Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Apr 29, 2009.
Well I just hope that with the new push for their rights that the NT makes it easier/more approachable for photographers to sell their images though NT. From what I recall from hearing about the efforts of others the NT process has a lot to be desired.
I also wonder how many wildlife/macro.flower shots are going to now be taken on "common land" if the NT is going to hit its wildlands as well as buildings and such
A close-up of a rose is a close-up of a rose. Do you have to state where you took it?
Evokes an image of NT managers wandering round properties with a sheaf of prints trying to work out where they were taken. Realistically, they are going to have to rely on peoples honesty to get anywhere.
And here's me thinking that the National Trust was set up to preserve things 'for the people' - I guess they don't want any more handouts from the National Lottery or other such funding.
mmm...have you ever had a cheap coffee and cake at NT properties....I know a lot of the buildings they manage take a lot of cash to keep 'em going but just occasionally I feel ripped off.
What is the National Trust relying on?
Copyright? Hardly, copyright ceases 70 years after the death of the author and most buildings etc are old. Anyway the copyright belongs to the designer not the owner.
Breach of contract? If you buy a ticket with clear restrictions you can be bound under contract but landscapes such as the Lake District don't need tickets and anyway I can't remember tickets saying anything about photography although there is often a notice at the door stating no photography. My membership card says See your Handbook for other terms and conditions of membership. I may be missing it but I can't find anything in the Handbook either.
I just don't understand the logic of that conclusion. They're simply trying to protect one revenue stream in a perfectly legitimate way. I don't particularly like it, but they're entirely within their rights. As it happens, I prohibit professional photography on my land without payment of a licence, the cost of which is an entirely reasonable one trillion pounds. Sadly, the economic downturn appears to have reduced the appeal of these licences at the moment... But I'm still quite willing to accept any other form of funding.
If they can't do anything against images taken from the air can you just say you took a pic while leaping in the air? Both feet off the ground = not on their property?
Is it just doing it in England or is NTS doing the same? Would have thought the access laws would make it harder for them in Scotland because most of the countryside is a public right of way...sort of!
NTS are not at all aggressive about the matter precisely because of the access issues and because they dont really see it as a big issue. Lets hope they stay sensible.
As far as I am aware the only real restrictions NTS apply is on indoor photographs.
They do tout their properties as commercial locations...eg films, fashion and weddings, but they can only really enforce this in the gardens(strict sense) and in the pay for entry properties.
With these pay for entry estates, the key thing is that they must have been charging for entry prior to the access legislation cut off date, so they are therefore allowed to continue to charge. On large extended estates the area where this applies can actually be difficult to define, hence the matter is not pushed. I think in the long term, they will move away from entry charge and focus on charging for the provision of facilities.
Charging for a carpark facility does not restrict access rights on the surrounding land, the exemption only applies where entrance has been traditionally charged. At all other NTS properties (and any other ownerships) access rights apply and photography, even for commercial purposes is permitted.
So that's why they invented image stabilized lenses!
Another idea stuck me. Why don't we all donate one square millimetre of our front garden / driveway space to the National Trust, then Google Earth will have to delete all the images containing that square millimetre....
I'm glad I got to photograph inside E Chambre Hardman's studio before the Nazional Trust got their hands on it ...
Tell me about it...
I recently went to Fountains Abbey. Paid about £8.50 to get in...walked around a bit, took a few photos...headed to the lakeside cafe for lunch.
I get in there only to find an extremely limited choice. Out of the sandwich options you had a choice of:
Egg mayo roll - £3.55
Cheese roll - £3.55
Suffice to say, I walked out with my 80p packet of crisps and decided that I would just go hungry till I got home.
Call me tight if you will, but where is the business logic in pricing such low value items so highly? Halve the prices, double the sales (at least). I suspect if they did that, they'd make more money than what they are at the moment.
As a purely amateur 'tog I don't make money from my pictures so this issue as it stands doesn't directly affect me. What does concern me more is the possibility that this is the thin end of a wedge... If they are prepared to go the lengths of demanding, sorry I mean requesting, that a major picture agency remove pictures of NT properties how long before they decide it's easier to prevent such pictures being taken in the first place?
I can easily foresee a time coming when anyone sporting a camera larger than a compact will either be endlessly harassed by your typical NT jobsworths or expected to pay an overinflated fee for a permit to take photographs even in the grounds of an NT site. At worst I suppose they could simply ban all photography on NT property but hopefully even they couldn't be that arrogant.
Personally I think the NT has gotten far too big for it's own good and has turned hopelessly bureaucratic as large organisations are all too prone to do...
To be fair to the NT staff I have come across, they have all been very helpful and kind to me...to the point of giving me tips of some good things to photograph.
But yeah...if they one day decided to ban photography (which I believe would be unlikely to say the least), that could all change.
problem is the nt is at the thin end of the wedge, not only is its trying to delete images of where a ticket has been paid for there fore a contract formed which is right and correct but it is seeking to remove images where, no contract has been formed on open land, with images shot from highways and from public footpaths and public access land. which it claims is a criminal offence, which it is not as they are relying on old bye laws, which don't apply.
it is also seeking to remove images where photographers have been invited by the trust for press days, press releases and for other other events like celebs in front of buildings, etc for press calls, where no terms have been agreed, pointed out, signed for or anything. they are then trying to get these images removed which is very legally thin on the ground. so guess what other libraries are thinking about opening offering to take those images, as they have already told the nt where to stick it.
also there is the small piece of information where they are trying to protect the nt library where that is a separate company outside of the original nt legal covenants that were set up, so that is very dubious.
also seeing letters directly from the nt on one hand they are saying editorial images are ok on open land, but then saying commercial photography is not allowed, they clearly dont get it. There are also trying to stop sales of landscapes, anyone trying to photograph durdle door will understand that.
quite honestly they are well out of their remit on this one, and very shaky ground. they wont take anyone to court over it as they know they have a strong chance of loosing.
national trust read, national untrust.
Now there's an idea. Could be quite lucrative on the amount of land we own too.
There is much more to this story, which affects every photographer in UK, amateur or pro, who visits and photographs on or from NT's property. This includes a third of UK's coastline.
There are several recent articles in the news section of EPUK's CopyrightAction website : http://copyrightaction.com/news
- NT assert any photo taken on or from any NT property for commercial purposes is a criminal, not civil, offence. This claim is based on a misrepresentation of a 1965 byelaw.
- NT rules now assert that ANY reproduction, including upload to photosharing and social network sites such as Flickr and Facebook, is forbidden. This is a contract term of admission at NT pay-for-entry sites.
- Recent NT competitions feature a full-on rights grab that allows commercial exploitation of photos by NT and its associated picture library
- NT now insists amateurs may only enter competitions approved by NT. Any competition that is run by a commercial publisher who plans to publish winners' entries now falls foul of NT rules.
- We have inside information that alleges NT plans to use forthcoming rights-grabbing competitions as a source of stock for the library, promoted by the national press from May and backed by big-name pro's.
- The pressure on Alamy and attempts to reduce and exploit photographers' rights appears to be a concerted effort to create a monopoly trading position for NT Picture Library.
NT appear to be trying to restrict photography so, whilst they say they welcome amateur photography at their sites, the only thing you can do with them is put them in a box under the bed or enter camera club competitions.
I hope this has your attention.
Please can you give a source for this specific bit of information.
No it doesn't. The NT itself claims to care for "over 700 miles of coastline in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, nearly 10 per cent of the total mileage". Precise measures of coastline are close to impossible: however you look at it, though, the fact that over a third of the UK's coastline is in Scotland means that your figure can't possibly be correct.
Separate names with a comma.