RM or RF for zoo photos

[Wawa]

Howdy all,  A few months ago I posted a question about whether or not photos of zoo animals would be Rights Managed or Royalty Free.  When I do a search for zoo animals (Bronx zoo in New York in this case) I get a mixed bag of RM and RF.  I don't know how to do a search on all my previous posts but I think it was fotoDogue who mentioned there were some restrictions on photographing for commercial purposes at zoo.  At any rate, Are there some animals/exhibits/topics at the zoo that can be categorized RF?  Thanks.

[fotoDogue]

Sorry I can't find the thread you're referring to but... generally speaking photos of zoo animals require a property release if you want to license them as Royalty Free.

However, Alamy has stated they're no longer accepting photos taken in places that charge admission unless you have a permit to photograph there. The Bronx Zoo seems to be one of those venues.

 

from: http://bronxzoo.com/visitor-info/rules

 

• Non-commercial photography for personal use is allowed, but tripods are restricted in several exhibits, and at the discretion of zoo staff. Commercial photography and filming requests must go through the Communications Department. Please send your request to mpulsinelli@wcs.org.

[fotoDogue]

Here's the original thread

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/5921-property-release-for-zoo-animals/?hl=bronx#entry99866

[AlessandraRC]

It does not matter, unless it is an outstanding photo, it is not going to sell. Already too many out there 

[Wawa]

 

 

However, Alamy has stated they're no longer accepting photos taken in places that charge admission unless you have a permit to photograph there. The Bronx Zoo seems to be one of those venues.

 

 

 

Hi fotoDogue,

Isn't that pretty extreme?  There's so many places like zoos, amusement parks, historical locations, etc... that charge admission yet have so much activity going on.  For individual photographers its probably just a few dollars each but for Alamy in general it seems like a pretty big market to exclude. 

[Wawa]

It does not matter, unless it is an outstanding photo, it is not going to sell. Already too many out there 

 

I don't think I have "outstanding" shots but most photos we see all around us are not outstanding.  Even the legends of photography didn't have a lot of outstanding shots (although they had more than most).  But I think you mean it's a very oversaturated topic - and I agree.  But you know what they say: a penny here, a penny there... 

[NYCat]

This morning there is something new on many of my images..... the zoo pictures for sure but also images of people taken at a Masai Village and of Bannerman Castle and Sheldrick Elephant Orphanage. I expect it is there on all my images for which I don't have a model or property release (except those taken in wild places). Of course, even the national parks in Africa do have an entry fee.

 

"If you want to use the image commercially , you’ll need to get permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. Find out more on our releases help page."

 

Paulette

 

Edit: So far all the ones I've checked are images that I have stated in Attributes that I have no release and there are people or property in the image. 

[Wawa]

Hi Paulette,

Yes, I just noticed that blue box under all my RM shots (i didn't go through all of them but it seems like a lot of them).

A general question for the forum: What if there is some kind of unplanned news event at a zoo or any other entrance fee location, such as some type of criminal activity? I think people would rush to news publications, or any other news agency without bothering for model release, correct? Although I'm not sure if news media would open themselves up to legal issues. Then again, how could they turn down a big story?

 

The zoo's website states:

"Non-commercial photography for personal use is allowed, but tripods are restricted in several exhibits, and at the discretion of zoo staff. Commercial photography and filming requests must go through the Communications Department."

 

Also, under their FAQs section one question asks:

Q: "I am a member of the media and would like to arrange a zoo visit or take some photographs. Who should I contact?

A: Commercial photography or filming is prohibited without express permission of WCS Public Relations."

 

 

I'm pretty new to the stock scene but I think, not positive, they mean someone setting up lights, or shooting a wedding (at a zoo? Huh?) or any other kind of major commercial production. I think if you're just documenting animals "doing their thing" its just editorial but I'm really interested in what everyone here thinks. Seems like a lot of gray areas.

[vpics]

Zoos often invite photographer to cover special events when they have new exhibits or animals.

 

These would then be treated as RM. Animals are property of the zoo, so you would need to get a property release from the zoo. I wouldn't even want to try!

[fotoDogue]

A general question for the forum: What if there is some kind of unplanned news event at a zoo or any other entrance fee location, such as some type of criminal activity? I think people would rush to news publications, or any other news agency without bothering for model release, correct? Although I'm not sure if news media would open themselves up to legal issues. Then again, how could they turn down a big story?

 

 

 

Generally speaking, news photographers don't pay admission so there wouldn't be the kind of restriction in place that Alamy describes.

If a news photographer is granted access for the purpose of gathering news (IMHO)  consent is implied. Of course that all depends on how you define news

Someone recently pointed out that images uploaded to Live News are set to Rights Managed by default, so no model or property release is required.

 

EDIT: Keep in mind this is how Alamy works - not necessarily how local news outlets work in general.

[Wawa]

 

A general question for the forum: What if there is some kind of unplanned news event at a zoo or any other entrance fee location, such as some type of criminal activity? I think people would rush to news publications, or any other news agency without bothering for model release, correct? Although I'm not sure if news media would open themselves up to legal issues. Then again, how could they turn down a big story?

 

 

 

Generally speaking, news photographers don't pay admission so there wouldn't be the kind of restriction in place that Alamy describes.

If a news photographer is granted access for the purpose of gathering news (IMHO)  consent is implied. Of course that all depends on how you define news

Someone recently pointed out that images uploaded to Live News are set to Rights Managed by default, so no model or property release is required.

 

EDIT: Keep in mind this is how Alamy works - not necessarily how local news outlets work in general.

 

 

fotoDogue, I understand if a news photographer is granted access to shoot a crime scene after the fact, but what I meant by "unplanned news event" was something like the gorilla that was killed several months back after dragging the little boy around the exhibit or some other spontaneous tragedy while the pro/amateur photographer happens to be there on their free time.  I wouldn't be surprised if the amateur photographer(s) who shot video/stills of that gorilla event never even heard of a model release. 

 

Originally I asked  "Are there some animals/exhibits/topics at the zoo that can be categorized RF?..."  I just wanted to know if Alamy required either RM or RF.  I think it came across as me insisting on making it RF, sorry about that.  So I guess it's RM all the way.  The Pulitzer is just around the corner.

[Bill Brooks]

 

It does not matter, unless it is an outstanding photo, it is not going to sell. Already too many out there 

 

Many poor or non-perfect images sell if they're near the top of the search results. It's about keywording and rank as well as the quality of the image. I've even sold the odd images of my own before that have been older ones that weren't very good, because they're high up in the results. I've also seen other people's terrible looking images sell that I have far better versions of, as the other person's appeared higher in the results than mine. Also some clients look for only new images, so that narrows things down a lot if you have recent images of what they're looking for. My portfolio is small and my rank isn't the best (although it's not bad either), and I have images in the first line of results even when there are hundreds of thousands of results. When I had a median rank I also sometimes had images very near the top for some searches that had many thousands of results.

 

Zoo animals - RM editorial, UNLESS they are absolutely and 100% not recognisable at all and neither is anything in the background.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

I think the idea that clients buy from the top of the search order, and may even buy poorer images because they are at the top of the search order, both sells the client short, and works against the photographer.

 

The perfect image for the client is an image that meets the client’s needs, not an image that meets the photographer’s concept of good.

 

The client will need to illustrate a specific concept with the image. Therefore an image that only has a few generic main keywords, and not the concept or location, will be at a mid level for a while, and then likely sink to the bottom of the search order when it is not clicked upon. The way to keep these images alive forever, and raise them from the dead pool, is to answer the 4W, plus How, in your keywords and captions.

 

A smart client uses two keywords to search for images. They may need an object in a particular location, at a certain time of year, of a certain age, of a certain size, of a certain appearance, doing a certain thing, treated in a certain way, of a certain colour, etc etc. These things may not be important to the photographer, but very important to the client.

 

 

 

The way to sell these specific images is to fully keyword, 4W plus How, in every caption and keyword group. 4W, plus How = When, Where, Why, What, and sometimes How.

[Bill Brooks]

 

 

Also I am competent enough in photography to know what a good photograph looks like, and it goes beyond simply my own opinion. Many images are used that are clearly poor by any photographer's standards, not just my own.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

It is the client that determines a good image, and not the photographer. Photographer’s standards and competency in judging a good photograph are irrelivant to the client.

 

The client buys an image to communicate an idea. The image that is a good image for one use, may be a poor image for another use.

 

In my days as a photo editor it was very difficult to get across to photographers that I was NOT looking for prizewinning images. I was looking for images that solved a visual problem. Images that reflected and advanced the concepts in the author’s text. Images that some photographers considered poor.

 

When taking my own images I always consider the problem solving component of the image. When keywording I always take that problem solving component into consideration. That is why extensive keywording according to 4W, plus How are so important. When, Where, Why, What, and sometimes How.

 

For instance a UK magazine editor may be looking for surfing images only taken in the UK for an article “Places to surf in the UK”. The search would be “surfing UK”. Then, when he realizes he has selected surfing images from Britain but he has not selected any surfing images from Scotland for his text, his second search would be “surfing Scotland”. That is why all 4W plus How keywords are so important.

 

Today I photographed a dead loon (Gavia immer) decomposing on a beach. I photographed it to advance the concept of pollution, but also the concept of the Canadian dollar and economy. My keywording will reflect both concepts. For non Canadians the Canadian dollar coin has a image of a loon on one side. Canadians refer to their dollar coin as a “Loonie”. The Loonie is sinking against the US dollar, the Loonie is dead, the Loonie takes flight, etc.

 

Here is a gull eating a condom. Few bird photographers would consider the image good. However a photo editor, trying to make a point about the state of the natural world, might consider it good.

 

Bill

 

[AlessandraRC]

 

It does not matter, unless it is an outstanding photo, it is not going to sell. Already too many out there 

 

Many poor or non-perfect images sell if they're near the top of the search results. It's about keywording and rank as well as the quality of the image. I've even sold the odd images of my own before that have been older ones that weren't very good, because they're high up in the results. I've also seen other people's terrible looking images sell that I have far better versions of, as the other person's appeared higher in the results than mine. Also some clients look for only new images, so that narrows things down a lot if you have recent images of what they're looking for. My portfolio is small and my rank isn't the best (although it's not bad either), and I have images in the first line of results even when there are hundreds of thousands of results. When I had a median rank I also sometimes had images very near the top for some searches that had many thousands of results.

 

Zoo animals - RM editorial, UNLESS they are absolutely and 100% not recognisable at all and neither is anything in the background.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

I was talking strictly about zoo images. There are way too many of them, some of which are very good. If you are going to the zoo anyway, sure take pictures, but I would not make the trip expecting there would be sales on Alamy - or anywhere for that matter. 

 

In the states some zoos have restrictions on photos. If they do, read the restrictions and mark license accordingly or if they say no pictures, only for personal use, do not upload any. Most zoos don't care and don't have restrictions. Many zoos in the US have a page where they delineate their photography rules. I have some in my port here and across the board; they are RF;  they are not outstanding neither are they bad. They have never sold, anywhere. 

[Jill Morgan]

I have a number of images from the Toronto Zoo.  Rarely viewed, never zoomed. Even on distinct searches for the zoo, I haven't had a zoom. All RM.

 

Jill

[Bill Brooks]

Do not go to the zoo to take pictures of animals. Take pictures of the zoo. Take images with the concept of animals in a zoo. Do not try to make zoo animals look like they are in the wild. Animals taken in the wild will look much better.

 

Here is a zoo shot that has sold a number of times. I think it sells because it is a “visit our zoo” type of shot, that shows both the animal and the zoo.

[MariaJ]

 

Sorry I can't find the thread you're referring to but... generally speaking photos of zoo animals require a property release if you want to license them as Royalty Free.

However, Alamy has stated they're no longer accepting photos taken in places that charge admission unless you have a permit to photograph there. The Bronx Zoo seems to be one of those venues.

 

 

 

I'm trying to find where alamy has stated this  policy.  I want to make sure I have  the details correct.

[fotoDogue]

It's in the new contract

 

4.14 New Clause N/A 4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas.

[spacecadet]

Exactly what "forbidden" means is open to interpretation, of course.

[Betty LaRue]

AlessandraRC "It does not matter, unless it is an outstanding photo, it is not going to sell. Already too many out there""If you are going to the zoo anyway, sure take pictures, but I would not make the trip expecting there would be sales on Alamy - or anywhere for that matter."

Thank God I joined Alamy (and other agencies) before you and thus didn't follow your advice or I wouldn't be in business

Stock photography is my sole income and 50% is from nature, including loads of captive animals because some species are simply too hard (not to mention impossible) to shoot in the true wild. Sure, those images sell IF you have a very good ranking and know HOW and WHERE to shoot captive animals. It's not uncommon for me to visit a zoo for just one or two species which offer good shooting conditions. Problem is most photographers only concentrate on the animal and neglect all the rest like out of focus patterns of wire fences, concrete structures, reflections in water of fences and poles, etc.... Another common mistake is shooting straight down when the animal is not at eye level. Of course, those images will sell poorly.

If the conditions are not ideal to shoot interesting behaviour or nice "true wild looking" portraits, do as Bill suggested: "Take pictures of the zoo. Take images with the concept of animals in a zoo."

I often like to use the saying "a little is never enough" when talking about photography. That also goes for zoo photography. Or, you make a good, clean shot - as in the true wild - or you shoot the "zoo".

Bill: "Do not try to make zoo animals look like they are in the wild. Animals taken in the wild will look much better."

Depends mostly on the food they get. That goes especially for colourful tropical birds which look spectacular in the wild but can look dull in zoos due to their diet which lacks the great variety they get in the tropics. Furry animals that look shaggy hasn't got anything to do with being in a zoo but with moulting in late spring. The same animals in the wild in the same season won't look much better

Also have an eye for the backgrounds. See if the vegetation matches with the animal. There are no pine nor beech trees on the African savanna. Lions resting in the shade of a Scots pine look stupid. Same goes for birds of prey with a white mouse in their beak Yep, it's all in the details

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Mmmm, I just dispatched an albino packrat in my yard with my trusty pellet gun. But yes, white mice aren't the norm in the wild.

And yes, my X-T2 came in handy for a dozen shots first.

For the wildlife lovers, which I'm one, I don't care for any animal that destroys my property. Packrat are famous for nesting in auto motors, stuffing all sorts of stuff into it while busily chewing your hoses and wiring.

I'm pretty deadeye with my pellet gun. Just a warning to all...we lefties rock!

[NYCat]

Philippe, I notice you are not getting the blue box warning on your zoo animals even though you have no property release. Are you stating that there is no property that needs a release? Here in the USA the zoos seem to assume their animals are their property.

 

Paulette

[Allan Bell]

 

Philippe, I notice you are not getting the blue box warning on your zoo animals even though you have no property release. Are you stating that there is no property that needs a release? Here in the USA the zoos seem to assume their animals are their property.

 

Paulette

Let's say I don't always follow the famous "what where why when" rule of keywording

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

 

Missed the "Who" Philippe.

 

Allan

[NYCat]

Hmmmm. All my sales of zoo images have been to people looking for a zoo photo.

 

Paulette