Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore  ...I hadnt responded before because.....i have no wish to fall out with people i generally get on with , dave , mike etc just because our views on this are different... |
No worries. If I disagree, then I just say I disagree. There is no animosity intended, and I fervently believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobjob ...Copy of email recieved from NT... |
Good that they've at least clarified their position regards uploading to photo sharing sites for non commercial purposes. But as Acherontia implies, this could still lead to proceedings, if the upload site subsequently passes on the photo for third party use. (Absolute understanding of terms & conditions of such sites would be paramount).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo ...My biggest worry is this will set a precident and others, like the WWT, RSPB or Wildlife trust might follow suit... |
This had crossed my mind too. Hopefully though, any other organisation following this story will have picked up on the fact that they would without question lose a great many of their members and charitable donations if they did try it on.
My initial concerns related to the fact that amateur publication of photographs of NT owned landscape (with no intent of sale or commercial use) would fall within the prohibition. However Dave P's earlier post discussing his modest commercial success caused me to think again.
Someone posted that the NT weren't trying to copyright the view - But that appears to be exactly what they are doing. As I said before, many of the "classic" views of Englands most photogenic landscape can only be taken from viewpoints situated on NT land.
The NT have not created these magnificent landscapes, they have evolved over thousands if not millions of years. They are part of our national heritage, and cannot, in my opinion, be bought and sold with implicit rights that only accredited people may make commercial use of the views.
The NT are positively discriminating against photographers, and not, it seems, those who paint or draw these views. Surely, in its own way, photography is just as much an art as is painting/drawing.
The weather conditions, lighting & shadow, time of day, season, equipment used, photographer's skill, post camera processing, etc. etc. all come into play in determining what a photograph will look like. None of these things being under the control of the NT.
How then, can the NT claim sole rights to prohibit the distribution of such images, whether for commercial gain or not? In my opinion, they are tacitly trying to say "we own this view - It is our copyright".
No doubt they wouldn't be considering proceedings against your average Joe Bloggs for "publishing" an off the cuff snapshot. More likely, they would concentrate on photos where artistic photography skills had been used to best advantage, to create a stunning work of art.
It is another small attack on civil liberty, and we all need to remain vocal to the bitter end. As Dave P. says, if they get away with it, we all could eventually end up with only our own gardens in which to "legally" take our photo's.
Regards
Mike.