I tried to upload pictures of animals in San Diego Zoo. All were rejected.

I don't remember a thread on this (there probably is one though) but if you look on the back of your zoo ticket it probably says something like : pictures are not allowed to be taken of the animals for commercial purposes.

or the very zoo like setting the animals are in?  most every zoo has rules for not taking pictures of the animals for profit - it is not isolated to the san diego zoo.

You must be right. I checked my portfolio and only one photo with animals has been approved:

I found this on IS:

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.

But I think they're being overly restrictive.  You can find images of San Diego Zoo animals on Getty.

The difference is that on Getty they may be RM and not RF. They could be used for editorial. For instance, if they had a sudden death of the flamingo population at the zoo, that photo could definitely be used in a news item. Otherwise, to restrict the use of the photo would be in violation of first amendment rights in the USA.

But the poster is right about commercial purposes. Even the local zoo here instituted such a policy, and it is a small zoo.

I was going to take a photo of some scrambled eggs or maybe an omelet, but then I realized I'd probably need the signature of the Mother hen, the people who made the plate plus the designer and company that made the silverware.

This is getting ridiculous.

If it's on a table, don't forget the release from the table manufacturer. If a wall can be seen in the background, you'll probably need releases from the homebuilder and the architect and whatever paint company's product that was used in painting, the drywall manufacturer, etc. And let's not forget the releases from all those microscopic dust mites that are floating in the air in front of the camera as well.

So even though I understand the intended spirit of the above posts, it unfortunately is becoming a big issue issue with stock shooters.

Please don't feed more fear to the lawyer snakes at the agencies. 

We already have Property Releases that are required by most of the agencies, and they aren't legally needed and don't legally exist. We're setting a precedent and creating a legal issue, where there was none.

I don't have the million dollars to fight a PUBLIC zoo over rights to use photos, but folks, it's your tax dollars that pay for these places. That's why USGS maps and photos are public domain. That's why the NASA photos are public domain.

At the rate we are going, there will be no stock photos, because breeds of animals and varieties of plants will be protected.

This is getting ridiculous.

Don't fret RacePhoto.  If you clear all of these hurdles, you can sell one of your images for 25 or 30 cents.         
 

LOL... amen, DanP...  LOL.   Sad truth that it is.  Crap, didn't someone just recently complain (here on MSG)  that one of the agencies wanted model release on the back of someone's head?  =tom

Think I'll run out and get a copywrite on my bald spot. 

Quote from: DanP68 on May 10, 2008, 00:40

Don't fret RacePhoto.  If you clear all of these hurdles, you can sell one of your images for 25 or 30 cents.         
 

LOL... amen, DanP...  LOL.   Sad truth that it is.  Crap, didn't someone just recently complain (here on MSG)  that one of the agencies wanted model release on the back of someone's head?  =tom

Think I'll run out and get a copywrite on my bald spot. 

It's worse than that.  There are people here who have complained that they submitted a model release for someone viewed from behind, and had the image rejected because the reviewer said no release was needed. 

Seriously, how can you hope to adhere to rules when the reviewers themselves cannot agree on what they are? 

As far as the back of someone's head goes, I guess it depends on the image.  If it is a large crowd in a public place, and nobody is identifiable, I would hope no release would be needed.  However we have seen many unfortunate "sniper shots" without releases of people hanging out at the beach or wherever.  I have a major problem with that.  If that were me, or my wife or kids, I would feel completely violated.

When there is any shred of doubt, I feel a release should be provided.  Any reviewer which turns down an image because he/she didn't feel the release was needed, should lose their job on the spot.