LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bruce on 25 Feb 2010 13:10 On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > >And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it with >their taxes and the admission fee. If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee. You do not own the zoo.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 25 Feb 2010 13:36 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:16fdo596he7faadvrlpdj98d6ma9lbn216(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" > <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >> >>And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it >>with >>their taxes and the admission fee. > > > If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee. > > You do not own the zoo. Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo?
From: Paul Furman on 25 Feb 2010 13:43 Charles Chase wrote: > The same is true of that idiocy in France with their obnoxious Eiffel > Tower. Either take it down or don't complain about people taking > photographs of it for their own gain. You silly-assed french tw Try filming a TV commercial in any American city with recognizable modern architecture in it. Advertisers take their operations overseas or create elaborate sets and CG rather than pay the exorbitant copyright fees.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 25 Feb 2010 13:46 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dhedo55326rftl343db9uimvemptg3vq3q(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:42:02 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" > <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> The fact the zoo is owned by an entity that is publicly supported does >>> not make it "public" in the sense that you imply. For one thing, if >>> it was public, there would be no need for an admission charge. >>> >>> Paying to gain admission entitles you to reasonable enjoyment of the >>> facilities of the zoo, including photography for personal use. It is >>> not reasonable to expect paying the admission fee to grant you >>> commercial rights over any images you take while you are there. >>> >>> The zoo clearly has put in place a separate arrangement whereby >>> photographers who wish to sell images taken at the zoo are asked to >>> pay an additional fee. >>> >>> So I'm sorry, but the zoo is right. And no amount of libertarian >>> posturing is going to make the zoo wrong. If you want to sell your >>> LA Zoo pictures, pay up! >> >> >>Sorry, you are wrong about the admission fee making it "not public". It >>is >>a public zoo funded by the public. The admission fee simply goes towards >>the funding, just like the taxes do. It is still public. Our state parks >>are public even though we have to pay a fee to enter them. They are not >>private. > > > I didn't say that the admission fee made it "not public". But the zoo > is entitled to make a charge for admission, just as it is entitled to > make a charge for commercial photography. > > If you assert that it cannot legally make a charge for commercial > photography, then you must also assert that it cannot legally make a > charge for admission. That would be nonsense, wouldn't it? Apples and oranges. The only nonsense is in that statement is trying to connect the two. > The zoo grants paying visitors a privilege by allowing photography on > its land for personal use only, but that is a privilege, not a right. > > The zoo has chosen to assert its image rights, which it is entitled to > do. It will sell you a licence to make images and sell them > commercially, which is entitled to do. It will allow you to make > images for your own personal use, which it is entitled to do. It will > assert its right to prevent sale of images taken for personal use, > which it is entitled to do. The question becomes "does the zoo have any image rights to assert?". Since it is a tax-payer funded, i.e. "public" zoo, then perhaps the tax payers have the image rights, not the zoo. > It has done all this for the overall benefit of the zoo, its owners > and the public, which it is entitled to do. What benefit is their to the public? >>The zoo has no right even though they may claim to. > > > The zoo has every right. > > >>Simply putting in place a policy doesn't make anything legal. > > > Then sue the zoo. No, the zoo should sue the photog whom they are demanding not print their images for sale. Let them challenge it. >>Even laws that are passed and enacted are later ruled to be illegal. > > > Then sue them. Uhh, that's how they are ruled as illegal or unconstituional. What part of that do you fail to understand? > > A reminder: You don't own the zoo. You seem to think you do. >
From: Martin Brown on 25 Feb 2010 13:46
Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: > "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:16fdo596he7faadvrlpdj98d6ma9lbn216(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:38:16 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>> And who is the landowner of this zoo? It's "the people" who pay for it >>> with >>> their taxes and the admission fee. >> >> If the people owned the zoo, there would be no admission fee. >> >> You do not own the zoo. And you entered into a contract with them when you bought the admission ticket. I expect the photographic image rights restrictions are in the small print somewhere. > > Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo? By the looks of it land is either vested in GLAZA http://www.lazoo.org/glaza/ or the Los Angeles City authorities in some form. Clearly since it has hours of opening and excludes the public entirely on at least one day a year there are no public rights of way through it. You can get exactly the same issues photographing inside a privately owned shopping mall. Some of them even have no photography signs. Regards, Martin Brown |