Dear staff, dear ZooChatters. I recently realized that I quite regularly post photos of signage (animal identification as well as information signs) in between my exhibit and animal shots. Today I realized that this might be a problem - as legally there probably rests a copyright on these signs with the people who designed them (either the people at the zoo or at design companies) and perhaps in some cases even with people who took the photos or made the graphics displayed on the signs. I believe that making photos of signage and posting them online would fall on reproduction and redistribution of a work, which if I am not mistaken copyright laws generally prohibit. Is this something that I as a person or we as a community and a website should be worried about? I really do not want to get into trouble with any zoos or other companies for posting pictures online. Is there somehow who has something to say about the specifics of this issues? I have in the meantime decided I will not be posting images of signage, however cool, anymore during future gallery postings. The ones I have posted before (quite a few) are there to stay though and there nothing I can or will do about that. I think it is the smartest thing to do in this case, at least for the time being.
This is, in point of fact, a matter which the moderation team (in both current and past iterations) has discussed at some length in the past and which we ultimately decided was permissible for various reasons. So there is no need for you to avoid posting images of signage or other interpretation material.
It's an interesting question and something the moderators debated for quite some time before deciding on a policy. My initial position was similar to yours in that copyright issues may prevent us from reproducing these signs. In addition, I considered that signs were generally of little to no value and we should be focusing on the animals and enclosures. The moderation team advocated fiercely against my position of "adding no value", arguing that the way a zoo produces and displays information for visitors is a critical part of the feel and experience of that particular zoo. I ended up conceding the point - I guess if you consider that a zoo is much more than just a collection of animals in enclosures, but it is also an experience in and of itself - the layout, the facilities, the grounds, and all of the other incidental things all contribute towards the overall feel of the facility. For example, Taronga Zoo's views over Sydney harbour and the floral clock and gardens, Singapore Zoo's lush rainforest setting, Adelaide Zoo's toilets with views of the bird enclosures, Monarto Zoo's bush walks - a zoo is so much more than animals and enclosures. The copyright issue is a little more tricky and very much a grey area. A very strict interpretation of copyright law would probably indicate a problem. However, my position is that these signs are on display in a "public" area (I know most zoos are private property, but still - it's not someone's house) and by photographing them, we are documenting a piece of history (zoo signs change!), not so much for the purpose of sharing the content, but for reviewing and critiquing the content and design - which is generally acceptable under fair use provisions. So our official policy on photographs of zoo signs is that they are allowed to be posted on ZooChat for the purposes of review and critique by our members.
IMO, it falls under things like buildings and clothing. Those are also often copyrighted designs, but we still take photos of them... we aren't claiming them as our own or stealing the designs.
While there may be a technical infringement of copyright there are two things that suggest any action is most unlikely, 1. Most zoos now post a sign at the entry allowing non-commercial photography but limiting commercial photography. These zoos have effectively given you permission to take photos of signs (and everything else in the zoo) and use them in non-commercial contexts. 2. Copyright is all about loss of potential revenue. It would be hard to prove there was a potential loss from you posting your pictures on zoochat. On the other hand if you then copied the signs at your zoo they would have a case. In any case the first thing a zoo would do if offended is have a lawyer send a cease and desist notice. Provided you did so there would be nothing further to worry about. Until one of those appears I don't think anybody has anything to worry about. And at the end of the day most zoos would consider this good publicity and why would they want to alienate a group of supporters by coming down hard on what would only ever be regarded at worst as a petty breach of copyright
Thank you all for your input and for mostly putting my mind at ease. I did decide to not post pictures of signage anymore unless I deem it truly necessary to tell a story about a zoo or to report news from a zoo, just to limit the amount of images I post somewhat and because most of the signage I post can't be read by the great majority of ZooChatters anyway because of language issues and/or the size of the text on the images.
Copyright issues provide an interesting dilemma. When a picture of the front of our new guide-book was posted, this thread was removed to the members only area, hiding it from the general public - when its publication could have had no financial impact. But, when a picture of the map it contains was posted, this was not removed and was left in the public domain. It could easily be argued (as we do not give away a free map) that the publication of one does have a financial impact, as this would hurt future book sales. (I would mention that all the posts and comments, were made by third parties)
Hi Andrew, I did email you about the map on the 22nd of May this year, after being contacted by a third party about it, but you never responded. I can resend the email if you haven't received it? Either way - if you ever have concerns about content posted on ZooChat, you should contact me directly about it. Thanks, Simon
Not concerns Simon, no. Only a comment we had received, and I passed it on here. I agree wholly with MRJ, the fact that everything is published by the zoo should mean that distribution for non-commercial reasons is fine. Please send the email again and I'll pass it on, as I dont have a copy of it.
