ethics question

[Me!Thatswho]

Legally speaking, the law protects the one's right to privacy. However, courts recognize that one's expectation of privacy depends on the situation. For example, you couldn't use a zoom lens on your camera to take a picture into the zoo's "private" sections of the part, unless, of course, it was viewable from a public location off the property. As in the aforementioned case with Google earth, they can take pictures of your yard because the airspace above your home is public domain and, as such, you legally have a low expectation of privacy from above.

As far the picture in the zoo goes, the zoo has a diminished expectation of privacy in all of the areas they have defined as open to the public. To stay in business, they have to give it or no one would be allowed to physically enter. After all, entering without permission is trespassing and punishable by law. As such, so long as your shooting position was from a viewing point defined by the zoo as open to the public during hours that the zoo was open for business, you have the right to take pictures. Because you have not physically taken zoo property (re: something tangible), you have the right to capture the picture of the animals. And, because the animals don't have a right of privacy, you can legally sell the photograph of the animal so long as there isn't anything in the picture that remotely denotes ownership of the animal or where you took it.

 

[MICKEY88]

Legally speaking, the law protects the one's right to privacy. However, courts recognize that one's expectation of privacy depends on the situation. For example, you couldn't use a zoom lens on your camera to take a picture into the zoo's "private" sections of the part, unless, of course, it was viewable from a public location off the property. As in the aforementioned case with Google earth, they can take pictures of your yard because the airspace above your home is public domain and, as such, you legally have a low expectation of privacy from above.

As far the picture in the zoo goes, the zoo has a diminished expectation of privacy in all of the areas they have defined as open to the public. To stay in business, they have to give it or no one would be allowed to physically enter. After all, entering without permission is trespassing and punishable by law. As such, so long as your shooting position was from a viewing point defined by the zoo as open to the public during hours that the zoo was open for business, you have the right to take pictures. Because you have not physically taken zoo property (re: something tangible), you have the right to capture the picture of the animals. And, because the animals don't have a right of privacy, you can legally sell the photograph of the animal so long as there isn't anything in the picture that remotely denotes ownership of the animal or where you took it.

I respectfully disagree, a lot of places, zoos included, have signs posted at the entrance, and may even have it printed on the back of the tickets, that photography for personal use is allowed, but commercial use is prohibited..and by entering you agree to that...

 

[Me!Thatswho]

Oh, and while I'm not an attorney, I am in my second year of law school. My statement above is based upon an entry on privacy rights of animals from the American Jurisprudence database, which was last updated September 2008. And, because it hasn't been updated more recently, I would assume it's more than likely still good law, as the cases cited therein are from 1945 and 1972 respectively.

 

[Me!Thatswho]

I respectfully disagree, a lot of places, zoos included, have signs posted at the entrance, and may even have it printed on the back of the tickets, that photography for personal use is allowed, but commercial use is prohibited..and by entering you agree to that...

You can't take and sell pictures of the structures, signs, or anything clearly distinguishable as property of that entity. But animals, flowers, trees, or anything else that can be found in nature are all fair game - so shoot away!

 

[MICKEY88]

You can't take and sell pictures of the structures, signs, or anything clearly distinguishable as property of that entity. But animals, flowers, trees, or anything else that can be found in nature are all fair game - so shoot away!

go for it, I've read too many things that would indicate otherwise..

one other thing that hasn't been mentioned, in todays society where you are guilty until proven innoccent, it's not worth the risk, because once your name, or business has been trashed in the media, it's often difficult or impossible to recover

 

[Me!Thatswho]

go for it, I've read too many things that would indicate otherwise..

one other thing that hasn't been mentioned, in todays society where you are guilty until proven innoccent, it's not worth the risk, because once your name, or business has been trashed in the media, it's often difficult or impossible to recover

Ummm. Ok.

No disrespect, but why would your name or business be trashed in the media for taking a picture of a lemur or a platypus? I could see if you were peddling images of King Julian or Perry, but pictures of the actual furry critters? The Supreme Court of the United States has said consistently that you have a legal right to take and sell pictures of the actual critters, not the artificial creations, so long as there is nothing in the photo that suggests ownership (re: an ID tag in it's ear) or where it was taken (a blurry rendering of it's pen). If you don't want to, that of course is your right. But legally you can. Even with the current fascist regime in power, I couldn't envision any instance where a mob brandishing torches would come to destroy you for taking and profiting from a picture of one of God's creations. But, who knows, maybe things will change if and when there is a vacancy on the high court and the current 5-4 is reversed, provided, of course, that the minority party doesn't take back the Senate in 2010.

 

[MICKEY88]

Ummm. Ok.

I couldn't envision any instance where a mob brandishing torches would come to destroy you for taking and profiting from a picture of one of God's creations. .

that's going to extremes, the reality is a business owner who ends up in court, in this case for supposed illegal activity, runs the risk of losing business, because people nowadays are way tp quick to judge..the photog could be tagged as someone not to trust since they took part in illegal activity, some people wou be concerned that the photog would sell pics of them without permission, as I stated before it comes down to deciding if it's a risk you are willing to take.

is the sale of one photo worth the possible loss of other business..it's a choice for each individual to make, I'm not mocking your choice, please don't mock mine..

 

[Me!Thatswho]

First, sorry for the sarcasm. I was just trying to lighten things up in order to head off a tit-for-tat spat.

To your last point, if there is nothing in the picture to show that the animal is the property of the zoo (re: no proof of ownership or location), the zoo would be literally laughed out of court because they would have no standing (re: if you have no standing, you have no legal right to claim that you were harmed). That being said, the law would be on the side of the photographer, and the zoo, if it tried to pursue a claim, would be seen as an abusive entity frivolously trying to crush an innocent victim. After all, if there is nothing in the image that proves it's their animal, how can they sue you? And, seeing how most people root for the underdog, the publicity would generated in such a case would, in all likelihood, help your business more than it would harm.

But, as you said (and to which I agree), the choice is ultimately yours!

 

[JR6ooo4]

at least in my case not necessarily true, i have a folder i put most flower files into with only the dates(easily 100s, since i went digital)so to say this red rose is from one place and this red rose is from another place is not really possible without a lot of speculation on my part unless there is some photo from the same date with some hardscape i recognize. i can guess cause i know where i usually take photos, but couldn't prove it. and likely that exact flower isn't still there from yrs ago

and from all the legal articles I could find the legality of the op situation is speculative at best . it certainly wouldn't fit any of the criteria for illegal use( ie defamation/trademark) and is way over in the untried waters of what is tangible and what is intangible, which is of course what causes the problem and makes it imo different from something truly "illegal" like the cases you mentioned. that knife cuts both ways, is it right for someone to claim they can control/own your work when the law doesn't give them the right to do so?

But you are confusing the issue. The question was not whether you know where the photo was taken.

Mikeeee

 

[JR6ooo4]

First, sorry for the sarcasm. I was just trying to lighten things up in order to head off a tit-for-tat spat.

To your last point, if there is nothing in the picture to show that the animal is the property of the zoo (re: no proof of ownership or location), the zoo would be literally laughed out of court because they would have no standing (re: if you have no standing, you have no legal right to claim that you were harmed). That being said, the law would be on the side of the photographer, and the zoo, if it tried to pursue a claim, would be seen as an abusive entity frivolously trying to crush an innocent victim. After all, if there is nothing in the image that proves it's their animal, how can they sue you? And, seeing how most people root for the underdog, the publicity would generated in such a case would, in all likelihood, help your business more than it would harm.

But, as you said (and to which I agree), the choice is ultimately yours!

You see, this is what is wrong with the world. People confusing what is right and correct with what can be proven. And convoluting the issue further with questions of the extent of damages.

Mikeeee

 

[MICKEY88]

First, sorry for the sarcasm. I was just trying to lighten things up in order to head off a tit-for-tat spat.

To your last point, if there is nothing in the picture to show that the animal is the property of the zoo (re: no proof of ownership or location), the zoo would be literally laughed out of court because they would have no standing (re: if you have no standing, you have no legal right to claim that you were harmed). That being said, the law would be on the side of the photographer, and the zoo, if it tried to pursue a claim, would be seen as an abusive entity frivolously trying to crush an innocent victim. After all, if there is nothing in the image that proves it's their animal, how can they sue you? And, seeing how most people root for the underdog, the publicity would generated in such a case would, in all likelihood, help your business more than it would harm.

But, as you said (and to which I agree), the choice is ultimately yours!

 

[jann1033]

But you are confusing the issue. The question was not whether you know where the photo was taken.

Mikeeee

you said the photographer would know where the photo was taken i said that isn't always true so now i am as to why you say i am confusing the issue

 

[jann1033]

Legally speaking, the law protects the one's right to privacy. However, courts recognize that one's expectation of privacy depends on the situation. For example, you couldn't use a zoom lens on your camera to take a picture into the zoo's "private" sections of the part, unless, of course, it was viewable from a public location off the property. As in the aforementioned case with Google earth, they can take pictures of your yard because the airspace above your home is public domain and, as such, you legally have a low expectation of privacy from above.

As far the picture in the zoo goes, the zoo has a diminished expectation of privacy in all of the areas they have defined as open to the public. To stay in business, they have to give it or no one would be allowed to physically enter. After all, entering without permission is trespassing and punishable by law. As such, so long as your shooting position was from a viewing point defined by the zoo as open to the public during hours that the zoo was open for business, you have the right to take pictures. Because you have not physically taken zoo property (re: something tangible), you have the right to capture the picture of the animals. And, because the animals don't have a right of privacy, you can legally sell the photograph of the animal so long as there isn't anything in the picture that remotely denotes ownership of the animal or where you took it.

i think this is the same issue brought up in the other thread( the poster there said it was decided in the supreme court)

 

[jann1033]

You see, this is what is wrong with the world. People confusing what is right and correct with what can be proven. And convoluting the issue further with questions of the extent of damages.

Mikeeee

see the way i see it is, if the legal system says it's ok who am i to argue

that really was the whole point of the post, is it ok to sell a photo, no matter where it was taken, that is untraceable as to origin due to the lack of identifiable information in the photo. it appears it is legal to do so as long as you meet the "unidentifiable as to location" criteria . i couldn't find anything that said it was illegal, i have seen info that has sided in the "it is legal" direction and i guess if anyone disagree that is their right. personally, i think in the op case, if the venue in question didn't even bother to respond they aren't all that concerned about it either( or know they don't have much to go on if they pursue it)
speaking of responding, i know locally i have asked twice now at one venue, once in person( they "didn't know any reason why i couldn't " even though i told them it's on their website) and once in an email where they answered the tripod question i asked since on their site they also say you need written permission to use them outdoors and can't use them at all indoors. email said "sure you can use them outside,no problem with that at all and inside for some events as well"....and ignored the whole first asked "release" question

the op wasn't is lying ok or not, how much can i get sued for doing it or are there really alligators in the NYC sewers, it was is this one situation ethical...if it's legal i don't see how it can be unethical( in this case, we aren't talking belief systems or values, we are talking is it legal or not to do one particular thing). you might not agree with it but if it's been legally decided, to me that is what is right and correct. really imo if anyone was doing something unethical it would be the person going against what has been decided upon legally

note to self, next time you think about asking a question like this think again

 

[YesDear]

This is what makes ethical questions interesting to discuss. While I believe if I take a picture of the Mickey flower head at the entrance to the MK and sell it commercially, without permission, Disney Will come after me and they should. If I take a close up of one of the flowers in that display and the flower is not a special flower only used only by Disney, it is not only legal but ethical to sell commercially.

Legality and ethics do not always walk the same path. If I am walking down a public street with my camera and see a child run over by a car and take a picture of the scene that is either graphic or degrading to the victim, it is my understanding that it is very legal to take the picture, but I think selling that picture, or publishing that picture would be very unethical to do.

This thread struck a cord in me yesterday. I also have done a lot of reading about this subject and even called my attorney who is also a photographer. It seems to me to boil down to several basic concepts. It is legal to take pictures in more situations than not. Being legal to take it does not mean it is legal to sell it. That seems to be a different issue. Model and Property releases come into play. Different scenarios create different rules ie: News photojournalism.

Ethics, while often tied to legality is really a different question. There are times legality and ethic stand side by side and times they are at odds. Since one of the definitions of ethics is being moral, we know that not all laws are considered moral by some so the discussion is really two pronged.

Some in this thread has stated that anything done where you lie is unethical. I would pose the question: If your sister was being abused by someone and she came to you to hide and the abuser came to you and asked if she was with you and you said no. You obviously lied, but was in unethical to do so? I totally agree totally different scenarios, but the question is still the same.

I have enjoyed reading this thread to see different approaches to this problem. I do some teaching for my profession and one of the classes is on ethics. It is fascinating to see the different responses about a difficult subject that we think should be simple.

 

[jann1033]

...Ethics, while often tied to legality is really a different question. There are times legality and ethic stand side by side and times they are at odds. Since one of the definitions of ethics is being moral, we know that not all laws are considered moral by some so the discussion is really two pronged.

Some in this thread has stated that anything done where you lie is unethical. I would pose the question: If your sister was being abused by someone and she came to you to hide and the abuser came to you and asked if she was with you and you said no. You obviously lied, but was in unethical to do so? I totally agree totally different scenarios, but the question is still the same.

.

that's why i said "in this case", to me if i am going to break the law due to my own "code of ethics" it's going to be due to a belief i am really committed to , not where i took a photo

personally i try very hard not to deceive anyone( to me out right lying is just the tip of the iceberg). in the above mentioned scenario, i just wouldn't answer him while i was dialing 911 and if possible kicking him to the curb simultaneously. with the photo if someone asked and i knew, i'd tell them, if i didn't know i'd tell them that as well( which in my case is really more likely. i went through a few of my flower photos and guessed wrong about every one since they weren't in the set of photos i thought i had taken them. maybe my lousy memory and disorganized photo system do have their benefits ))

with the graphic photo you mentioned, personally i think of how the family would feel. every time i would see a 9/11 video or the Challenger explosion i would wonder how the news center displaying it for the umpteenth time would feel if it was their loved one being killed and they had to relive it over and over and over. "news" shouldn't over rule "fellow feeling" imo

 

[YesDear]

A local TV station learned a very valuable lesson over 20 yrs ago. A local teacher was kidnapped and eventually hung in a tree by her kidnapper. She had been missing for a time and the station had just gotten their first helicopter. When she was found, the had a very long shot of her in the tree. While not graphic in detail you obviously knew who and what had happened. They showed it twice before the backlash from the public was tremendous. They apologized to the family and the public. This was not a station known for pushing the envelope.

With the advent of shock journalism the line between ethical and just bad taste also creates challenging lines for us all. In my search yesterday there were some actual very interesting specific court cases regarding this subject. It always boiled down to the specific facts of the case. That also tells me the topic can be far more fact specific that general.

 

[JR6ooo4]

came up on another forum and just wondered how anyone here feels about it...
say you go to a local park, zoo what ever that allows photography but says you need their permission to sell photos taken there. what would you do if they ignored your requests for permission( just never answered you it, didn't deny it) but you wanted to sell a photo that in way no could be identified at taken at their location( ie a close up of a rose with bokeh)

imo not really " right or wrong" but wonder what others would do, ( one post on the other place mentioned some legalities the came down to they can't really stop you for the same reason you can take a photo of a celebrity, something called public view)

just wonder about opinions here...it was pretty much split on the other forum
personally i think a rose is a rose is a rose half the time i don't know where i took it unless i go through the folder and find some hardscape i recognize so i don't see the harm.

you said the photographer would know where the photo was taken i said that isn't always true so now i am as to why you say i am confusing the issue

in the OP it states that you know the photo was taken at the zoo. then you said "with my filing system I might not know where it was taken". That is confusing the issue.

Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

actually as i said in the part you quoted, i brought up a question that was brought up on another forum, the details and question were not from me, about me or by me( notice it says "you" not "I"). if you assumed something that wasn't true, maybe that is what is confusing you.

also in the part you quoted where i state my personal opinion about the question, i said "half the time i don't know where i took it unless i go through the folder and find some hardscape i recognize so i don't see the harm" .in the case of a flower, i wouldn't know in most instances for sure where it was from, as i repeated in #16 and another one, maybe 34 or 36. in the case of a zoo, our local one doesn't say you need permission, nor do the private non profit arboretum and public green house where i usually take photos of flowers. the one garden locally that does i mentioned already but i don't think i have any photos for sale from there anyway since i have only gone there once in the winter and they mostly had cactus and green plants in their greenhouse, not flowers. we routinely go to botanical gardens if we are on vacation, i could have flowers from them but have no idea what their policies are and for some don't have the original folders since i changed computers and lost some of my original photo folders when i moved them. so to find out the original location of each flower photo i have would be difficult if not impossible. my point is , they are not readily identifiable as to where they were taken. i find it hard to believe anyone is going to look at a rose and say "hey that was taken at so and so " if it's my photo and i don't even know. one article i read said the reason some paid to enter places can say you need permission is because it hurts their business( supposedly) by you showing what they get paid to show...obviously if it's not identifiable as to where it's from, that can't hurt someone's business since no one knows it's from their location. if that were not the case, you couldn't ever sell a photo of anything since might be at some other location in the world where you have to pay to get in.

 

[webshark3]

a property owner can stop you from taking pics of something on their property if you are standing on their property, if you stand across the street or any where off of their property they can not stop you from taking the picture, but you still heve no legal right to sell it

Tell that to Google.