LA Zoo

I've got an email form Smumug to please turn off the cart on my LA Zoo animals photos. This was due to a request by the LA Zoo. Their reason is that LA Zoo has contract photographers.

Now if the ticket I purchased does no say anything about photography copyright and there are no signs displaying so. Should I deny their request ?

I just checked their web site http://www.lazoo.org/ an nowwhere says about their do's/don'ts about photography.

I did turned off my cart at silvex.smumug.com for those photos. Now what right(s) do I have and what right(s) do they have ?

I think the reason is that your pics were for sale. I have a gallery of pics from the LA zoo but I have the print for sale feature off and I've never been contacted from them. I know of another person with a smugmug gallery with the same thing that happened to him with his LA Zoo pics, he also had the feature to sell prints on.

IIRC, San Diego zoo has a poster at the door or on the back of the ticket that by entering you agree that all photography is for personal use only and not for sale/commercial use or something along those lines. I figure LA zoo has a similar policy as well.

Yeah, but my thing is. I did not sign an agreement not to sell LA Zoo animal photos. If the the LA Zoo gave an exclusive agreement to their photographers with the imply that others will no be permitted. That is their issue. Nowhere in the zoo says anything about photography. For example The detroit Zoo has it pretty clear.

http://www.detroitzoo.​org …hoto_Policy/Pho​to_Policy/

Other zoo http://www.caribbeanga​rdens.com …ples-Zoo-Photo-Policy.pdf

http://www.comozoocons​ervatory.org/cons/poli​cies/photo.shtml

http://www.sandiegozoo​.org/zoo/faq/faq_gener​al

It may be posted on the back of the ticket or not. I'm not sure what their exact policy is though.

I assume that most zoos have the same photography policy, much like most museums have the same policy.

Who knows.

Think of it as a property/model release... you didn't sign a contract saying you wouldn't sell the photos you took, but the property owner didn't sign a contract saying it was ok either.

I recently tried to get a gig photographing a new exhibit at a zoo... photos that would be only valuable to THEM and the exhibit builder... they said "the marketing dept wouldn't be able to make use of the photos" (um, you haven't seen them, they haven't even been taken)... then they hit me with if you'd still like to shoot the exhibit, we charge $500 for 4 hours for photographers to come in and shoot photos for 'their own personal projects.' It's apparently not an unusual practice at zoos, but they were still jackasses about it.

I won't be selling the photos, but I will eventually get the ones I wanted for my portfolio, though they'll all be from the public walking path. If they were ever to want them, the cost per photo will be triple, at least.

I tooled around the LA Zoo site for a while and couldn't find anything stating that photos are for non-commercial use only. I did notice that they have a "Photo Tips" section on their website. One would think that this page would be ideal to remind shutterbugs that photos are for non-commercial use only. We are members at several zoos and they all say the same thing, though, non-commercial use only

Perhaps a suggestion should be made to the LA Zoo that information regarding their photography policy be made available on their website.

The San Diego Zoo, in addition to signs at the entrance, the back of the tickets and membership cards and signs at the Panda exhibit, also has the information in the FAQ portion of their website.

Concretin Nik wrote in post #9673435
I recently tried to get a gig photographing a new exhibit at a zoo... photos that would be only valuable to THEM and the exhibit builder... they said "the marketing dept wouldn't be able to make use of the photos" (um, you haven't seen them, they haven't even been taken)... then they hit me with if you'd still like to shoot the exhibit, we charge $500 for 4 hours for photographers to come in and shoot photos for 'their own personal projects.' It's apparently not an unusual practice at zoos, but they were still jackasses about it.

It is quite normal for wildlife parks/zoos to charge for access to their exhibits. They will normally assign you a person that will get you access that the normal public does not enjoy. I don't see where they were jackasses about it. I can only imagine how many of these "let me photograph your facility" requests that they get. Not all will be professional caliber persons but simply looking for a way to shoot the exhibits will that special access. That is not a comment on your work but you have to look at it from their point of view.

I tried to find something on the LA Zoo website about commercial use of photos taken their. I certainly couldn't find it either. However, I would probably think that their is something on the back of their tickets about abiding by the terms of their policies and it wouldn't have to necessarily spell it out in detail. It is a private facility and they make the rules. Doesn't mean we have to like it, we simply have to accept it or challenge them before you go off and start to sell something that you shouldn't be.

I am a member of the LA zoo and I gain entrance without a ticket, so I can't verify what's printed on the back of one. However, I can find no mention of photography restrictions in the member materials I received.

A few things to consider is most zoo's are on private property. Your photography rights on private property can be limited by the property owners.

I do agree that the zoo should make sure they have clear signage. I know every zoo and animal park I have gone to has clearly stated no commercial photography allowed. Some botanical gardens also have the same rule.

Why identify LA zoo in general......Looked at your site, don't know how you identified the gallery. If you just said "wildlife", "animals", "Zoo picts"..etc, then LA Zoo has no recourse as they could have been taken anywhere.

ssim wrote in post #9674339
It is quite normal for wildlife parks/zoos to charge for access to their exhibits. They will normally assign you a person that will get you access that the normal public does not enjoy. I don't see where they were jackasses about it. I can only imagine how many of these "let me photograph your facility" requests that they get. Not all will be professional caliber persons but simply looking for a way to shoot the exhibits will that special access. That is not a comment on your work but you have to look at it from their point of view.

I tried to find something on the LA Zoo website about commercial use of photos taken their. I certainly couldn't find it either. However, I would probably think that their is something on the back of their tickets about abiding by the terms of their policies and it wouldn't have to necessarily spell it out in detail. It is a private facility and they make the rules. Doesn't mean we have to like it, we simply have to accept it or challenge them before you go off and start to sell something that you shouldn't be.

I just feel that a no budget marketing department dismissing photos for their promotional benefit of a brand new exhibit without even seeing them is jackassary, as well as the way the policy was presented in my situation was just stupid. If the photos sucked, or you simply didn't like them, that's fine...

I TOTALLY understand the policy. For example, if I have an outside client that needs say, pictures of lions. They have lions, and me wanting to sell those photos to someone else for commercial purposes, it makes sense to me that they would want compensation for it. Or even wanting to make my own postcards/calendars/wh​atever for retail sale... that's fair business. But to ask me to pay a fee, to take photos I only want to have a CHANCE at selling to THEM and only them(at ridiculously low prices I might add), is just stupid. Just say no, you can't take the photos. This made them look unprofessional and greedy, as well as unconcerned with marketing the project. But it may just be me.

silvex wrote in post #9670764
Yeah, but my thing is. I did not sign an agreement not to sell LA Zoo animal photos. <snip>

Actually you did. Your entry into the zoo was subject to the revocable license that was your ticket.

I used to run security for a couple concert venues and had to have that conversation with several patrons.

-F

Unless the ticket had a restriction on photography listed, I would ask the zoo to provide their regulations on photo use since their website has no list of "standard restrictions" that many zoos have. They have a great couple of pages on photo tips, but no note about usage of photos you take!

I helped another photographer do a shoot at the new (at the time) Gorilla exhibit at the LA Zoo. Lots of fun, got to go inside and traveled a lot behind the public barriers. Fortunately there were no Gorillas in it at the time.
Sorry, off topic.
It is private property. If you want to offer pictures of their property for sale you have to obtain permission. Although it might save them some time, they do not need to post that or print it on the tickets.
There is no agreement to sign. Just like I do not have to sign an agreement to not sell photos of you, you would sign the agreement giving me permission too.