Rules about photos and recordings

[Daniel Sörensen]

I'm visiting hagenbeck zoo today and on their sign it says that you can not use the photos or recordings for anything else than for personal use. You are not allowed to upload them without their permission. How do I handle this? Do I ask them to upload the photos to zoochat and Flickr?
Photo shows the full text.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I'm visiting hagenbeck zoo today and on their sign it says that you can not use the photos or recordings for anything else than for personal use. You are not allowed to upload them without their permission. How do I handle this? Do I ask them to upload the photos to zoochat and Flickr?
Photo shows the full text.

Yes, absolutely - if you have seen and understood those conditions prior to buying your entry ticket, then the two actions form a legal contract. If you do not agree, then you should not enter. From a quick glance, you must not only ask them first, but also wait for their written approval.

How/if they plan to enforce the contract, or what the penalties or damages are, especially if you are anonymous - is a whole different question, which so far as I can see the sign does not answer.

 

[Daniel Sörensen]

Yes, absolutely - if you have seen and understood those conditions prior to buying your entry ticket, then the two actions form a legal contract. If you do not agree, then you should not enter. From a quick glance, you must not only ask them first, but also wait for their written approval.

How/if they plan to enforce the contract, or what the penalties or damages are, especially if you are anonymous - is a whole different question, which so far as I can see the sign does not answer.

Thank you! I will make sure to send them an email first!

 

[FunkyGibbon]

This question has been discussed before, and I think the definitive viewpoint came from @MRJ:

If Hagenbecks really try and enforce this policy they have been remarkably unsuccessful, with over 25,000 photos under the "Hagnenbeck" tag on Instagram alone. As for reviews there are over 7,600 on Google but only 2.000 on Tripadvisor. Of these 20 rated it as "terrible" with review titles such as "Horrible animal condition, we would expect better for Germany". Overall though they have a very good review rating on Tripadvisor and should be very happy with it.

Any zoo with a marketing department for the 21st Century wants you to post photos and talk about them. They will be spending most of their time discussing ways of getting more Facebook likes, Instagram posts and Tripadvisor reviews and anything else they can get online, including Zoochat posts.

These conditions are to make sure advertising companies don't use their images for free, or weddings don't clog up the park without compensation. They might be used to try and scare off the worst of the "PETA" type criticism. Maybe back in the 1980's somebody thought a ban on photos online might be a good policy to try and enforce. But it would be an insane zoo manager that tried to pursue zoochatters, let alone the general public, for posting reviews and photos in 2018. The only thing they would achieve would be to make themselves a laughing stock.

Point being, whatever the sign says, more than 1.5 million people visit Hagenbeck every year, and you can bet almost all of them upload photos on to social media with no consequences.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Ok , but what is the actual purpose/ objective behind this zoo banning the uploading of photos to social media ?

Is it due to concerns about "Animal rights" activists using photos to miscontrue public perception about the zoo by inventing some ******** claim about the welfare of the animals ?

If so it strikes me as quite an extreme move and as FunkyGibbon has already pointed out it seems difficult to impossible to adequately enforce.

I mean it just seems a little illogical and poorly thought out to be honest.

 

[Great Argus]

As FunkyGibbon has pointed out, it's nearly impossible to enforce photo rules. Really any zoo typically has a "personal use only policy" for photos in my experience. San Diego has this policy, but even showcases guest's photos on their home page. I think they are mainly concerned about people trying to make money off photos taken at their facility without written permission from the zoo. I've never seen any negative feedback from facilities when guests upload photos from their visits in comments or tag the zoo. So long as you're not trying to make money using the photos without their permission, I don't think they care too much, at least normally.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Ok , but what is the actual purpose/ objective behind this zoo banning the uploading of photos to social media ?

Is it due to concerns about "Animal rights" activists using photos to miscontrue public perception about the zoo by inventing some ******** claim about the welfare of the animals ?

If so it strikes me as quite an extreme move and as FunkyGibbon has already pointed out it seems difficult to impossible to adequately enforce.

I mean it just seems a little illogical and poorly thought out to be honest.

Indeed, it would be very interesting to know why Hagenbeck (or San Diego) list a very clear rule and do not then enforce it. So doing, weakens their position with the many other basic rules ie (presumably) 'no feeding' or 'do not cross the barriers'. Any rule or law which is not enforceable and widely ignored is a bad one by definition and should be repealed; but until it is, and along with the others, it stands as a 'condition of entry' accepted by anyone paying the entry fee and entering the site..

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Indeed, it would be very interesting to know why Hagenbeck (or San Diego) list a very clear rule and do not then enforce it. So doing, weakens their position with the many other basic rules ie (presumably) 'no feeding' or 'do not cross the barriers'. Any rule or law which is not enforceable and widely ignored is a bad one by definition and should be repealed; but until it is, and along with the others, it stands as a 'condition of entry' accepted by anyone paying the entry fee and entering the site..

Yes , of course , I agree , visitors should abide by the rules set , however, these are so unrealistic that they undermine the institution. I wonder both why they came up with such a bad idea and when they will scrap it as they inevitably will.

 

[Arizona Docent]

I read the linked photo and that is a bizarre (and stupid) policy. Many zoos (here in USA at least) mention a prohibition on commercial photography (which is a very specific term that does not even include all selling of photography but only specific uses that I don't have space to go into). However the Hagenbeck link also says non-commercial, including personal websites. That is insane and as noted, completely unenforceable. It is also in small type on a long list of rules the vast majority of visitors would never bother to read.

As for banning commercial photography in general (a more or less industry wide practice) I have a feeling that it is largely a mandate from zoo legal departments to protect themselves from liability claims. For example, if a professional photographer is working on a paid job that needs a lion photo and while he is photographing lions at the zoo he trips on some uneven pavement and fractures his ankle and is unable to work for a month. He files a workman's compensation claim to earn money for that month and the insurance company looks into the zoo for the uneven pavement. Well the zoo never gave him permission to work there so they cannot be held liable. Similarly, if he is shooting an ad for major company and someone starts a campaign against that company for unethical practices or whatever and the people behind the campaign say look Zoo X supports them because the company used their giraffe photo so people should boycott the zoo also. The blanket "no commercial photography" clause protects the zoo from all of this.

No one has told me specifically that this is the reason, it is just my intuition based on the litigiousness of the United States. I also know from previous unsuccessful lawsuits here in USA that it would be exceedingly difficult for a zoo to win a case against a private (non professional) photographer for using photos. The free speech clause has been used to give some shockingly favorable rulings to photographers, even some I don't agree with (like the guy in a high rise apartment in New York City who used a telephoto lens to photograph families and children in their homes in a neighboring high rise and then got a gallery display and when the pictured families sued they lost). I am speaking specifically of the United States, I have no knowledge of what legal protections photographers would have in other countries (though I cannot imagine Hagenbeck would ever file a suit for photos uploaded to Facebook or Zoochat).

 

[Arizona Docent]

One followup thought: if you are doing closeups of animals, where the location is not obvious, my advice would be just don't mention where it was taken. (Obviously this does not apply to ZooChat where each zoo has its own gallery, but I mean on personal websites, etc). If you have a website you can just put "taken in captivity".

 

[Andrew Swales]

I read the linked photo and that is a bizarre (and stupid) policy. Many zoos (here in USA at least) mention a prohibition on commercial photography (which is a very specific term that does not even include all selling of photography but only specific uses that I don't have space to go into). However the Hagenbeck link also says non-commercial, including personal websites. That is insane and as noted, completely unenforceable. It is also in small type on a long list of rules the vast majority of visitors would never bother to read.

As for banning commercial photography in general (a more or less industry wide practice) I have a feeling that it is largely a mandate from zoo legal departments to protect themselves from liability claims. For example, if a professional photographer is working on a paid job that needs a lion photo and while he is photographing lions at the zoo he trips on some uneven pavement and fractures his ankle and is unable to work for a month. He files a workman's compensation claim to earn money for that month and the insurance company looks into the zoo for the uneven pavement. Well the zoo never gave him permission to work there so they cannot be held liable. Similarly, if he is shooting an ad for major company and someone starts a campaign against that company for unethical practices or whatever and the people behind the campaign say look Zoo X supports them because the company used their giraffe photo so people should boycott the zoo also. The blanket "no commercial photography" clause protects the zoo from all of this.

No one has told me specifically that this is the reason, it is just my intuition based on the litigiousness of the United States. I also know from previous unsuccessful lawsuits here in USA that it would be exceedingly difficult for a zoo to win a case against a private (non professional) photographer for using photos. The free speech clause has been used to give some shockingly favorable rulings to photographers, even some I don't agree with (like the guy in a high rise apartment in New York City who used a telephoto lens to photograph families and children in their homes in a neighboring high rise and then got a gallery display and when the pictured families sued they lost). I am speaking specifically of the United States, I have no knowledge of what legal protections photographers would have in other countries (though I cannot imagine Hagenbeck would ever file a suit for photos uploaded to Facebook or Zoochat).

I think it is also a relic from the past. It is difficult for younger poster to appreciate, but there was (not so long ago), a World before personal photography. Photographs were special, and expensive - and you paid a professional to take an album of photos at special events like weddings and christenings. In many families, good cameras were in the hands of distant, and often rather strange, uncle. In those days zoos would have charged a professional photographer a solid fee, and issued him with a license, like a fishing or hunting permit. Photography has gone full circle, and is now throw away; the problem is finding the good ones amongst the dross...

 

[sooty mangabey]

In many families, good cameras were in the hands of distant, and often rather strange, uncle.

Never trust a strange old uncle who’s obsessed by Leica lenses and Amateur Photographer magazine....

Photography has gone full circle, and is now throw away; the problem is finding the good ones amongst the dross...

Fortunately there are some very good ones out there, often with a particular interest in particular zoos.... it’s sometimes easy to take the brilliance of @ro6ca66 for granted, but again and again, he gets it spectacularly right.

 

[Jurek7]

I think it is just a bad wording of the regulation that the Hagenbeck Zoo wants to be informed if a pro phogorapher wants to use it as a studio.

To make it more bizarre, German law probably allows taking pictures against the owner permission if there is an aim of documenting animal abuse.

 

[littleRedPanda]

I think it is just a bad wording of the regulation that the Hagenbeck Zoo wants to be informed if a pro phogorapher wants to use it as a studio.

This was my thought, maybe it hadn't translated to English accurately; common with German I believe. Have any native German members of the forum read the original text?

 

[Batto]

"Grundsätzlich gilt: Das Fotografieren und Filmen ist im Tierpark und Tropen-Aquarium Hagenbeck für rein private (Souvenir-)Zwecke gestattet. Im Tropen-Aquarium darf nur ohne Blitzlicht fotografiert werden. Bitte senden Sie uns im Falle einer geplanten Veröffentlichung eine E-Mail an presse@hagenbeck.de. Die kommerzielle Verwendung der Daten bedarf einer schriftlichen Genehmigung. Die damit verbundenen Kosten richten sich nach dem jeweiligen Verwendungszweck. Anfragen richten Sie bitte schriftlich an presse@hagenbeck.de."


In general, taking pictures or filming for purely private purposes (i.e. souvenirs) is allowed both in the Tierpark and the Tropen-Aquarium. Please do not use a flash when photographing in the Aquarium. Please send us an e-mail at presse@hagenbeck.de if you plan to publish [your photos/film]. For the commercial use [of your media], a written confirmation [by Hagenbeck] is required. The associated fees comply with the individual intended use. All enquiries should be sent in written form to presse@hagenbeck.de
Tierpark Hagenbeck

 

[Andrew Swales]

I think it is just a bad wording of the regulation that the Hagenbeck Zoo wants to be informed if a pro phogorapher wants to use it as a studio.

The text in the picture shown above does not appear to be badly worded at all.
Quite the opposite - it is clear, concise and appears to have been carefully worded.

 

[Daniel Sörensen]

Today i got my answer from Hagenbeck Zoo.

"Dear Mr Sörensen,

thank you for your e-mail and the related interest in Hagenbeck.



You are welcome to take pictures for non-commercial purposes and you can upload the photos to the sites "Zoochat.com" and "Flickr.com".



Unfortunately, we can‘t give a general permission, each request must be processed individually, every photo must be viewed. Please send us a maximum of 12 photos to presse@hagenbeck.de. You will receive an answer as soon as possible.



Thank you for your understanding



Kind regards

--



Nina S******a

Öffentlichkeitsarbeit"


This zoo keeps surprising me and im not really wanting to go back as photographing animals and uploading kinda is one of the big reasons I go to zoos. Well... Maximum of 12 photos. I took about 1500 photos at their park... Well that's a fun memory at least and I can show my family the 1500 photos of hagenbeck in the future. Haha...
I would just upload them (as some of you said) but it would just feel weird now after asking them

Luckily one of my closest and favorite zoos is weltvogelpark Walsrode and they seem to be way more open about photographing. Last time I read the rules you were not allowed to sell the photos you took there, and that's a fair rule.

 

[littleRedPanda]

Thanks for clearing that up @Daniel Sörensen

 

[FunkyGibbon]

@Daniel Sörensen I see you have uploaded all your photos with the text:

This photo is uploaded and shared to inspire, educate and to show off the park to other people that are interested in zoos.

Is this on the direction of Hagenbeck or a personal choice?

Also, more than twelve photos?

I'd like to hear the end of this fairly ridiculous saga.

 

[Daniel Sörensen]

@Daniel Sörensen I see you have uploaded all your photos with the text:

This photo is uploaded and shared to inspire, educate and to show off the park to other people that are interested in zoos.

Is this on the direction of Hagenbeck or a personal choice?

Also, more than twelve photos?

I'd like to hear the end of this fairly ridiculous saga.

It's actually something I wrote myself (personal choice) just to make a bit of a statement (or something) that everyone is not bad people that wants to expose the flaws of their zoo or use the photos to gain a coin. I tried to keep a conversation with them about this all via mail but it all just seemed more and more ridiculous to me, the rules, 12 photos etc etc. (on Google you can read about that they have told people to upload bad quality photos, small size photos, black and white photos etc)
I decided to go with my guts and what most people I've talked to here and on other platforms have been telling me, to upload the photos.

If Hagenbeck would take actions against me (or any other zoo chatter) for this they would in fact make a fool out of themselfs. I know it might happen, but it would just be a bad decision for them to go after us zoochatters. I don't want any harm to the zoo and nothing I've uploaded is bad advertising for them if you ask me. I like the zoo and think they have some really nice animals and scenery. I closely looked through the photos I took and uploaded, and i kept out flaws that I actually saw in the park to respect the zoo a bit at least.

So yeah, personal decision the uploading and the text.