Natalie Manuel

I thnk if you are just taking pics of animals and not a logo or company name then they do not own the copywright..dont think animals are a commercial proposition lol can they sign a model realease dont think so lol maybe a paw print lol

Not sure about the law there Natalie, but her in the UK, you are entitled to take photographs and use them as you see fit, in any public place. the problem is though, is that zoos are not public places, and most zoos here do have a policy that photographs of their animals cannot be used commercially without their permission. London zoo is one such zoo. They canot ever own copyright of images I take at these zoos, that remains with me, but they can prevent me from using them commercially, as they were not taken in a public place. They would likely want royalties if they were to be used commercially..

I don’t think I have made anything much at all….I’ve donated most of it back to conservation auctions.

As for them claiming they own copyright of your images – thats incorrect. They do not own the copyright at all, but they can prevent you from using them commercially [at least that is the way it works here].

Wow. How did they find your work Natalie? Your work’s not commercial, it’s art….......

I don’t think I have made anything much at all….I’ve donated most of it back to conservation auctions.

Give them a ring and see what they want. If they are claiming copyright, that is rubbish, the copyright is yours and if they want to use your photographs, they have to buy that right from you. If they want royalties from your commercial use, tell them you havent sold anything, so there are no royalties.

I wish I could ring, but I’m at work :(

Your work’s not commercial, it’s art……....

The selling of photographs in any form, is commercial.

wish I could ring, but I’m at work :(

Well, I wouldn’t worry about ringing them right away. They legally have togive you time to respond [over here, that time is 30 days], then they have to send you a second letter, and that works the same way. You have plenty of time.

The fact that you donate your profits to animal charities will be your strong point should they try to get funny about things. No zoo, especially one that claims to be so for conservation wants the kind of press where they would be seen to be actively hindering fund raising activity.

Play hard ball with them if they get pushy. Ask them the question – Hang on a minute, I thought you were advertising your conservation efforts globally? Then why would you hinder my attempts to fund raise for the same causes.

that should make them shut up.

I’m so sorry to hear this, Natalie; thank you for giving everyone a warning about this. I had no idea this would be a problem with zoos. God bless and may this issue be resolved to everyone’s benefit.

I would look into this, as “commercial” as I understand the law to mean, is that you cant use the images on buisness cards, or for advertising material,, but you can still sell them,,, sometimes these places use heavy handed tatics, and people run,,, I am positive that you can still sell them on redbubble,,, but you will need to look into this,,, but I think the Zoo has been over zealous,,, the word “commercial” is a sticking point in a lot of these discussions,,, I hope you sort this out,,,, wendy

Why are they targeting you though? Thousands of people do the same thing!

I guess they think I am making money Tamara….heh. I don’t.

“commercial” as I understand the law to mean, is that you cant use the images on buisness cards, or for advertising material

Many people think this is the case, and it is widely used as defence in courts. commercial actually means – money seeking, or money making. Ie using an image on a tshirt that you then sell, is commercial use. The same goes for art etc.

guess they think I am making money Tamara….heh. I don’t.

Not forgetting also Natlaie, that the majority of your works have some sort of description to the plight of these animals. Raising awareness, and sending a message out. That can also play a large part in what is classified as “useage”

Call them Natalie – talk to them. That’s the best first step. In general yes, “Commercial” means use in advertising etc. However a lot of the zoos have rules about taking photos. I always ask as I enter if I can take them. They see the big camera, they see the tripod. They always say yes. I’ve never once been asked if I was a pro …

I know they are just doing a job but I guess I feel kinda betrayed…all I’ve done is not to make any money. In two years I wouldn’t have even made a month’s average wage on my photography. I just feel crap today.

They certainly don’t have signage up to indicate that, nor advice on entry. So this must be all up for argument if you can be bothered. In another way, it’s a backhanded compliment that they think they could take advantage of your AMAZING work Natalie.

I guess in the future nobody will be saying which zoo they shot at.You have been giving them such a plug, that even I went down there last week, after not fronting zoos for decades….after reading this entry, I wonder if I’ll go back as it confirms where their interests lay.

Best wishes with this.

I have just taken a good look through their website, and they have nothing on there about not being able to use photographs taken at the zoo commercially. They may have a sign up at the zoo somewhere [they do at some zoos over here] – but, whether you saw it or not, is another matter altogether [obviously, if there is one, you havent seen it]. So, unless some member of the zoo actually came up to you and told you that you cant use your photos commercially, I don’t see that they have much of a leg to stand on, with anything that you have already placed for sale. It could be that they want you to remove them from sale, and let you know that you shouldn’t do it in future.

In any event though – they do not own copyright to your images, not in any sense of thwe word, and if they want to use them, then they have to buy that right from you.

Sorry to read this has hit you like this. Try to look beyond this.

ps – do NOT accept that they own copyright without consulting a lawyer. They may be able to ask you to stop using them, but unless they informed you in advance of some specific rules, I can’t see how they’d be able to claim copyright – which under normal circumstances in Australia rests with the photographer.

That’s shit Nat. Would it be worth talking to Chezzyr? She seems to know her stuff re copyright laws. fingers crossed :)

I just saw this! Will be back in a tick, just having some puter probs

Re the signs – when were the signs posted. I’d think if you took the photos before the signs were there, then there is no way they could make any claims against you. Are the signs prominent? These are things that only a copyright lawyer would have any authority to talk about – it’s a very tricky situation.

All that being said, I’m going to jump up on a soapbox for a moment. This is something a lot of zoos have started doing. In my view it’s both pointless and shortsighted. There is no way they are going to be able to separate professional photographers from semi-pros from amateurs in a zoo. EVERYBODY is taking photos, and unless they stop EVERYBODY then there is no practical way to police this. There are millions of images from zoos on the internet – some for sale and some not for sale. Very very very few of them would be used in commercial photography (which here in Australia is defined as using an image to sell a product or a service). Selling a print or a calendar and making a profit from it is NOT “commercial photography”.

Aside from the practical concerns of enforcing these rules, I think the zoos are doing themselves damage in this way. Bad PR to start with, plus, most of us promote the zoos with our images – helping to raise awareness. It’s a win-win situation if our images from their zoos get attention.

I have an email from Melbourne Zoo back in 2006 implying the three zoos own copyright to images taken there and that they have the right to approve any commercial use and to impose a loyalty fee if applicable. Back then I had some images taken within one of their zoos I was thinking of using. They wanted me to come back with some type of proposal but I never pursued it. I was pretty disappointed at the thought of such hassles and put it in the too hard basket.

Some botanical gardens have similar restrictions eg I wanted to submit an image to a publication then found out the org wanted to charge us HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS for using images taken at their property. Mind you I wasn’t actually making money from the image in queston. Needless to say that image wasn’t used, I chose images that werent taken at places that put ‘restrictions’ on photographers.

I have found its best to have the appropriate clearances/permits if applicable to a certain type of photography/usage. If a property places restrictions, charges fees, claims copyright/ownership you have to decide if its worth it.

Apologies if the formatting is up the creek, I am tapping away on a small borrowed laptop!

eg I meant to say royalty fee not loyalty fee. I also did not seek any legal advice at the time as I wasn’t pursuing the project and my photography changed course.

My understanding is that images taken at the zoo can not be sold without prior permission from the zoo. Regardless of if you sell for commercial gain, for editorial use, to help out a charity, whatever, I believe this is still the case. I think it may even say that on the entry ticket. It’s the same at many sports events – you can take images, but only for personal use without prior permission.

If your images have some to the attention of the zoo, they obviously see that they’re good enough to sell well, and perhaps on that basis, you could talk them into paying you for the images, taking them off general sale, and selling them to the zoo instead…

@ Sara Lamond
“Selling a print or a calendar and making a profit from it is NOT “commercial photography”.”

Do you have this in writing from a lawyer? I get the impression people have different ideas of what defines commercial use. Some would think even making one cent defines it as commercial rolls eyes

Hi Natalie,
I am unsure about the Zoo scenario exactly, but I know that in most States, you are required to hold a landscape photographers licence if you wan to take photos in a National park for re sale purposes. I know also that the Shrine is in reallity off limits for taking photos for other than personal use. In the case of the Shrine in Melbourne, you would need permission to use the shot because they are concerned about inappropriate use.The fact that it is their facility may give some control of taking pictures for certain paurposes, but you would hope they do not get over excited about it.
Good Luck.

@ Cheryl Ridge
Hi!

No, I don’t have this in writing from a lawyer. And Yes, people have different ideas of what defines commercial use. However, there is a legal definition of what constitutes “commercial use” (can’t quote it precisely, but loosely it’s as I stated above – commercial use is a situation where a photograph is being used to sell something other than the photograph itself).
What I do have is some (limited) knowledge of Australian Copyright laws, gained from artslaw.com.au. the Australian Copyright Council website and from the AIPP. Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I strongly encourage anyone who has any questions like this to consult one. But it doesn’t hurt to do a little of your own research into the matter either. artslaw.com.au and the australian copyright council are great places to start.

That being said, Melbourne Zoo (I believe) has the right to restrict all sale of photographs taken then, whether or not they are for commercial use. Whether it’s practical or not (or downright bad publicity) doesn’t really come into it.

As mentioned, they don’t own the Copyright.

They can’t prove your using them to make any sort of profits anyway, and there not entitled to see those details. Stick it to them, call them and say your speaking to your solicitor, but there is NO way they own the Copyright..

Send the idiots a bill for promoting their Zoo in the most extraordinary and stunning way that you do.

I’ve heard of this sort of thing a few years ago. Something to do with the conditions of entry. I couldn’t find on the website, but I think i’ve seen them before. Not knowing the conditions is no excuse.

“For photographs, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the general rule is that the photographer is the first owner of copyright”
By entering the Zoo it could be implied you agreed that the copyright belongs to them. Keep in mind, there’s also moral copyright which always belongs to you, but that’s basically saying they have to attribute it to you.

Check out http://www.copyright.org.au anyhow, I’m pretty sure I read something on there a while back about art vs commercial photography too. I’m pretty sure you can sell art without it being considered commercial.

In the end, they’re going to be able to afford more lawyers, better lawyers and lawyers for a lot longer than you are. Boycott the zoo. Blog it, post it on every website you go to.

In the end though, it’s their land and they make the rules.

Ok….the letter they have sent me is not threatening, they do seem to want it work it out and hopefully it can benefit both of us. They have mentioned they want to work it out as it seems I have a genuine interest in animals.
However there are MANY on here with shots from Aus zoos and they could be effected too.

For those who have said they couldnt find anything on their website, I just did:

“Photos can only be used for personal purposes. The publication, distribution, or reproduction of these photographs for commercial or promotional purposes is prohibited. For further information about commercial photography, contact the Zoo’s Communications Department on (03) 9285 9487”

http://www.zoo.org.au/Melbourne/Behind_the_scenes/further_info

“They have mentioned they want to work it out as it seems I have a genuine interest in animals.”

That’s the key – give them a call. You might even be able to negotiate special access to work on special projects for them. It might prove very helpful for you Natalie. Just don’t agree to anything until you get legal advice – they would expect you to, and will have their own. If you enter into an agreement, keep it professional.

I think this could be a very positive thing for you!

“However there are MANY on here with shots from Aus zoos and they could be effected too.”

So it would be interesting to know the Zoo’s stance on this. Or let’s remove “Aus zoos” and insert markets, city icons, railway stations, uluru etc etc!!!!

I have not been to the zoo for a few years so don’t know about the signage or small print on tickets. Even the link I posted above I found via google…..I can’t even seem to find the info by going via the Melbourne Zoo’s main site so I think they need to consider this. Firstly they need to define Commercial I feel…and if they are going to target/police one person it is only fair they do it to everybody who ever sets foot on their properties and takes a photo and publishes it. This IMO includes mobile phones and facebook lol.

And what will Redbubble do if only I had to take the pix down for sale?

Hiatus with Punch and Judy?? Cans of worms for dinner??

I don’t think they’re “targeting” you Natalie. I think it’s more along the lines of your work being so good that it’s been called to their attention. And it seems they want to work WITH you, not against you.

Maybe…but bad work effects them more than good work really.

sounds typical… everyone wants a piece of everyone else’s pie these days

is it obvious from your photos that you took them at that particular zoo? i was under the impression that if there’s no identifying factor for them to prove that you took it specifically on their property, they can’t really go after you

Sorry to hear this Natalie, it’s a real shame that they think they somehow own the rights to your photos.

I know absolutely nothing about the laws involved but I’m sure that once you tell them about how you are donating most of the money to charities they will encourage you more than anything.

There is a tiny sign about 30cm wide at the main entrance facing towards the entrance that is extremely hard to notice that says that photos taken at the zoo are not to be used for commercial purposes, and that is the only thing I have ever seen stating that.

Sure that the Zoo will be very supportive once you tell them about your donations to charities though.

Look at their website to see what that says

Hi Natalie sorry to say this but I dont think you will have much luck, if MZ have gone to the trouble of contacting you the way they have then it would be safe to say “you don’t have a leg to stand on” especially if there is that sign mentioned by Daniel.
..If you work and can’t ring them then send a letter or email, it takes so little of ones time. I thought when I looked at your work that you were a staff member? Also If you have donated some proceeds you may be asked for proof should this matter be taken further. I wish you much luck and hope this has a happy ending for you :-) Chin up

There was a discussion I came across yesterday on the same subject. It was pertaining to zoos in the US and how some are quite draconian, while others see it as free publicity. There is a bit on the legal standpoint, but regardless of whether or not they allow commercial use, they cannot claim copyright. There are some good suggestions in the thread too.

Nature Photographers

Thinking further on this today I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t just a money issue but a zoo
wanting some involvement/control over images taken of their own exhibits. And they arent to know you are not making truckloads of cash. But somehow know you are publishing them and have the images and related products up for sale. It could also be an issue of credits, if certain images arent being credited when others have…why not?

I hope you will share the outcome because it does not just effect zoo photography enthusiasts
but any hobbyist/part timer who takes photos and publishes them or allows people to purchase them.

Regarding the use of the word ‘copyright’, I do feel it is not right that the zoo says they
own the copyright on any images taken there (basing this on the wording in the email I received from them in 2006). They should simply make a point of stating their stance on ‘commercial photography’ clearly – eg that photography sales/publication without permission/negotiation is prohibited.

It needs to be considered that there are photographers who take photos because it is their hobby…their passion…not because it is their job. Money is not always the motive.
In fact I don’t know about anyone else but I have found at times when the issue became about
money and legalities I started to lose the passion and motivation. Nothing like a wet blanket
to stifle creativity.

Sorry, I copied from notepad and its a bit dog leggy!

I will let everyone know. Melb Zoo are being pretty accomodating and realise their signage and the info available is not great.
The process to go through and be allowed to exhbit and sell the images isn’t too hard apparently and I’ll get back to everyone.
They DO know about RB so…those with images should probably contact them.

That is sounding positive, in fact it has given me a nudge to contact a couple of other places who have not been very accomodating of ‘small time’ photographers.

Good luck with this Natalie. I would be keen to hear more about what is involved in getting ‘permission’ to sell images taken at their zoo. I haven’t got any images from the Melbourne Zoo but it makes me curious about other Australian zoo’s that I’ve been to.

I won’t really know anything until next week, so will let everyone know then.

Sorry to read this but it sure is a compliment too, that is for sure.
Ofcourse the images are able to be traced back as each animal has it own features maing them unique. Seeing your pictures are crystalclear they will sure know it was from their zoo.
Good luck in the negotiations.
It reminds me of similar actions from the Eiffel-tower commitée. They too tried to remove pictures of a lightshow posted on the internet.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2417/