1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

'10,000' images in National Trust rights controversy

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. zuiko

    zuiko Well-Known Member

    Another perspective on this is how much are NT losing in revenue by there in being 10,000 images on Alamy, whats that worth in loss income?

    £100,000

    £50,000?

    £25,000?

    £10,000?

    £5,000?

    A large proportion of images on Alamy are not edited by Alamy, they leave that to the contributor to edit. This means in reality 10,000 images could be reduced to 7,000 images that are saleable and not similars or utter rubbish.

    There is an old adage in the stock industry that if you have a 1000 images with a library you will earn £1000 pa.

    Times have changed, i would estimate the loss of income to the NT from the sale of images on Alamy to be £5000 per year and i am being generous.

    What is the turnover of the NT? A google search reveals that to be 300 million.

    As i said before this has more to do with power than it has to do with protecting revenue streams.

    The whole scenario if it were to reach the masses say on Countryfile and the rights to photograph OUR countryside and use the images as we see fit would i think be a huge PR disaster for the NT, and all for a few thousand quid and the ability to flex the corporate musle and give a company ( Alamy) a bloody nose.

    Regards

    David
     
  2. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    I've just come across this page by Simon Norfolk. Not sure what it adds to the discussion, but seems as though someone has acted.
     
  3. msknight

    msknight Member

    From 10,000 to 17,000. The number has not far off doubled. Wonder which report is right.

    Other than the response that my e-mail had been passed to management as I requested, the NT haven't officially responded to me yet.

    The rights grabs have been going on for some time with many companies involved including the BBC; it is a shame to see the NT doing the same. "The Guardian," was also among them. There is a site somewhere that lists compettions and gives them a, "traffic light," code; contacting the ones that score yellow or red to let them know. When I find the URL again, I'll post it.

    The BBC competition for The One Show (which is now over) took permanent and full rights for the BBC and associate companies, even third parties that the BBC worked with. They never did respond to my on-line query.
     
  4. msknight

    msknight Member

    As the competition for The One Show is over I couldn't easily find the rights, but this is a quote from another discussion about it...
    "By submitting your photograph to the BBC or to the ONE Show group on the Flickr website you agree to grant the BBC free of charge the right to publish and the right to licence others to show the photograph on television, publish the photograph online and in all other media as required"
    ...allowing the BBC to grant licence rights to others.

    I think it is a general statement so should still be on the BBC web site somewhere. I did look for an article about it on this site, but couldn't find one, so I'm hoping that this will spark AP to contact the BBC; because the BBC didn't respond to me about it. Is Aunty BBC getting too big for her nursery?
     
  5. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    I dont really have a problem with these "rights grabs" competitions, they are in the T&C. When you consider entering, you make your own mind up whether to accept or not. Its your entry into their competition.
    The NT issue is completely different, they ae preventing photography unless its done on their terms.

    Graeme
     
  6. Spiritflier

    Spiritflier Member

    The only reason I joined the National Trust in the first place was to take photographs... This particular issue doesn't affect me but as far as I'm concerned, I've already paid for the opportunity to take photographs on their property.

    I can understand them wanting to protect their rights but in the great scheme of things, there can't be all that many exceptional images that would be a threat to their own 'official' images.

    Si
     

Share This Page