LA Zoo over the top?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Peter on 28 Feb 2010 13:23 "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:sCxhn.21486$1L.3639(a)newsfe01.iad... > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:vgtco5p1pt7hh9llmt3aef80jd983ni9gh(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:30:19 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >>>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >>>>> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The zoo is perfectly entitled to ask for the images not to be made >>>>> printable. The rights to images taken on private land rest with the >>>>> landowner unless the landowner expressly grants image rights to a >>>>> photographer. >>>>> >>>>> A visitor to the zoo will not have had those rights granted to them. >>>>> However, they will normally be entitled to make images for their own >>>>> personal use. > >>>> The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by >>>> the >>>> taxpayers. >>> >>> That doesn't mean that members of the public are granted unlimited >>> rights to sell prints of images that they take at the Zoo. >>> >>> Photography *for personal use* is fine, but the definition of personal >>> use does not extend to selling prints. >> >> I don't see why selling photos of animals taken at a public zoo can be >> restricted by the zoo. It's not as if the photog needs a model release >> from the animal :) Really, it's a public, tax-payer funded zoo. The zoo >> cannot restrict selling of prints, IMO. They may say they can, they ma >> say photos are for personal use only, but that doesn't mean they have a >> legal right to do so. I doubt they do. > > Under the same laws in the UK if as seems likely they have the land that > the zoo stands on vested in GLAZA then they can impose any restrictions > they like on use of photographs taken whilst stood on their land. > > These bun fights only become serious when an advertising agency steps over > the line and uses an infringing photo in a campaign or someone is selling > prints. GLAZA are protecting their IP. You may not like it but it is > theirs to protect if they own the land. There was a big one a few years > back between an insurance company and an Oxbridge college. The landowner > won and the entire ad campaign had to be pulled and pulped. > The interesting part of this thread is that the LA Zoo website encourages photography. http://www.lazoo.org/visit/phototips/advanced.html Non-commercial photo restrictions make absolutely no sense for any zoo. I read the thread the OP referred to and it looks like someone claiming to be a zoo employee sent a email. To paraphrase our friends across the pond, our knickers got twisted for no reason. -- Peter
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 1 Mar 2010 10:36 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hm7f8d011qv(a)news5.newsguy.com... > On 2/25/2010 3:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote: >> "Bruce"<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:2jhdo5tu3k9q2a5g2rkqcrlv5298mcghop(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:36:10 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >>> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> 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. >>>> >>>> Ridiculous. So then tell us, who owns the zoo? >>> >>> >>> Not you. ;-) >> >> That's right, but if I lived in LA then I would. > > The people of Massachusetts own the Massachusetts Turnpike, but there are > still tolls on it. Owning something does not preclude charging a fee to > use it. I don't think that anyone here has tried to make an arugment to the contrary.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 1 Mar 2010 10:40 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4b8aac3b$0$27715$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message > news:hm5qgs$luf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >>> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>>> >>> >>> >>> The zoo is perfectly entitled to ask for the images not to be made >>> printable. The rights to images taken on private land rest with the >>> landowner unless the landowner expressly grants image rights to a >>> photographer. >>> >>> A visitor to the zoo will not have had those rights granted to them. >>> However, they will normally be entitled to make images for their own >>> personal use. >> >> The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the >> taxpayers. >> > > > Our NYS public parks have a policy that prohibits commercial use of > photographs taken on park property. > > Just go to Planting Fields and read the sign. As a practical matter > enforcement is spotty. > > > -- > Peter Do you think that the prohitibition would stand a court challenge?
From: Peter on 2 Mar 2010 19:07 "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hmgn5t$p5l$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4b8aac3b$0$27715$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >> news:hm5qgs$luf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:pgbbo5tnkvtojop6k439c2k4omof91oecf(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:31:14 -0500, "Charles" >>>> <charlesschuler(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34625084 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The zoo is perfectly entitled to ask for the images not to be made >>>> printable. The rights to images taken on private land rest with the >>>> landowner unless the landowner expressly grants image rights to a >>>> photographer. >>>> >>>> A visitor to the zoo will not have had those rights granted to them. >>>> However, they will normally be entitled to make images for their own >>>> personal use. >>> >>> The LA Zoo is not private property, it's public property paid for by the >>> taxpayers. >>> >> >> >> Our NYS public parks have a policy that prohibits commercial use of >> photographs taken on park property. >> >> Just go to Planting Fields and read the sign. As a practical matter >> enforcement is spotty. >> >> >> -- >> Peter > > Do you think that the prohitibition would stand a court challenge? > It has. The theory is that use of the park is a privilege, not a right. being a privilege the park authority has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on use. If you want fun, try to take a picture of the Throgs Neck, or RFK Bridges while the cops are watching. then, refuse to put your camera down. OTOH you can take all the pictures you want, for any purpose of the Brooklyn, Manhattan or Queens borough bridges. -- Peter
From: bugbear on 8 Mar 2010 08:09
D.J. wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:57:39 +0000, bugbear > <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >> D.J. wrote: >>> There is not ONE single law in the whole world that can be enforced on any >>> human if they don't want it to be. >> I thing you under estimate the power (in many senses) of governments. >> >> I don't WANT to pay tax. But I do. Consider this a >> disproof by counter example of your assertion. >> >> BugBear > > Conversely, I don't WANT to pay taxes, so I DON'T. Legally, with no > repercussions for 30 years now. There are ways if you are smart enough. > Your statement is still disproved. Disproof only needs one counter example, which I provided. (very)Simple logic. BugBear |