Closed Zoo rules, zoo responses and the gallery

[KevinB]

Dear members of Zoochat,

I have a question that arose after my recent perusal of zool rules of zoos in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany regarding photography in their parks and the use and/or publication of photographs taken in their facilities.

Almost every zoo has in their rules that photographs can only be taken "for personal use" only and that any commercial use is not allowed. But many zoos (including Burgers' Zoo, for example, the one I was planning to soon visit and have in vain asked for clarification, as well as several German zoos including Hagenbeck and Duisburg) add that ANY publication of photographs from their parks anywhere, including non-commercially and on personal websites, is banned without explicit permission from the zoo.

I do not know exactly for what reasons or with what intent this is, but until recently I didn't know things were this strict to be honest.

I have also heard that at least some German zoos (Hagenbeck for example) also enforce this rule and contact people to gently but firmly urge them to remove published pictures, or else they'll be sued.

Now I wonder, have Zoochat or members of Zoochat ever had negative responses or removal requests from zoos regarding pictures published in the extensive gallery on this site? Is this something that is or should be of concern to this site and it's members?

Personally I was planning to start posting in the gallery again, posting extensive overviews of zoos on Zoochat again as I have done in the past, but my recent perusal of zoo rules combined with the new rules on identifiable photos of people stemming from the EU's GDPR regulation have forced me to decide to abstain completely and definitively from any future publishing of pictures. I really do not want to risk a subpoena, a lawsuit or fines an/or imprisonment. I'm rather disappointed at the moment and not feeling much motivation to go to any zoo right now, but I'm hoping I'll be able to move on at least. But it still leaves me more than a bit confused by the how and why of such strong and harsh rules.

 

[lintworm]

as well as several German zoos including Hagenbeck and Duisburg) add that ANY publication of photographs from their parks anywhere, including non-commercially and on personal websites, is banned without explicit permission from the zoo.

I must say I am surprised by Hagenbecks photo rules, though I am not aware that we ever had any problems. The rules of Zoo Duisburg state that for non-commercial purposes use is allowed. The huge majority of zoo states that non-commercial use is allowed.

rsonally I was planning to start posting in the gallery again, posting extensive overviews of zoos on Zoochat again as I have done in the past, but my recent perusal of zoo rules combined with the new rules on identifiable photos of people stemming from the EU's GDPR regulation have forced me to decide to abstain completely and definitively from any future publishing of pictures.

As long as you make sure the people are non-recognizable in the first place, or whether you crop the image / blend the faces, there should be no problem. It is Zoochat policy anyway to limit the amount of people in the pictures. There has been quite some fear mongering over the last EU regulations.... I see no reason why you should not post extensive reviews for the grand majority of zoos....

 

[Maguari]

Almost every zoo has in their rules that photographs can only be taken "for personal use" only and that any commercial use is not allowed. But many zoos (including Burgers' Zoo, for example, the one I was planning to soon visit and have in vain asked for clarification, as well as several German zoos including Hagenbeck and Duisburg) add that ANY publication of photographs from their parks anywhere, including non-commercially and on personal websites, is banned without explicit permission from the zoo.

I'd be very surprised if any zoo actively enforces these kind of rules - it seems likely they exist to enable them to pursue any persistent troublemakers if the need arose. I'd certainly expect that if they didn't like anything posted they'd simply ask for it to be removed before taking any more dramatic action.

 

[Simon Hampel]

Except in extreme cases of misuse, the first step is never a lawsuit - especially when dealing with private individuals and non-commercial usage. That's what is referred to as a "PR nightmare" ... "I WAS THREATENED BY THIS ZOO'S LAWYERS FOR UPLOADING A PHOTO OF MY FAMILY'S TRIP TO THE ZOO" is not a great headline for the zoo.

And as mentioned by lintworm, the whole GDPR thing has been vastly overblown, especially when it comes to photos.

In most countries, being photographed in a publicly accessible place (even if on private land, such as a zoo), where you appear "incidentally" to the subject of the photo (ie it's not a portrait shot of the person, they are simply in the background of an enclosure or animal photo), then there is no requirement for consent.

Either way - we do have fairly strict rules against showing photos of people in the galleries, so this isn't generally an issue anyway. People in photos uploaded to ZooChat would only be permitted it they were in the background and incidental to the photo (or have otherwise explicitly consented to the publication of those photos - at members at a zoo meetup).

We do actively remove photos we deem to be inappropriate - so if we feel any photos have crossed the line, you will be informed.

I think you'd find that there are plenty of photos from Hagenbeck and Duisburg and other similar zoos already published online - it's not as if such photos are chased down mercilessly by a team of lawyers. In many cases, it is in their own best interests to allow photos to be published, because it helps promote their zoos and draw in new visitors.

I wouldn't be concerned - post your reviews.

 

[KevinB]

Thanks for your answers and advise and for taking the time to write these posts, guys.

Unfortunately so far I am continuing to fail to be convinced or truly calmed down.

I must say I am surprised by Hagenbecks photo rules, though I am not aware that we ever had any problems. The rules of Zoo Duisburg state that for non-commercial purposes use is allowed. The huge majority of zoo states that non-commercial use is allowed.

As long as you make sure the people are non-recognizable in the first place, or whether you crop the image / blend the faces, there should be no problem. It is Zoochat policy anyway to limit the amount of people in the pictures. There has been quite some fear mongering over the last EU regulations.... I see no reason why you should not post extensive reviews for the grand majority of zoos....

To me it seems that "for personal use only", even without an additional clause prohibiting publication, already somewhat implies that they do not want to to publish photos, even for non-commercial reasons. Especially in the day and age of internet and social media it is rather unclear to me what "personal use only" means, legally speaking.

I always try maximally to avoid photographing people and having them appear recognizable in pictures. I am even more careful with it now. I just hope that's enough, because while part of the talk about the EU-regulations is possibly fear-mongering, the fines under these regulations are extremely hefty - and under these regulations courts are legally obliged to impose dissuasive and hefty fines, i.e. you'd never get off lightly under this law. And I do not feel like being the poor sod the court uses to make an example...

I'd be very surprised if any zoo actively enforces these kind of rules - it seems likely they exist to enable them to pursue any persistent troublemakers if the need arose. I'd certainly expect that if they didn't like anything posted they'd simply ask for it to be removed before taking any more dramatic action.

I would be too, to be honest, but the rules still stand. And they are formulated very broadly and generally, not in such a way to go after just the worst offenders. Basically they could use such rules as hammer against any place or any person who posts anything they dislike.

Except in extreme cases of misuse, the first step is never a lawsuit - especially when dealing with private individuals and non-commercial usage. That's what is referred to as a "PR nightmare" ... "I WAS THREATENED BY THIS ZOO'S LAWYERS FOR UPLOADING A PHOTO OF MY FAMILY'S TRIP TO THE ZOO" is not a great headline for the zoo.

That would make a zoo seem very unsympathetic indeed, but I think it wouldn't be as much of a PR nightmare if a zoo were to sue people like us who posts pictures of every single zoo exhibit and who aren't afraid to be critical of animal exhibits and zoo policies.

And as mentioned by lintworm, the whole GDPR thing has been vastly overblown, especially when it comes to photos.

In most countries, being photographed in a publicly accessible place (even if on private land, such as a zoo), where you appear "incidentally" to the subject of the photo (ie it's not a portrait shot of the person, they are simply in the background of an enclosure or animal photo), then there is no requirement for consent.

Either way - we do have fairly strict rules against showing photos of people in the galleries, so this isn't generally an issue anyway. People in photos uploaded to ZooChat would only be permitted it they were in the background and incidental to the photo (or have otherwise explicitly consented to the publication of those photos - at members at a zoo meetup).

We do actively remove photos we deem to be inappropriate - so if we feel any photos have crossed the line, you will be informed.

Thanks for the information.
The rules against posting people in the gallery are good rules, which I have also reviewed for clarity, and I am definitely not planning on straying outside of said rules.

I think you'd find that there are plenty of photos from Hagenbeck and Duisburg and other similar zoos already published online - it's not as if such photos are chased down mercilessly by a team of lawyers. In many cases, it is in their own best interests to allow photos to be published, because it helps promote their zoos and draw in new visitors.

At least from Hagenbeck I've heard that they have chased down and contacted people to firmly urge them to remove things, but I am not aware of any further details of the case, unfortunately.

That said, you are probably right, but I still cannot imagine zoos being all that pleased about places like this on the public internet showing all of their exhibits, and I could imagine them pursuing action against this site and participating members.

Another aspect is that negative commentary on zoos' policies, activities or exhibits placed on a site like this could lead to a lawsuit for defamation. It wouldn't be the first time someone gets sued for defamation over negative commentary on the internet.

I mean, it would be quite easy for anyone, including certainly animal rights activists and zoo opponents to use a place like this as a source to find material to attack zoos in general or specific zoos. I would never forgive myself if materials I provided would be used against zoos, and if that were to happen I would almost certainly find myself sued - and rightfully so.

I wouldn't be concerned - post your reviews.

Personally I really dislike being a rule-breaker and exposing myself to the potential consequences thereof.

Even if a lawsuit, fines, damages, imprisonment or impounding of property (camera, laptop) were far-fetched, zoos still have every legal right to refuse entry or to remove people from their property whom they believe have the intention to not follow rules or to bring damage to a zoo. Being banned from or kicked out of a zoo or multiple zoos is certainly something I wish to avoid.

I would really love to post these reviews, but I just can't feel right about it, given my current knowledge and fears.

My following planned visit, to Burgers' Zoo, is still hanging in the balance. I asked them for clarification on the rule and specifically mentioned my goals, but so far they have not replied and I'm not sure if I dare to go there without having received an answer.

I also hope that by specifically mentioning this website (calling it a site by and for zoo-lovers) I have not brought trouble or action to this site.

 

[Simon Hampel]

Another aspect is that negative commentary on zoos' policies, activities or exhibits placed on a site like this could lead to a lawsuit for defamation. It wouldn't be the first time someone gets sued for defamation over negative commentary on the internet.

Defamation generally happens to individuals, not companies or organisations.

You are completely entitled to present your opinion - there are no laws against publishing an honest review of your experiences and opinions on a matter. Provided that you stick to the facts as you see them (based on your actual visit, not speculation), coupled with your opinion - and you don't assert criminal wrongdoing or other such things against individuals or anything silly like that - then you'll be fine.

Making claims about something you've not seen for yourself and is only based on hearsay or speculation, may become problematic. Reporting what you saw and experienced and how you felt about things cannot be disputed in court.

At the end of the day - you need to be comfortable with what you publish online. If you fear reprisals (which I don't think you should), then don't post it - simple as that.

 

[lintworm]

To me it seems that "for personal use only", even without an additional clause prohibiting publication, already somewhat implies that they do not want to to publish photos, even for non-commercial reasons. Especially in the day and age of internet and social media it is rather unclear to me what "personal use only" means, legally speaking.

The vast majority of zoos state that for non-commercial purposes it is allowed to publish them online, Hagenbeck and to a lesser extent Burgers' Zoo are exceptions. The thing is however with Burgers' photo policy, you would strictly speaking not be allowed to upload pictures on facebook or instagram, even though Burgers' is actively promoting that people do that.... So there is a very small number of zoos for which you would theoretically need to worry, but for the vast majority there is no legal restriction whatsoever. And even if a zoo would hypothetically that you remove something online, the first step won't be a subpoena, but just a "polite" request, if you would fail to listen, maybe then you would get in trouble.

 

[KevinB]

Defamation generally happens to individuals, not companies or organisations.

You are completely entitled to present your opinion - there are no laws against publishing an honest review of your experiences and opinions on a matter. Provided that you stick to the facts as you see them (based on your actual visit, not speculation), coupled with your opinion - and you don't assert criminal wrongdoing or other such things against individuals or anything silly like that - then you'll be fine.

Making claims about something you've not seen for yourself and is only based on hearsay or speculation, may become problematic. Reporting what you saw and experienced and how you felt about things cannot be disputed in court.

At the end of the day - you need to be comfortable with what you publish online. If you fear reprisals (which I don't think you should), then don't post it - simple as that.

Thanks again for the information.

Not really at the end of the day yet, but getting near I've considered things and I think I could probably be comfortable with publishing pictures from zoos that don't strictly prohibit publishing and seem to allow non-commercial sharing.

That said, I've been low on energy lately and I still need to find the energy to do the whole process again, and I'm not sure that will be happening.

As for the other zoos, I'm going to contact those and ask, and hope that they eventually do reply, and decide based on that what to do or not to do. For Burgers' Zoo for now it looks like there won't be any sharing, unless they still reply positively.

The vast majority of zoos state that for non-commercial purposes it is allowed to publish them online, Hagenbeck and to a lesser extent Burgers' Zoo are exceptions. The thing is however with Burgers' photo policy, you would strictly speaking not be allowed to upload pictures on facebook or instagram, even though Burgers' is actively promoting that people do that.... So there is a very small number of zoos for which you would theoretically need to worry, but for the vast majority there is no legal restriction whatsoever. And even if a zoo would hypothetically that you remove something online, the first step won't be a subpoena, but just a "polite" request, if you would fail to listen, maybe then you would get in trouble.

Yes, Burgers' Zoo's policy is a bit strange. Because they have my name from my asked question I won't be sharing anything from my upcoming visit, unless they happen to still reply positively.

I guess for most zoos given a bit of thought I would probably be okay.

 

[Simon Hampel]

As for the other zoos, I'm going to contact those and ask, and hope that they eventually do reply, and decide based on that what to do or not to do. For Burgers' Zoo for now it looks like there won't be any sharing, unless they still reply positively.

Honestly, I suspect 9 times out of 10 they will actually resent having to respond to you - requests like this simply create more work for someone in Public Relations.

Imagine if 5,000+ members on ZooChat all contacted every zoo they visited asking for permission to publish photos? All that would achieve would be to really annoy the zoos about the amount of work we are creating for them!

Seriously - the notices they place at the zoos and on their websites are designed to deal with these enquiries preemptively, and to constitute "fair notice" that they may pursue people who they feel are misusing photos that have been taken. It doesn't mean that they will pursue - it costs real money to do so if they actually have to engage lawyers, money which could be better spent on actual conservation and such. Their intent would be to give them rights to pursue the troublemakers, not members of the general public.

If you are not posting with malicious intent, then they should have no grounds for complaint - and if they do complain - then simply deal with it at that point.

So just follow our photo uploading guidelines - especially avoiding posting any photos of things behind-the-scenes or off-exhibit (that applies to all zoos!).

When it comes to general reviews - again, intent matters ... if you criticise their zoo policies or exhibits - make it clear that you want what's best for the zoo and the animals and your criticisms are intended to be constructive.

There's a big difference between "THIS EXHIBIT IS DISGUSTING AND THE ZOO MUST BE CLOSED DOWN" vs "I'm disappointed with this exhibit - I would have liked to see them do ____ and here are some other suggestions I have"

... or "THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ZOO ARE CRIMINALS WHO PERSECUTE INNOCENT ANIMALS" vs "I'm not sure their current policy towards _____ is going to achieve the best outcome for the following reasons ____".

Do you see the difference in intent there? Both are "criticising" the zoos, but one is coming from a position of destruction (even hatred!), while the other is coming from a position of construction (perhaps even love!). Intent really does matter here.

FWIW, I wouldn't let you post reviews that are in the first category, nor would I let you upload photos if it were clear you were deliberately trying to cause problems for the zoo for your own agenda, as opposed to being constructive

(That being said - I am all for "calling out" zoos which are below the standards we generally expect - but there is a definite difference between "you can do better", vs "this specific zoo is problematic", vs "all zoos must close").

 

[KevinB]

Again thanks for your information and your efforts in posting this, Mr. Hampel.

Honestly, I suspect 9 times out of 10 they will actually resent having to respond to you - requests like this simply create more work for someone in Public Relations.

Imagine if 5,000+ members on ZooChat all contacted every zoo they visited asking for permission to publish photos? All that would achieve would be to really annoy the zoos about the amount of work we are creating for them!

That would be quite the hassle, yes.

I just hope zoos aren't already annoyed about this place...

Seriously - the notices they place at the zoos and on their websites are designed to deal with these enquiries preemptively, and to constitute "fair notice" that they may pursue people who they feel are misusing photos that have been taken. It doesn't mean that they will pursue - it costs real money to do so if they actually have to engage lawyers, money which could be better spent on actual conservation and such. Their intent would be to give them rights to pursue the troublemakers, not members of the general public.

If you are not posting with malicious intent, then they should have no grounds for complaint - and if they do complain - then simply deal with it at that point.

I think I understand your reasoning. Just not sure how I should feel about this at the moment. Given my proneness to anxiety and stress and my low level of energy I don't feel like running the risk of being seen as a troublemaker right now. Not sure how I would handle a complaint either.

When it comes to general reviews - again, intent matters ... if you criticise their zoo policies or exhibits - make it clear that you want what's best for the zoo and the animals and your criticisms are intended to be constructive.

[...]

Do you see the difference in intent there? Both are "criticising" the zoos, but one is coming from a position of destruction (even hatred!), while the other is coming from a position of construction (perhaps even love!). Intent really does matter here.

I believe I understand your examples, certainly, but I'm notoriously bad at wording positions in constructive and diplomatic ways. I think my caustic and unconstructive comments after the lionness escape at my local zoo, Planckendael, in June proved that point very well. I think I know what to do (and not to do) and how to do it when it comes to commentary/criticism, but I also feel like I can't really trust myself to actually perform the way I'm supposed to.

FWIW, I wouldn't let you post reviews that are in the first category, nor would I let you upload photos if it were clear you were deliberately trying to cause problems for the zoo for your own agenda, as opposed to being constructive

It's good to have someone around who is vigilant.

If I have any agenda at all it is certainly a pro-zoo one.

On a concluding note, I'm not convinced this is the right time yet to make a definitive decision on what I will or will not do regarding the gallery. I think I have some more thinking to do.

 

[TinoPup]

I highly recommend joining the LawTog group on facebook; if you don't use facebook, they also have a website where you can contact them. There are lawyers in the group and people who would know what the zoos can actually enforce, etc. I suggest making a post and specifying the country, it's a USA-based group but there are members from all over.

 

[Simon Hampel]

On a concluding note, I'm not convinced this is the right time yet to make a definitive decision on what I will or will not do regarding the gallery. I think I have some more thinking to do.

Absolutely - don't do anything you aren't comfortable with.

 

[KevinB]

I have asked for some advice on a legal forum (a general one from my country, not the one mentioned by TinoPup) and they advised me very strongly not to publish my zoo pictures, as it might lead to hefty fines and payment of damages. If I were to be sued for slander a ban from all zoos, confiscation of my camera and laptop and jailtime would also be legally possible.

Admittedly, and they did say as much on the legal forum, the risk of such a thing happening might be rather low, but if it were to happen the consequences could be rather severe and very expensive. It is I feel just not a risk worth taking at this point to have a bit of online fun.

I have therefore made the decision not to publish any of my pictures anywhere, nor to do any kind of reviews or criticism. It is not a decision I want to make and one that I make with a sad heart, emotionally speaking at least, and not a decision I feel good or comfortable about, but rationally I know it is the only possible right decision and therefore the one that has to be made and kept up. This decision is necessarily final and irreversible.

Given my feelings that I now will not be able to make a meaningful contribution to media for fans of zoos, I have made the decision to give up on all these media and to soon end all visits and participation, as well as to start clearing up or deleting my social media accounts. I will also soon be sending the e-mail to have my Zoochat account deleted.

I don't think I'm going to give up on zoos or photography just yet, but I am at this point done with all forms of public participation on websites and social media.

 

[Simon Hampel]

*sigh*

You do realise that lawyers are (often by necessity) the most conservative people ever - they only ever give advice which covers their own backsides, because if you follow their advice and you still run into legal difficulties, then you generally have avenues to sue them for their bad advice.

We deal with these kinds of issues a lot on my other forum PropertyChat - we have quite a few lawyers who are members there, and just about every real estate transaction requires lawyer involvement at multiple points (purchase contracts, mortgage contracts, lease contracts, property management disputes, etc).

It is a lawyer's job to know what the worst case scenario is. A bad lawyer will simply tell you what that worst case scenario is and tell you in "black and white" terms that you cannot do XYZ. A good lawyer will explain the worst case scenario to you and then explain the reality that enforcing the law is generally a very "grey" area and the reality is that the worst case scenario is simply that - the worst case. They will tell you that you must absolutely do A, B and perhaps C, and that D and E are probably good ideas. F is unlikely to get you into trouble, while G is never an issue. It is then up to you to decide how much risk you are prepared to take. If you live your life trying to cover off all possible legal eventualities, you would never even leave your house lest even your very presence were deemed to be the cause of an illegal act!

Do you ever cross the road where there isn't a pedestrian crossing? Jaywalking! When you drive, does your speed ever go even slightly above the speed limit? Speeding! Have you ever sped up to get through a yellow light or driven through a red light accidentally? That's illegal! Do you ever talk on your phone or send a text while in your car? That can lead to jail time in some circumstances! Have you ever illegally downloaded music or TV shows or movies or ebooks? Thief! Have you ever sung Happy Birthday in a public place? A Christmas song? The Macarena? Those are all copyrighted songs and you could be sued for performing them in public! Have you ever played poker for money at home? In some areas that's illegal. Have you ever sung a song with obscene lyrics in public place? In Singapore that can get you a prison sentence! Have you ever connected to another user's WiFi? That could be considered illegal hacking under the law. Have you ever taken a photo which had a government building in the background? Is some places that is a federal offence!

Do you get my point? There are a million laws and you cannot possibly live life without breaking a few of them - even accidentally. Have you ever been to prison for any of the many laws you've broken in your life so far? Have you even been in legal trouble? I doubt you have! Most of those laws I mention come at worst with a monetary fine and not a criminal record - although if you refuse to pay the fine, dispute it in court and then lose - and you are a serial offender, then you may end up with prison time too!

The laws are generally designed to keep people safe and to protect people's rights. Even the laws themselves are often open to interpretation and the courts end up spending a lot of time debating some matters and consulting case history for legal precedents to determine whether the law has actually been broken or not! The legal system cannot possibly cover every eventuality, so much of the language used is general in nature and that leaves quite a bit of scope for interpretation and "grey" areas.

Look at what you wrote yourself: "as it might lead to hefty fines and payment of damages. If I were to be sued for slander a ban from all zoos, confiscation of my camera and laptop and jailtime would also be legally possible."

You haven't spoken in absolutes there. Might, if, possible.

You also need to consider the intent of the laws. Even GDPR wasn't intended to punish small websites and business by immediately forcing them to close because they couldn't afford the legal advice required to become completely compliant. It was intended to provide a consistent framework for privacy which everyone can work towards - and to give people legal avenues for pursing problematic operators who clearly aren't doing the wrong thing. The first step in dealing with these matters is never a lawsuit - it is communication and consultation, and perhaps even mediation.

You also have personal and moral rights to consider. You own the photos you take - you get to decide what happens with them. Sure, the zoo has rights too - and you need to be mindful of them, but there is some overlap here and one doesn't always trump the other.

If you were sued for slander - you would generally know about it because they would have sent you a cease and desist letter first. You also have the right to defend yourself against legal action - just because the zoo says you did the wrong thing, doesn't mean that the courts will agree with them. Also, if the zoos in question actually encourage people to upload or share photos on social media - this directly contradicts the warnings they post. I'm not sure if that is actually the case - but my point is that it's not simply a matter of "you upload a photo, you go to jail".

Legal action is frequently used as a bully tactic to silence critics. It's even working with you - you are too afraid to post your honest genuine reviews for fear of legal recriminations which may never come. This is censorship of the worst form - I have no doubt that the things you have to say are not meant with malicious intent and could actually be valuable and worthwhile. Yet your fear of posting them means that we won't enriched by what you have to say. We all lose because of that fear.

I get that your fears are largely due to your own personality - and I'm not trying to convince you to do something you don't want to do. I'm just trying to point out the realities of life are never so clearly defined as absolutely "right and wrong" - especially when there are multiple people who have competing rights in a matter.

 

[TinoPup]

To add on to Simon's post, I doubt any of the lawyers who replied were copyright lawyers, given how uncommon that specialty seems to be. They are going to tell you their interpretation, but it's like asking one type of doctor about another very specialized type of surgery; they'll know the basics, sure, but not the finer points and specifics. Would you go off of what the first doctor said, or seek out the specialized one to get a real assessment? It seems a bit silly to throw out your entire hobby because of what a few people said.

 

[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.

 

[KevinB]

I am not going to continue discussing this in public as I continue to fail to be convinced I'm not in immiment danger when I post things online by anything written, even if I know you guys are probably right.

I've let this business escalate out of control way too far. So far in fact I don't really know a way to get out and move on anymore at the current time. Just giving up and quitting is really the only thing I can think of at the moment, and while I feel it's legally sound, it doesn't feel right.

At this moment there is also so much damage I doubt I'll ever be able to enjoy zoos and zoo-related websites again anyway. At the moment I cannot at all and I'm relatively certain the damage cannot ever be repared, at least when it comes to participating and enjoying websites and social media. Maybe when it come to visiting zoos it could, but I have already decided to cancel all trips at least for the next few weeks to months.

In any case, if anyone wants to discuss things further or give me further advice they can do so through a private message.

 

[Simon Hampel]

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.

The other thing they have to watch out for is a phenomenon called the Streisand effect - where attempting to censor something they don't like, to suppress discussion of it in the media or online, can have exactly the opposite effect by making it "news" and therefore worthy of note and discussion.

So instead of the rather uneventful headlines of "Zoo does XYZ" which will likely pass largely unnoticed, it morphs into the much more newsworthy "Zoo attempts to censor people over discussions of XYZ - thus XYZ is obviously rather important and should be investigated in depth to find out why".

 

[KevinVar]

Intrigued by your recent zoo visit(s), Facebook activity and various contributions to the gallery, what is your final decision on this troubling life question?

 

[KevinB]

I really did not want to comment in this topic again, but I guess given this reaction I am obliged to reply.

Pretty much I've been able to put my worries to rest.

Part of the solution was getting the response from Burgers' Zoo (which I have not yet visited, though) that they are okay with non-commercial publication.

Another big part was getting myself calmed down and de-stressed and being able to take a logical and thoughtful look at these matters, in the process also processing the earlier reactions in this thread and elsewhere.

In any case, for the time being I have decided to publish and participate, but to be careful and thoughtful about doing so.

That is the short answer and the only one I'm willing to give.

I now wish to be left in peace and not to be asked any further questions about these matters.