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!

"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

"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

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.

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?

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?

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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.

"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.