Photographer friendly?
A different kind of dragonfly shot!
I’m starting to notice that more and more places want a piece of the pie. You know, that huge windfall of money that all photographers get. 
After my trip to the zoo on Saturday, I was quite excited by the pictures that I got. So excited, in fact, that when I got home I did a Google search for zoos in South Carolina. I didn’t find a zoo, exactly, but found Riverbanks Zoo and Gardens, which is sort of an entertainment complex.
I surfed their site for a bit and happened to run upon a little notice to photographers saying that the management, or whoever, search stock sites for images taken at Riverbanks. If they find an image and you, the photographer, had not disclosed yourself as a professional photographer and paid the appropriate fees, you will be required to remunerate Riverbanks for said ‘loss’. It also stated that you were welcome, as an amateur photographer, to record your visit; however, if any employee of Riverbank suspects that you might be a professional photographer, they have the right to stop you, inquire, and ask you to return your camera to your vehicle before ‘enjoying’ the rest of your journey. Hah! I think that the enjoyment would end there. I’m thinking that a guy with a big camera, big lens, backpack, and a tripod might draw a little unwanted attention from the staff.
“I” should get the lion’s share of the profit!
If you are a professional photographer and want to do a shoot there, such as a wedding, their fees are $1,000 for the first 2 hours, then $350 per each additional 2 hour block. This is just to use the grounds. Should you need the assistance of their staff, it’s an additional $50-$75/hour per person! How insane is this? Personally, I think that it is just greed. I’ve seen fees at other parks, such as the Fort Worth Arboretum’s Japanese garden, where they charge $50/hour for professional use with no strings attached about having to share revenues from stock photo sales. I guess that I can understand the fees for professional shoots, especially those that use props, take up a lot of space, and may be disruptive, but shooting animals for stock photos. I don’t know.
I’m glad that the NC Zoo has no such restrictions. I’ve searched their site and find no such restrictions. I’ve never been stopped, questioned, or hassled in any way at all. I think that I’ll skip this place, for now. There are plenty of other places that are more photographer friendly.
As a librarian, I can expound for hours on kafkaesque intellectual property laws. The basic operating principle seems to be that the side with more lawyers has all the rights. An interesting variation on “them that has the gold makes the rules.”
Nonetheless, I love the dragonfly-on-lion photo and am glad you are not barred from shooting locally.
Thanks for chiming in, Wren. I find it amazing, and rather disheartening, all of the ways that people/corporations try to constrain photographer’s rights. One such thing that I read in The Photographer’s Legal Guide was there was actually a company that tried to trademark a tree! There is an often photographed lone cypress tree on 17 Mile Drive in California. There have been a few failed legal attempts to get this tree, which none of them created, trademarked so that photographers would not be able to profit from it unless they pay a fee. Amazing.
I’m glad that the Asheboro Zoo has not fallen to such greed. I would happily share my pictures with them for credit. No problem!
If they make the on the site determination of “amateur” or “professional” by the photo gear they carry there’s going to be real problems. Today’s amateur often has better gear then many professions did a few years ago.
I agree with you…follow the money. It’s often about greed.
Indeed, this is insane!
By the way, great pictures!
very nice shot..tyhe dragonfly image is indeed remarkable.
I have often wondered about the legality of such policies, given that any joe schmoe can also take pictures at the zoo. I know there is no legal ground if it is considered a public place – but zoos may be considered private property perhaps. (?)
That’s a good point, Mark. I would wonder if it is legal as well. Anyone can take pictures at the zoo, but if they found it on a stock site, and could prove it, they could start legal actions; they might not win, but it would be very expensive to find out, unfortunately. I think that I’ll just avoid the place. There are many, many, many places to photograph without such restrictions!