pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ever had to have a property release for a rhinoceros?  (Read 1882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« on: March 09, 2010, 12:23 »
0
Had a rather strange reject from iStock yesterday. I submitted two photos of a rhinoceros. One was rejected because I didn't have a property release from a zoo. The other one was accepted. Two different angles, but in both you can still see the same background. I have other photos of wildlife from the same zoo and they accepted them. I guess it was a different reviewer than the other. Just thought that was funny. What zoo is going to give you a property release?

I know Fort Worth Zoo it states on their information pamphlet that you have to have permission to photograph, but no other zoo I've been to require permission. I don't know that Fort Worth Zoo would actually give you a property release though. I always ask if it's not posted before I photograph.


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2010, 12:45 »
0
Had a rather strange reject from iStock yesterday. I submitted two photos of a rhinoceros. One was rejected because I didn't have a property release from a zoo. The other one was accepted. Two different angles, but in both you can still see the same background. I have other photos of wildlife from the same zoo and they accepted them. I guess it was a different reviewer than the other. Just thought that was funny. What zoo is going to give you a property release?

I know Fort Worth Zoo it states on their information pamphlet that you have to have permission to photograph, but no other zoo I've been to require permission. I don't know that Fort Worth Zoo would actually give you a property release though. I always ask if it's not posted before I photograph.

It is actually stated (in theTechnical Wiki) "Zoological Locations such as Seaword, San Diego Zoo, Busch Gardens, etc - Logos, images from theme parks, shows, attractions, products, animals, productions, characters or wordmarks are all protected and cannot be photographed for commercial use.

For clarity this policy applies to ALL zoological locations."

This is clearly not consistently upheld; many iStock inspectors can't distinguish between an 'animal in the wild' and a 'captive animal'. Keeps my wiki finger well exercised. However, some inspectors are more cautious than others.

It has been asserted by someone fairly knowledgeable (Can't remember who) that random zoo animals are not protected, unless they're well known 'characters' of the zoo. In the UK at least, it's doubtful that a zoo would have any grounds to sue. But who wants to be the test case?

As to whether a zoo would grant a property release, who knows until they try? I was thinking of trying for a profit-sharing route with my 'nearest' (relatively) zoo, but as I'm a teacher, whenever I can go, it's mobbed with screaming weans ...
I've never had a reply from anyone I've written to or emailled asking for a property release - positive or negative, so when in doubt, I go RM/editorial.

Wecome to the club of inconsistent rejections. It's all part of life's rich tapestry.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 17:28 by ShadySue »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2010, 13:07 »
0
I'm just glad they were all accepted at all the other stock sites.

« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Just in case, you have to be careful about the background not showing where it was shot.  Also some animals - I don't know if rhinos are among them - have characteristic marks/patterns that identify them.  You know, like those patches on a whale's tail.

What ShadySue said about photographing iconic animals being restricted makes sense, but I don't know if it is legally correct everywhere. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2010, 20:46 »
0
Just in case, you have to be careful about the background not showing where it was shot.  Also some animals - I don't know if rhinos are among them - have characteristic marks/patterns that identify them.  You know, like those patches on a whale's tail.

What ShadySue said about photographing iconic animals being restricted makes sense, but I don't know if it is legally correct everywhere. 


Here's the one that made it....the other one was a full view of the same rhino

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12210765/2/istockphoto_12210765-rhinoceros.jpg

The name of the zoo isn't in the photo, but from the building behind you can tell it's not in the wild and the one they rejected had the same view of the building, but in my opinion was the better shot...oh well...win some lose some.

PhotoDuneMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
2170 Views
Last post January 21, 2008, 05:41
by Lizard
5 Replies
3114 Views
Last post April 08, 2008, 19:01
by snurder
9 Replies
5797 Views
Last post September 26, 2008, 16:15
by JC-SL
14 Replies
3353 Views
Last post March 27, 2009, 08:09
by Milinz
3 Replies
1356 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 21:31
by eppic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors