National Trust: photography persecution

[RobSutton]

Well that b.....s me then - I live and work (BUT not for them I should hasten to add!) on a National Trust estate - I'm sure you can work out which one from the details on lots of my photos. Will I even be allowed to take my camera out of the house as that's on their land too?

What's the position on taking photos from a public road or footpath next to one of their (substantial) bits of land or running through it I wonder?

It's all really silly isn't it - just think of all the big hills in Snowdonia and the Lake District, all the coastline owned by them.

[stonflo]

Just had the latest NT mag and guess what they are advertising a wild life photo competition.

[metalfish]

The whole thing sounds completely unenforcable to me, why would the National Trust even bother to try?
When it comes to photos of the outdoors its there for all to see so how can image ownership come into it?
Photography of National Trust buildings interiors can probably have more rules set about it as ownership is more proveable.
Sounds like something that no-one should really worry about, and it sounds like a lot of rumours and supposition, until National Trust actually declares anything itself then I'd take it all as a load of guff!

[solus]

The prohibition of photography inside NT properties is completely understandable: flash can damage delicate furnishings, pictures etc. and if there was a "no-flash" rule that would be "accidentally" flouted by folks who are unable/unwilling to turn the flash off! Light levels have to be kept deliberately low in most/all properties to protect fabrics and furnishings so they will be preserved and available for future generations to see.

I have no problems with that at all.

There is also no doubt a big security issue as photographs of items and their locations within a property could be used by certain criminal elements of society....

Outside: again, I personally see no problem really unless someone publishes a photograph taken at an NT property for their own financial gain... photography for personal use, one's own memories of a day out or a holiday or to show to friends and family are, as far as I read it, fine. The wording of the NT's policy has, no doubt, had to have been drafted by a lawyer thus may come across as somewhat off-putting.

Look at it from another point of view: someone takes a not-very-good photograph of a garden or on NT land and somehow manages to get it published (in print). This does not then reflect that place in the best light and, rather than encouraging visitors, might just have the opposite effect. A bit like someone photographing your garden when the lawn need cutting, the weeds are blooming, the washing is hanging out and the kids' toys are all over the place then publishing it without your consent! Wouldn't you want to retain some control over that?

I can also see that the NT, being a charity, would not be too happy at others making a profit on pictures taken on NT property, to the detriment of NT funds - hence the fees charged for professional photography. As I understand it (although I may well be wrong) are Photo Libraries not places from which pictures may be purchased for commercial use?

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by PMG

Not if you assert that you were stood beside the road using a VERY big lens that reaches over two fields .......... I'm being facetious of course - but making the point that this going to be a very hard issue to police and implement - .............
Pauline

Or were stood on one of the many public footpaths which go through NT property. As you say, I don't think there's any way of enforcing this for landscape or wildlife stuff. As for internal or building shots, then they might work to selling you a license - augmenting admission fees as it were; this is not uncommon elsewhere in the world.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Or were stood on one of the many public footpaths which go through NT property. As you say, I don't think there's any way of enforcing this for landscape or wildlife stuff.

technically thats not so - under the 1949, 1968 , and 2000 access acts being on a public right of way only gives you the right to freely pass and repass by the permitted means. It does not give you the right to do anything else including take pictures - these activities would be covered by whatever bylaw covers the land through which the footpath passes.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by sidewalkdoctor

I applied for an advertised job with the NT as a "Volunteer Photographer" which meant that I would get a free pass to ANY of their properties as well as a car parking permit & a fleece(!). I fulfilled the criteria for taking & processing photographs & could get away from work if needed in a hurry (remember this is on the IOW) & so got the job.

Upon reading that I was expected to hand over _all_ rights of my pix, I told the poor sod who offered me the job what they could do with both it and the clause in the contract.

I run a similar volunteer photographer scheme for my employer - however we only ask for non exclusive use of the images - asking for full rights puts them on dodgy ground - although it would be perfectly normal if it were a paid position as images taken in the course of your employment belong (normally) to the employer not to the photographer.

I would guess that the NT think that this applies to the volunteer position because you would be given free access and carparking - however that would put them on very dodgy ground vis a vis the mimimun wage legislation because volunteering is not employment - if they argued that you were employed then you would not be definition be a volunteer and would be entitled to the minimum wage and other employment benefits (Volunteering is not a "job" either and it is very poor form to have a "contract" as this also constitutes "trappings of employment" )

[glsammy]

I've just sent them an email asking them to clarify their position on this.
I wonder if they'll bother to reply?

[kiltoncomp]

where is the position on this concerning WAB ?, as there are many photographs of clumber posted on here, will they all have to be removed to comply with the National Trusts new take on photograhy on their (our??)lands?

does this also mean that the forthcoming WAB fungi foray 2009 to Clumber will be unable to record their finds by photographic means ?

judging by the number of people i see with cameras in clumber park alone, then there must be many thousands of what will now be illegal photographs in circulation!

if this does become reality then heres another NT member who will be cancelling their memberships (we have a total of six memberships in the family)

Brian.

[eeyore]

to an extent this is a storm in a tea cup - although the clause does cover non comercial websites i suspect that has more to do with bad drafting than an evil intent.

One very much doubts that the national trust are going to take legal action against someone for putting a picture of their property on a personal web page let alone against another charity such as wab - it is quite clear that their intent is to stop anyone from making money from images of their property, which is fair enough.

Also Wab doesnt fall under the image libraries clause as someone suggested above because wab isnt an image library in that images here arent sold on for third party use.