Do animals require property releases?

[elkootcho]

Can a photographer take photographs of captive animals at city/state owned zoos or preserves and freely sell the photos or are the animals considered "property" and therefore requiring a release?

What about pets owned by a private party?

[tim]

To be safe, have the animal sign a release. An 'X' should be acceptable if the animal is illiterate, though in that case you should have a witness countersign.

[Rob612]

How about taking the shots in such a way you cant tell where it was taken ? That solves the problem :D

[Digital Prophet]

Actually I can answer this. Yes. And no.

If you are photographing a animal that you can claim innocent imposement on, then no. Such animals include wild, or seeming ferral, animal, strays and lost animals. However, in the case of ANY registered animal (dog, cat, horse, etc.) that posseses legal domcumentation as to it identifying qualities and linieage you had better get a property release. It is a rare instance that people who invest that type of money are not protective of what they own.

Oh and in case of zoos I would hazard a guess that the back of the admission ticket has a statement about photographing the animals. But I am certain that a quick anonymous call to the management office would answer that.

- Digital Prophet -

[Jon, The Elder]

In the case of the Detroit Zoo - they clearly state on their website that you cannot sell for profit, photos of any of the zoo exhibit animals without paying a hefty fee. They also require a $450 fee if you are going to do 'formal' photography within the zoo. No tripods are allowed, and a whole bunch of other silly stuff.
Now in practice, there are cameras (other than P&S-camcorders etc) in evidence every day. I live about 15 minutes away and so use my pass about every 10 days or so. The Detroit Zoo was the first to use the outside "open" type of exhibit so it affords excellent unobstructed views of many of the animals. Jane Goodall raised funds and helped design the large primate exhibits - worth seeing for sure.
Anyhow - my den walls are decorated with several 'trophies' from there.

[DocFrankenstein]

What if nothing is mentioned on the ticket?

Let's say I have this picture:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p9274077.html

Can they come after me, pointing out that the tiger is theirs and identifying it by the stripes or something?

[PhotosGuy]

Let's say I have this picture:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p9274077.html :D:D Ribs? It eats better than I do! :D:D
Can they come after me, pointing out that the tiger is theirs and identifying it by the stripes or something? Maybe. Probably a very "worst case" sort of thing, though. ;)

[Jon, The Elder]

DocF- Facial stripe patterns are primary ID areas for Siberian (Amur) tigers. If you sold it for profit and it was published, if they wanted to - around here, they could prosecute.
Economic/political climate here - they would do it, mayoral race is soon.

[DocFrankenstein]

But if they prosecute... there's nothing legally binding, is there?

I bought my access to the tiger... they didn't specify any limitations on picture taking...

[d'homme]

Animals are considered property, and where as any other "recognizable" property might require you to get a property release if you're trying to selll pics of Bobo the Bear, if everyone knows that's Bobo the bear.

Practically, animals are hard to identify on an individual basis, so you can probably "get away" with it.

[S230]

Personally I think it's a matter of luck. The chances of being sued is rare but it depends how famous your photo becomes. Animal do have unique identifications. When you go legally purchase a puppy, there are usually certificates that indicate the specific markings.

[BrandonSi]

The Lincoln Park Zoo (Chicago) where I do most of my animal shots is free to the public.. so no tickets, and a search on the website yields nothing even close to limits on photography. I'm not worried about it, but in any case you should've had some initial contact with a lawyer setting up your business, run it past him/her.. but I plan on selling mine.. and if I get the pants sued off of me, well, that's what the LLC is for!

[montreal]

What about flowers? At the botanical garden in Montréal, they tell you in the documentation they give you at the entrance that photography is allowed but not for commercial purposes. I see many tripods and L lens in there. I'm pretty sure many people sell flower close-ups and get away with it. Of course a wide shot of an area of the garden is easily recognizable.