM |
Hasselblad Auxiliary shutter question | rolento | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 14 | April 10th 04 01:40 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
MF resolution question | Faisal Bhua | Film & Labs | 42 | December 17th 03 02:14 PM |