Chester Zoo Chester 2011 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was being done (photographing incoming customers) at some of the top theme parks in the late 80's and was hailled as a complete waste of time as only a few of the customers actually purchased a photograph.

I would not be surprised if next year the addmission price goes up and thus will include a photograph (taken without your concent thus against data protection act unless they suspect you of committing or are going to commit a criminal act) included in the addmission price.
 
I'd forgotten until now we were photographed on the way in to Kelly Tarlton's in Auckland, it added nothing to a fairly disappointing experience.
Elbows were not required.
 
I know it's not a vast amount of money, but surely they would get more return if the improved the quality of gifts in the shop. Stop selling the general zoo tat.

When was the last dinosaur on show at Chester Zoo?

Concentrate on Chester specific items, like polo shirts, baseball caps etc. I know they sell some but this seems to be aimed purely at kids. My better half and I have gone in during every visit we make to Chester. Only to be sadly disappointed year after year.
 
Last edited:
One thing missing not just from Chester but from ALL UK zoos and that is a badge with the name of the collection on and then you can buy year bars to add to the base of the badge as to construct a ladder effect under the main badge.
I do agree with Satan on the lack of merchandise with the name Chester Zoo on in the gift shops why not promote what a brilliant collection they have instead of the poundland stuff they pump out for such inflated prices.
 
adrian1963 said:
I would not be surprised if next year the addmission price goes up and thus will include a photograph (taken without your concent thus against data protection act unless they suspect you of committing or are going to commit a criminal act) included in the addmission price.
Click to expand...

If you're in a public place I'm fairly sure there's next to nothing (legally) you can do to prevent anyone taking a photograph of you (hence the plethora of paparazzi shots filling lower-end newspapers).

The Data Protection Act only relates to information stored electronically and specificies that that information can only be stored for an amount of time that is deemed of use/relevance. I'd imagine if they take and process the photograph during the day and delete it at the end there's no problem (but there would be if they kept it for any length of time as there'd be no justification for doing so).

I can't imagine their actions would be against the Data Protection Act just because there's no suspicion of crime -organisations are allowed to record images for (potential) security purposes, again provided they're not retained for an unreasonable amount of time. Hence, supermarkets are allowed to record us all walking around their premises.
 
Satan said:
When was the last dinosaur on show at Chester Zoo?
Click to expand...
Dinosaurs are going to be on show in the summer, so expect even more stuff like that in the shop.

Regarding photos, last time I went to London zoo, sorry ZSL London, there was quite a queue to get in which involved being photographed against a green screen. I declined without too much bother, although everyone else in the queue did have their pictures taken. I can't remember what they were charging for this.
 
The only thing that bothers me is waiting in a long queue for everyone else to have their photos taken when I do not want to.

I also can't understnd why the photographers would think that an adult visiting alone would want to buy a photo of themsleves. If someone is with children it's a different matter.

I have had no trouble either at London or Whipsnade when I declined the offer.

I think Shorts is right, I have never heard of any law that prohibits photography of other people either in a public place, or on private property where photography is allowed e.g. a zoo.
 
Shorts I can understand what you are saying but having worked in Security and having worked with DVD recordings of personnel visiting stores and shopping centres then you are allowed to watch people but you cannot record or take images without evidence of a crime being committed or you have suspicion that a crime is going to take place. once an image as been capture in a public place than unless the person/s have given written consent to the organisation to publish that image then the only other way that image can be processed is by police permission and this is very rare unless you go to court to obtain permission unless the law as changed since Christmas 2010 as this was when I last passed my examination for security controller
Images once recorded in a public attraction have to be kept on file for a minimum of 3 years; this is why virtually all public attractions with CCTV don't record unless they have suspicion about a crime being committed.
 
adrian1963 said:
Shorts I can understand what you are saying but having worked in Security and having worked with DVD recordings of personnel visiting stores and shopping centres then you are allowed to watch people but you cannot record or take images without evidence of a crime being committed or you have suspicion that a crime is going to take place. once an image as been capture in a public place than unless the person/s have given written consent to the organisation to publish that image then the only other way that image can be processed is by police permission and this is very rare unless you go to court to obtain permission unless the law as changed since Christmas 2010 as this was when I last passed my examination for security controller
Images once recorded in a public attraction have to be kept on file for a minimum of 3 years; this is why virtually all public attractions with CCTV don't record unless they have suspicion about a crime being committed.
Click to expand...

But you have to record everything for at least a short time or you'd never be able to access anything you didn't notice straight away, surely? Footage of missing persons, such as that of Joanna Yates on the day of her disappearance, wouldn't have been recorded, as there was nothing to link an ordinary customer buying a pizza to a crime until much later. If someone at Tesco had enough foreknowledge to intentionally record that then they ought to consider a move to the CID...
 
jordan-12 said:
So if you want to take photos then do you have to get permission?
Click to expand...

I think that it is taken for granted that photography is allowed anywhere that has no sign saying otherwise. The only place I have ever been where photography was not allowed was Westminster Abbey, and guess who never noticed the sign?
 
What I am trying to say is that they have to have permission to upload a image that is taken they cannot just do it
Most CCTV these days is automatically recorded but the law states they are not allowed to do this, most new CCTV actually will keep recordings for 7 days but by law this must be kept for at least 3 years
Thinkng about it we all do it by recording programmes and taking images without permission so good luck to them
Most zoo or any attraction these days will have a notice about taking photography but if you are like me you don't go looking for these notices.
I am only passing on the part of my examination that includes the privacy law and how it applies to taking images of the public in public places hope this helps
I know this is part of the law that hardly anyone abides by but it is there.
 
I think that most places that do this photo option actually have it in parts of their terms and conditions. For example by entering the attraction you are agreeing to the fact they can take a photo of you and print it, unless you specifically opt out.
 
Bongorob has made some very valid points about queues taking longer with everybody having their picture taken in line - which is particularly annoying if you don't actually want a picture.

I quite like this idea for families and indeed maybe adults (I actually want one :eek:). Would this however not be better in the entrance area either inside or out in a set place, therefore people that want one approach the photographer and their greenscreen [if that makes sense]?

I know, let's bin Sabrina-the-ice-dragon and put the greenscreen in her hut :p
 
Or maybe just have 1 or 2 queues that include the photos, and 1 or 2 without. It would cut down waiting time and still allow them to cash-in. It might also have the added benefit of not wasting materials on people that are not interested. It would certainly save the regulars a lot of waiting and bother, and save materials/money to boot
 
AgileGibbon said:
Or maybe just have 1 or 2 queues that include the photos, and 1 or 2 without. It would cut down waiting time and still allow them to cash-in. It might also have the added benefit of not wasting materials on people that are not interested. It would certainly save the regulars a lot of waiting and bother, and save materials/money to boot
Click to expand...

Agreed, but unfortunately that's not how the commercial world works -they know people are more likely to buy photo's if they channel them into a position where they feel obliged* to have a photo taken and then the photographees will at least discuss whether or not to buy a copy (you've also got the potential pester power). They've worked out the numbers and know they wouldn't get as high sales if people had the obvious option to bypass*.

* they're relying on people's inherent lemmingness and politeness to not refuse -some will decline (including me) but a number, though not (initially) wanting a photo, will go through the motions of being photographed so as to not offend or rock the boat. i.e. most people will think it's an inescapable part of being admitted.
 
The laws on public photography are clear. If you take many photographs it's even worth carrying a copy given that people are so paranoid these days and the police aren't always clued up.

In essence, in a public place you can photograph anyone, including children, and use those images both privately and commercially. The only provisos are that you don't harass the person(s) you're photographing - for example jumping out of bushes and following them around (especially if it happens on more than one occasion) - and you're not doing something that's clearly "weird", like spending the entire day photographing the childrens' play area.

There is a grey area in terms of privacy, but that doesn't apply in a public place, only to locations where you wouldn't expect someone to be taking photographs (in the doctor's waiting room, the tanning salon etc).

The Home Office minister said: "There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place."

Bear in mind however, that in places like zoos, you have to observe their own terms and conditions which are often placed on society members and as part of the contract when buying a ticket. For example as this is a Chester thread, anyone can take photographs at Chester Zoo, but they cannot be sold or used commercially. If you wish to make money from your photos of Chester (and other zoos), then you need to pay the zoo for a license, and then they might want to vet what you shoot. You can't print your photos on T-shirts and mouse-mats, unless you plan to give them away.

As Google will tell you, property owners can't stop you taking photographs of their home or business provided you're standing in a public place. They most certainly can't ask you to delete your images, and the police can't either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top