CSBC
News Editor
Reged: 24/11/2006
Posts: 825
|
|
AP News
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20929
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
"Organised by the National Trust's Welsh office..."
When I was a lad... There was a term "Welshing" which meant stealing.
No idea where the term came from.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9470
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
The Manchester-based photographer added: 'I'm sure it's another case of an organisation not thinking things through, or perhaps it's not thinking the photographer is worthy of his hire.'
Rather more the latter than the former I think... 
The attitude of the National Trust toward photographers seems to be pretty hostile. Their automatic assumption seems to be that anyone taking pictures is out to make money so they try to prevent you taking pictures under any circumstance.
Personally I find the NT a very arrogant, selfish and self righteous organisation, so much so that nowadays I try to avoid going anywhere near anything they own or administer. I find English Heritage (and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents) much more amenable and 'tog freindly....
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37887
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Manchester-based photographer added: 'I'm sure it's another case of an organisation not thinking things through, or perhaps it's not thinking the photographer is worthy of his hire.'
Rather more the latter than the former I think...
The attitude of the National Trust toward photographers seems to be pretty hostile. Their automatic assumption seems to be that anyone taking pictures is out to make money so they try to prevent you taking pictures under any circumstance.
Personally I find the NT a very arrogant, selfish and self righteous organisation, so much so that nowadays I try to avoid going anywhere near anything they own or administer. I find English Heritage (and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents) much more amenable and 'tog freindly....
Join NTS - that way, the NT don't get any income, and you can still access their properties.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37887
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Anyway, I think your assessment of the NT is some way out. They don't "try to prevent you taking pictures under any circumstance" - far from it. They don't allow you to photograph inside their properties, true, but they make no attempts to prevent photography in the grounds and gardens of their properties, and even more critically (IMO) on the land they own, such as vast swathes of the Lake District. I'm not particularly happy on the ban on photography in their properties, but I can see the point a bit - firstly, in many cases I'm sure it's right to ban flash, and tripods aren't very practical on safety grounds inside many of them; and secondly, a lot of the stuff is valuable, and there's no doubt that a photographic record of security precautions would be valuable to criminals. And finally, I don't see why they shouldn't charge for commercial photography, TBH. I still wish they did permit personal photography inside, though. But I've only ever been encouraged to take pictures in NT gardens etc by NT staff, never prevented in any way. Now English Heritage DID stick up signs on fences all round Kenilworth Castle a year or two back discouraging photography, particularly commercial photography, without their permission. Firstly, the castle doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the people of Kenilworth, and they never asked for our opinion on that, and secondly, these signs were on fences along public rights of way. Further, they've banned photography in the refurbished Gatehouse. Not exactly that encouraging of photography....
In fairness, their staff have always been very helpful and encouraging as well.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4982
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
there's no doubt that a photographic record of security precautions would be valuable to criminals.
Actually, there's a lot of doubt ... if the NT could find some way of keeping potential criminals out of their properties so that they couldn't see the security precautions you would have a point. But then the properties wouldn't be accessible at all, we're all potential criminals!
If I want to study security precautions I can do that very adequately without making photographs.
Besides which, I think the rule of proportionality and reciprocity applies - if they can film you using CCTV, you ought to be able to photograph anything they leave in view, including their CCTV cameras.
|
miked
veteran
Reged: 20/07/2005
Posts: 1360
Loc: Shropshire, England
|
|
Quote:
"Organised by the National Trust's Welsh office..."
When I was a lad... There was a term "Welshing" which meant stealing.
No idea where the term came from.
No, Fen, I must 'scotch' this rumour. To 'Welsh' is not exactly 'stealing' - more a failure to pay up, or to honour an agreement or obligation.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2583
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
... They don't allow you to photograph inside their properties,...
I find it strange that photography is permitted in the now privately owned Warwick Castle, and their treasures must match those in many an NT property - unless all those at Warwick are fakes/copies. (Same outfit as Madame Tussauds, I believe.)
Quote:
Now English Heritage DID stick up signs on fences all round Kenilworth Castle a year or two back discouraging photography...
...Further, they've banned photography in the refurbished Gatehouse. ...
There was no discouragement re internal photography on our guided tour of the Gatehouse just after its refurbishment, so that must be a new restriction. Must be the threat of terrorism!
We mustn't forget how Hitler used the Reichstag fire to allow him to crack down on his critics.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37887
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
there's no doubt that a photographic record of security precautions would be valuable to criminals.
Actually, there's a lot of doubt ... if the NT could find some way of keeping potential criminals out of their properties so that they couldn't see the security precautions you would have a point. But then the properties wouldn't be accessible at all, we're all potential criminals!
If I want to study security precautions I can do that very adequately without making photographs.
But much more easily with photographs, where precise locations can be noted and measured. It's utterly ridiculous to pretend otherwise, it just makes us as photographers look narrow-minded, selfish and stupid; it really doesn't take a genius to see that a photographic record of security measures is much more valuable than someone's recollection, does it?
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37887
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now English Heritage DID stick up signs on fences all round Kenilworth Castle a year or two back discouraging photography...
...Further, they've banned photography in the refurbished Gatehouse. ...
There was no discouragement re internal photography on our guided tour of the Gatehouse just after its refurbishment, so that must be a new restriction. Must be the threat of terrorism!
We mustn't forget how Hitler used the Reichstag fire to allow him to crack down on his critics.
The ban has come in this year, I think - certainly I took quite a few pics in there after the refurbishment. There's certainly no mention of terrorism, and I don't buy that for a minute. I could understand a ban on flash photography, but there's no obvious reason for a blanket ban.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Crosstalk
journeyman
Reged: 05/03/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: East Dorset
|
|
Quote:
I could understand a ban on flash photography, but there's no obvious reason for a blanket ban.
The problem is its far easier to apply a blanket ban than just a ban on flash photography. While you might just about be able to get a reasonable indoor shot hand held with your IS / VR lens - you can guarantee that the numpty next to you still hasn't figured out how to turn the flash off on their compact camera.
I wouldn't like the job of explaining to said numpty that he can't take photo's while the guy with the big camera can. It's just easier to ban it outright. We might not feel it's not warranted, but then we know how to turn our flash off 
--------------------
Phil
|
Overread
old hand
Reged: 17/01/2008
Posts: 956
Loc: UK; Suffolk
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I could understand a ban on flash photography, but there's no obvious reason for a blanket ban.
The problem is its far easier to apply a blanket ban than just a ban on flash photography. While you might just about be able to get a reasonable indoor shot hand held with your IS / VR lens - you can guarantee that the numpty next to you still hasn't figured out how to turn the flash off on their compact camera.
I wouldn't like the job of explaining to said numpty that he can't take photo's while the guy with the big camera can. It's just easier to ban it outright. We might not feel it's not warranted, but then we know how to turn our flash off
very true I have seen such blanket covers in many places (esp with fish and lizard/spider collections where they are kept in darker rooms), but in many cases if you approach those in charge and ask politly if you can you can sometimes get permission to take photos - then having all the kit does help out - you look pro and if someone does ask - well your a pro!
Often though the organisers will ask if they can have copies of the shots taken = or copies of the best sent to them - but I have not problem with that, I still have the shots at the end of the day.
--------------------
My photography blog
http://overread.wordpress.com
|
Gordon_Harrison
newbie
Reged: 14/03/2008
Posts: 11
Loc: Scotland
|
|
Quote:
The attitude of the National Trust toward photographers seems to be pretty hostile. Their automatic assumption seems to be that anyone taking pictures is out to make money so they try to prevent you taking pictures under any circumstance.
I have to agree. However the National Trust are very happy to make money from pictures that are freely submitted to their contests. They are building a nice and valuable image library on the back of these contests.
Nearly all organisations are doing the same thing nowadays - see the ever growing list of them here -
http://www.pro-imaging.org/content/view/212/154/
It makes for pretty depressing reading.
--------------------
Gordon Harrison
|
Overread
old hand
Reged: 17/01/2008
Posts: 956
Loc: UK; Suffolk
|
|
Canon, adobe (both several times) but one name that stands out (to the eye of the innocent amature) is National Geographic
Quote:
Viewtyful World Photo Contest end 11 June 2008
Take Care! - For every photo you enter you lose forever your exclusive right to license (earn money from) your photo. They can use your photo freely forever, even if you don't win anything.
Organisations - Ethan & Alice Marketing, Inc, LG Mobile Phone, National Geographic Magazine, Viewtyful World Flickr Group
Judges - One Judge appointed from National Geographic Magazine
one would think they would have been on the photographers side --
--------------------
My photography blog
http://overread.wordpress.com
|
AGW
Reged: 03/10/2003
Posts: 7738
Loc: Ayrshire
|
|
Sorry...but been in the pub all evening.
As a supporter of the NTS I am delighted to donate images to their cause (which is my cause too)....If I was at all worried about the copyright and making money I wouldnt do it.
I am very pleased to say that I have been able to help the charity on many occasions.
THEY are a charity....THEY want a donation...THEIR rules/conditions state what they want from THEIR competition. If YOU are entering THEIR competition, should you not read, understand and agree with THEIR conditions?????
....I'm now going back into hangover avoidance mode.....
Graeme
--------------------
AGW (BSRIPN)
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where others see nothing. (Camille Pissarro)
|
Overread
old hand
Reged: 17/01/2008
Posts: 956
Loc: UK; Suffolk
|
|
True they are a charity, but I think what gets people is two factors:
1) these photo rights grabs appear to be happening all over the place - so there is some bitterness thrown in against any and all attmepts to grab photo right from the photographer.
2) I think that many amatures and non-professinal photographers are not going to read the fine print in the conditions, most will read as far as the prize conditions  and not much further. Granted this does mean that it is their fault for not realising that they are losing thier rights, but as NT are a charity they have nothing to lose by stating that the photos also form part of a donation to the trust (infact I think that might even promote them in good light) but rather the clause is hidden in the text and not open - which makes it feel (to some) like it is an underhanded tactic - even if there is not such intention
--------------------
My photography blog
http://overread.wordpress.com
|
AGW
Reged: 03/10/2003
Posts: 7738
Loc: Ayrshire
|
|
So the message has to be.....if you are going to enter a competition....read the rules.
Graeme
--------------------
AGW (BSRIPN)
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where others see nothing. (Camille Pissarro)
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4982
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
So the message has to be.....if you are going to enter a competition....read the rules.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
|
Gordon_Harrison
newbie
Reged: 14/03/2008
Posts: 11
Loc: Scotland
|
|
Quote:
.... but as NT are a charity they have nothing to lose by stating that the photos also form part of a donation to the trust (infact I think that might even promote them in good light) but rather the clause is hidden in the text and not open - which makes it feel (to some) like it is an underhanded tactic - even if there is not such intention
I agree with that. If a charity were quite open about it, not buried in small print, then contestants who wished to could donate rights to the charity. I believe that would be fair and respectful to the photographer. As it is it gives the appearance of being an underhanded tactic as you say.
Then people who wish to support the NT would be free to do so, and all those who have no interest in donating to that particular charity could go elsewhere. Not everyone wants to support every charity, we all pick and choose.
Great idea Overread - it made me think about this with regard to charities. Charities normally operate on a basis of voluntary donations, but the small print in their photo contests that lots of people don't read are taking advantage of people who may not realise what is happening.
--------------------
Gordon Harrison
|
grognut
newbie
Reged: 18/12/2007
Posts: 7
|
|
Are'nt all competions like this.
eg some food brand offers a prize with a nominal question and a tie breaker. The tie breaker is all their after and cheap way to get the public to produce another Beanz Meanz Heinz" type catch phrase.
I guess NT are getting the public to do their photography for them offering a prize at the incentive.
Cheers
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
