National Trust: photography persecution

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

But Pete, from what I've been reading they're not giving anyone permission - not even for a fee. They are trying to turn NTPL into a monopoly for pictures of NT properties. They have a handful of photographers that they will commission if they need a specific picture that they don't already have (I've read that David Notton and Joe Cornish are on the list) but if anyone else, pro, semi-pro or amateur, approaches them for permission they're being told no - even if they're able and willing to pay the licence fee.

Dave P.

okay if that is the case then perhaps its a different fish of kettles - tho i wont worry about it until i get refused a permit

which is unlikely to arise as the market for pictures of national trust property is pretty rinsed already - precicely because of NTPL and the work being done by people like noton and cornish on their behalf.

therefore if a post card company or whoever wants a picture of an NT property or view they are very unlikely to come to me when they can pick up images by noton, cornish etc via NTPL, and thus i , and most other pro and semi pro landscape photographers are likely to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

I do agree however that they have , perhaps unintentionally, gone to far vis a vis pictures taken by amateurs being put on websites. That said its not something that would worry me if i had an amateur website.

[pressld2]

Now this is interesting. According to the Copyright Action website:

Legally, permission exists on private land unless and until prohibition is notified.

(I'm not posting a link because I've already posted three links to that site and the mods will send the boys round if I post another! If you want to see the original page - and it's well worth it - just copy and paste that sentence into Google. It was the top result for me.)

Now if this is true (and, like others, I'm no lawyer) then going back to my White Cliffs scenario, I have permission to take photos for any purpose, including selling them, until such time as someone approaches me, identifies themselves as an employee of the Trust and informs me that I don't have permission. They could try putting signs up but there'd have to be an awful lot of them and they'd have to be certain that the signs had not been vandalised or defaced.

I'm going to the Farne Islands next week (I think I might have already mentioned this once or twice ) and it'll be interesting to see if there are any signs or other notification that commercial photography is forbidden. At this time of year huge numbers of photographers go to the Farnes (when I booked I was told that May half term is by far the busiest week of the year) and a huge number of the results end up in stock libraries. If the NT is successful in making this policy stick then the boat operators will be in serious trouble and the Trust's income from landing fees will plummet as the photo-tour companies will look elsewhere.

Unless, of course, photographers just ignore the Trust's policy. If I get any decent shots that I think are worth the effort of uploading I will simply set the location to be "Northumberland". Or possibly even "Yorkshire" to throw them off the scent. (With apologies in advance to any proud Geordies!) As I said above, this is not because I'm too tight to buy a licence at a reasonable cost - I fully agree with Pete's point that maintaining places like the Farnes as prime habitat costs money - but because, as far as I can tell, the Trust will not sell me one. Their loss!

One other point that will almost certainly need lawyers to unravel at great expense to all concerned, is exactly what constitutes "commercial" photography. Here's an interesting quote from the page I'm not linking to...

"Generally, 'commercial' has been understood to mean advertising, marketing, merchandising - the sort of usage that requires a property release, not just permission of the landowner. (Anyone who doesn't understand the difference, please see the FAQ section of this site).

That does not include 'editorial', 'reportage', 'documentary' or 'art'. Just because at some point now or in the future a photographer may be paid for a reproduction in a magazine or a print does not make it 'commercial' in the traditional industry sense of the word."

Dave P.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I've rung up my Great Uncle who really did suffer under the nazis and he says it's about time some people had a sense of humour. But that's only one person who suffered in the war. However , my MiL who lost a few family in the Liverpool blitz (did you think it was only London?) says it's fine by her.And she's part Jewish as well. Dad (who's 86 and lost his hearing etc mending fighter planes and catching malaria etc) still finds a lot of black humour very funny - but hey that's only a few I know of so far.

BUT -

Having said that - I like to offer my wholehearted apologies to anyone I've offended by finding this term humorous and I promise to be more PC in future. Whether or not this will cramp my sense of humour, I don't know as yet. It most probably will.
I'm sure I'll live through it - unlike a couple of other Uncles who died at the hands of the Germans and one other who committed suicide after being traumatised after relieving one of the concentration camps.

I digress - this was /is a riveting read and very educational - what a great thread! Back on track - I'll continue catching up.

Acherontia

Before I continue to contribute to this thread I'd like to know whether my apology about the humorous reference to the 'Nazi trust' (sorry) is accepted.

I'm not entirely sure about the niceties of this forum ( I'm very new) and therefore I'm not clear on whether Eeyore usually ignores addresses to him/her or whether he/she is seriously offended by what he/she considers non PC stuff.

I find it quite strange and contradictory that that he/she is quick to the defense of the victims of WWII and yet finds it easy to condemn a new member of the forum.

As a 'newbie' I think I need guidance on this. I've been trying to make some input but feel that I have ,albeit subtly, been shunted.

Acherontia

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by pressld2

........
Unless, of course, photographers just ignore the Trust's policy. If I get any decent shots that I think are worth the effort of uploading I will simply set the location to be "Northumberland". Or possibly even "Yorkshire" to throw them off the scent. (With apologies in advance to any proud Geordies!) ...........
Dave P.

Personally I think it's fine to think of anywhere north of Hull as being part of Greater Yorkshire.

Seriously I pretty much agree with all your statements and stance on this issue Dave. The National Trust clearly needs to rethink this idea. At the very least to clarify things if, as Eeyore thinks, it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. And if the intention implied is real then they have to realise that they shouldn't be allowed to limit the ability of photographers to exercise their art and industry in some of the most iconic of landscapes. I also believe that in-spite of their legal ownership these landscapes do really belong to all of us and they need to recognise that.

Now an interesting question - my house is owned by the National Trust as are a lot of the farms here in the Dales, as no photography is allowed inside Nation Trust properties am I allowed to take a photograph inside my own home?

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by acherontia

Before I continue to contribute to this thread I'd like to know whether my apology about the humorous reference to the 'Nazi trust' (sorry) is accepted.

I'm not entirely sure about the niceties of this forum ( I'm very new) and therefore I'm not clear on whether Eeyore usually ignores addresses to him/her or whether he/she is seriously offended by what he/she considers non PC stuff.

I find it quite strange and contradictory that that he/she is quick to the defense of the victims of WWII and yet finds it easy to condemn a new member of the forum.

As a 'newbie' I think I need guidance on this. I've been trying to make some input but feel that I have ,albeit subtly, been shunted.

Acherontia

I'd carry on contributing - I'm sure most of us will have taken both your initial contribution and your apology in the spirit in which they were intended.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

I'd carry on contributing - I'm sure most of us will have taken both your initial contribution and your apology in the spirit in which they were intended.

I second this.

It's very easy, when passionate about a subject, to fire off a post which seems entirely reasonable at the time, but which when commented on by others, or read back some time later, seems way over the top.

I've been guilty in the past, and haven't been ashamed to apologise or retract what I'd said. However, if I'm still of my original opinion, I'm also quite happy to reconfirm that stance as well. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion - agreed with or not.

As far as I'm concerned, we still have free speech in this country, so the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - (rightly or wrongly attributed to Voltaire), still holds good in my book.

Back to topic - The NT urgently need to clarify their stance. The longer this country wide debate goes on gaining momentum, the more the NT will be seen as the villain.

Regards
Mike.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I'm going to the Farne Islands next week (I think I might have already mentioned this once or twice ) and it'll be interesting to see if there are any signs or other notification that commercial photography is forbidden. At this time of year huge numbers of photographers go to the Farnes (when I booked I was told that May half term is by far the busiest week of the year) and a huge number of the results end up in stock libraries. If the NT is successful in making this policy stick then the boat operators will be in serious trouble and the Trust's income from landing fees will plummet as the photo-tour companies will look elsewhere.

Unless, of course, photographers just ignore the Trust's policy. If I get any decent shots that I think are worth the effort of uploading I will simply set the location to be "Northumberland". Or possibly even "Yorkshire" to throw them off the scent. (With apologies in advance to any proud Geordies!) As I said above, this is not because I'm too tight to buy a licence at a reasonable cost - I fully agree with Pete's point that maintaining places like the Farnes as prime habitat costs money - but because, as far as I can tell, the Trust will not sell me one. Their loss!

Dave P.

You'll enjoy it - don't forget a suitably thick hat for when the arctic terns peck yer head!
When Mr A's uploads images on Alamy he only puts place names in the key words so could actually only be describing birds that you might see there.

No-one on his Wildlife Photography Degree course ever pays the NT when they have regular field trips- including to the Farnes. Perhaps the boat owners at the Farnes pay the NT. The NT never appears to ask money of individuals for the trips.
The college regularly submits images on their web site and there are many images on the walls of the college that probably include 'NT's' images.
It's all rather puzzling and doesn't seem very enforcible - so why do it?

Originally posted by RobSutton

Now an interesting question - my house is owned by the National Trust as are a lot of the farms here in the Dales, as no photography is allowed inside Nation Trust properties am I allowed to take a photograph inside my own home?

An interesting point. Now that seems even more invasive of people's rights unless there's a clause that excludes people like you who live on NT land.(you lucky thing)

Acherontia

[Chris Yeates]

This is very interesting - I can't for a moment see anyone ever being sued over this (I don't think you can be prosecuted over byelaws like this? civil rather than criminal offence?) someone will put me right on this one

Do they claim ownership of clouds photographed over their land?;

I work in museums, however, and we are quite strict about photography inside properties - not least because security can be an issue, also flash can be a threat to sensitive objects and an annoyance to other visitors; photography may be allowed as long as people apply in advance and have a bona fide reason for doing it; I can also understand that if you work as a Volunteer Photographer for the NT then they claim the rights to your images - that certainly applies to all the photographs I take as part of my job; I bet that if you were under contract to the NT and something happened to your camera or more importantly to you then their insurance might come in handy!

It is interesting to see how the Creative Commons agreement can be used as well - I have seen images which I have contributed to Geograph being used by caravan site websites to extol the beauty of the surrounding countryside! Unlike the NT I can't get fussed about it - while I have my personal feelings about these human gannetries if it brings in some money to the local community and helps keep the village shop open what the heck . . .

How could they prove that KeenTeen's Mezereon was taken at a particular site? lawyers would run rings round them; and for KT's sake we could all attest that he is a sad and confused young man and that although he claims to have taken the photograph, we doubt his ability to do so

finally while I mention the strictures we have about photography inside our sites at work, on our countryside sites we encourage it - it is seen as a way for the public to enjoy them; one of our countryside rangers runs excellent courses on digital photography for heavens sake! we can't very well say now go off and practise what you have learned BUT NOT ON MOY LAAAARND!

I subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history and suspect the NT will quietly drop this one

interesting thread though .. ..

cheers

Chris

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

This is very interesting - I can't for a moment see anyone ever being sued over this (I don't think you can be prosecuted over byelaws like this? civil rather than criminal offence?) someone will put me right on this one

This was touched on earlier Chris and it would appear to be a criminal matter. The NT are certainly claiming that it is.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

Volunteer Photographer for the NT then they claim the rights to your images - that certainly applies to all the photographs I take as part of my job; I bet that if you were under contract to the NT and something happened to your camera or more importantly to you then their insurance might come in handy!

In return for privileged access it would be quite reasonable for them to claim non-exclusive rights to the images taken by volunteers. However I believe they were claiming exclusive rights and copyright itself. This is normal if the photographer is an employee but not for a volunteer who isn't under contract and would be expected to insure his own kit. He might be able to claim if he could prove that the camera was damaged due to negligence on the part of the NT but I doubt he'd get very far otherwise.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

How could they prove that KeenTeen's Mezereon was taken at a particular site?

When it comes to flora and fauna they almost certainly can't. As that's mostly what I shoot I shall carry on as I always have and simply not mention if a particular photo was taken on NT land. But anyone who shoots a lot of landscape or architectural work will find it much harder.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history and suspect the NT will quietly drop this one

Normally I would agree with you that cock-up is the more likely. However, in this case, the more I read the more it looks like deliberate conspiracy to me. The NT are running regular rights-grabbing photo competitions and trying to take advantage of volunteers to stock their own picture library, while at the same time attempting to turn said picture library into a monopoly by preventing anyone else from selling images taken on NT land. I think it's a deliberate policy and I'm not at all convinced they will drop it unless forced to by overwhelming public opinion (unlikely - most non-photographers won't care) or losing a court case.

Dave P.

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by pressld2

. . . . The NT are running regular rights-grabbing photo competitions and trying to take advantage of volunteers to stock their own picture library, while at the same time attempting to turn said picture library into a monopoly by preventing anyone else from selling images taken on NT land. I think it's a deliberate policy and I'm not at all convinced they will drop it unless forced to by overwhelming public opinion (unlikely - most non-photographers won't care) or losing a court case.

Dave P.

many thanks for the clarification Dave - so is it all about selling images?

do you think it is down to a particular individual at NT? (sounds like a newbie spraying their presence around like a tomcat) no need to name names of course

it's such a pity because in general the NT has been a positive force and they really seem to be queering their pitch big time . . . .

Chris

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

many thanks for the clarification Dave - so is it all about selling images?

Well, yes and no. Their primary objective is to prevent anyone except their own library, NTPL, selling images of NT property. The main route for such sales is stock libraries which is why they have approached Alamy and others insisting that NT images be removed (except their own of course - NTPL sells through Alamy). However, they are not limiting the restriction to selling through agencies, they are trying to stop people selling direct as well. This is why photo-sharing sites like Flickr or the WAB Gallery here as well as people's own non-commercial websites are also under threat. It's not unheard of for people who have uploaded their pics to such sites to be approached by a potential buyer. I myself have been approached about pictures in my WAB Gallery although this was for permission to use them not buy them!

It's been suggested that the people who wrote the policy didn't realise that the ban on "publication in any form" would include photo-sharing sites and people's own web sites - i. e. cock-up not conspiracy. I'm not so sure. I'm suspicious that they knew exactly what they were doing and they really are aiming to prevent people uploading to non-commercial sites. But I do agree that in practice this will be completely unenforceable.

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

it's such a pity because in general the NT has been a positive force and they really seem to be queering their pitch big time . . . .

I agree, and that's the saddest thing about it. Although there are people who accuse the NT of "over-managing" their properties and turning them into some gentrified, rustic, middle-class ideal of what the countryside should be like (which isn't that good for wildlife - nature doesn't do tidy), nevertheless they are preventing the sites they manage from being destroyed or concreted over and turned into housing estates or shopping malls.

I'm not currently a member. I usually alternate between the NT and English Heritage as I can't really afford to be a member of both but I won't be switching back to the NT while they are pursuing this policy.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I'm not entirely sure about the niceties of this forum ( I'm very new) and therefore I'm not clear on whether Eeyore usually ignores addresses to him/her or whether he/she is seriously offended by what he/she considers non PC stuff.

I find it quite strange and contradictory that that he/she is quick to the defense of the victims of WWII and yet finds it easy to condemn a new member of the forum.

As a 'newbie' I think I need guidance on this. I've been trying to make some input but feel that I have ,albeit subtly, been shunted.

apology accepted no worries - and it was more of a general point anyway rather than aimed at you (you werent the first person to say it) and i apologise in turn if this caused you any upset.

I hadnt responded before because i had unsubscribed to this thread because i've had my say and 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.

My general point was that anyone comparing the national trust to the nazis because they wont let people sell or publish images taken on their land speaks of a serious loss of proportion.

(similar to when people start comparing stu to draco, stalin, mao, pinochet etc because they dont like the forum rules.)

If one want to get hot under the collar about civil liberties there are all sorts of dreadful things happening in the world in myanmar, china, zimbabwe, camp xray etc etc (not that we normally discus politics on the forums , for obvious reasons) and in comparisson the national trust introducing a bylaw that prevents publication of a few photographs is very small beer indeed.

i'm a he by the way

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

This was touched on earlier Chris and it would appear to be a criminal matter. The NT are certainly claiming that it is.

it is indeed a criminal matter - but it is one that would only be subject to private prosecution as it seems very unlikely that the CPS or police would take any action.

also the two related matters, both trespass (ie going onto the land with the intent to do what is forbidden there) , and breach of copyright are matters for civil resolution.

[Hobjob]

Whatever the real intent of the NT is, I think we should ALL
be protesting.

I shall be emailing
enquiries@thenationaltrust.org.uk
asking for their repsonse to this thread, and threatening
to resign my membership if I can not upload my photos
to the web for non-commercial use.

Public opinion is a powerful weapon, but we all need to
make them aware of [b]our[b] opinions, and what Joe
public really thinks. Swamp them

Please get emailing.

[Hobjob]

OK, email gone, with threat to cancel membership
if problem not sorted.

I quoted the following links (+ link to this thread)


National Trust Pictures - not the NT, not Alamy: | Copyright Action

National Trust Pictures About NationalTrustPictures.com

Alamy stock photography - Blog

Flickr: Discussing The National Trust's photography policy in National Trust

which seem to encapsulate the debate.

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

do you think it is down to a particular individual at NT? (sounds like a newbie spraying their presence around like a tomcat) no need to name names of course
Chris

I'm impressed - you actually know people at NT??? Perhaps you could put in a word on behalf of a few disgruntled individuals - me included.

Who is it you know ?- Someone at managerial/responsible level I hope - and perhaps someone who believes in the right to express opinions about issues that appear to contravene human rights.

I do hope it isn't some childish bright spark who messes about with throwaway statements/laws as some form or attempt at control over what they see as their domain and no-one elses??? Probably a man then..... Especially if it's a Tom.

Acherontia

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by eeyore

apology accepted no worries - and it was more of a general point anyway rather than aimed at you (you werent the first person to say it) and i apologise in turn if this caused you any upset.

I hadnt responded before because i had unsubscribed to this thread because i've had my say and 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.

My general point was that anyone comparing the national trust to the nazis because they wont let people sell or publish images taken on their land speaks of a serious loss of proportion.

(similar to when people start comparing stu to draco, stalin, mao, pinochet etc because they dont like the forum rules.)

If one want to get hot under the collar about civil liberties there are all sorts of dreadful things happening in the world in myanmar, china, zimbabwe, camp xray etc etc (not that we normally discus politics on the forums , for obvious reasons) and in comparisson the national trust introducing a bylaw that prevents publication of a few photographs is very small beer indeed.

i'm a he by the way

Friends then? I admire anyone who has the guts to stand up for what they belive in (like you and others regardless of standpoint) and isn't afraid to address issues head on to sort things out. (BtW I've been concerned in politics and the welfare of other humans).

Incidentally - there are points you raise that I can understand. It has always been necessary to enforce laws where images are concerned but I feel that the NT has overstepped the mark here and ,as someone else said, (Chris I think)they have probably made a bit of a mess trying to be too controlling and they will alienate a lot of people.

I think a bit of NVDA might not go amiss - and I don't mean chaining oneself to an NT tree for a week and photographing birds surrounded by blow ups of NT houses! Someone mentioned raising the issue in the press -it's always a powerful tool. Also it's amazing how much a small pressure group can attain given the motivation and combined efforts to raise awareness. Someone 'in charge' here may carry a little more weight than the average poster.

Hobnob - I'll get on the job now. The more the merrier.

Acherontia

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

OK, email gone, with threat to cancel membership
if problem not sorted.

I quoted the following links (+ link to this thread)


National Trust Pictures - not the NT, not Alamy: | Copyright Action

National Trust Pictures About NationalTrustPictures.com

Alamy stock photography - BlogFlickr: Discussing The National Trust's photography policy in National Trust

which seem to encapsulate the debate.

How about a standardised letter that can be sent by those, like me , who want to protest? I'm not sure about forum rules so could you actually put yours on for copying and pasting?

Acherontia

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I'm impressed - you actually know people at NT??? Perhaps you could put in a word on behalf of a few disgruntled individuals - me included.

Who is it you know ?- Someone at managerial/responsible level I hope - and perhaps someone who believes in the right to express opinions about issues that appear to contravene human rights.

No I know no one of influence at NatTrust.

As I said in my first repsonse I will be writing to
enquiries@thenationaltrust.org.uk
and they hae replied already, which I will post as separate reply.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by acherontia

How about a standardised letter that can be sent by those, like me , who want to protest? I'm not sure about forum rules so could you actually put yours on for copying and pasting?

Acherontia

Standardised letters are usually ingored by politicians I gather.
It is, I have been told, more effective to put your objections
in your own words.

Apart from anything else the people to whom one is objecting
then have to read each letter carefully

[Hobjob]

Copy of email recieved from NT
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++


The Trust is more than happy for people to take photographs on their days out for their own personal use, which includes posting them on photo sharing websites such as Flickr. We consider Flickr as 'personal use' so long as any photographer posting works does not pass those works on to third parties for reproduction, which of course would then be in breach of our policy. This of course does not apply to photographing indoors at NT properties, which is not allowed under any circumstances without prior arrangement with the property - for which you would need the necessary £6m liability insurance and a signed contract with the Trust.

A number of responses have been sent out by the Photo Library and the NT Press Office communicating our policy over the past few weeks. The policy communicated on the 'Photographers' tab at The National Trust Photo Library and printed in the Handbook on page 376 (of the 2009 edition) will in due course be updated to expand the understanding of 'personal use'. We are in no way trying to undermine the enjoyment of visitors to our properties and sharing photographs in the way you describe is perfectly legitimate. We feel that it is more than unfortunate that in addressing unsanctioned commercial exploitation issues such as the one you refer to have been raised and wrongly represented. We do take unsanctioned exploitation very seriously, as do all heritage organisations, but individuals simply wishing to create photographs in the way you describe have always been welcome.

I hope this has answered your concerns.

Regards,

Chris.

Rowlin, Chris [chris.rowlin@nationaltrust.org.uk]

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

No I know no one of influence at NatTrust.

The comment re knowing people at the NT was a response to a quote by Chris Yeats , not you!

He said -
Originally by Chris Yeates

do you think it is down to a particular individual at NT? (sounds like a newbie spraying their presence around like a tomcat) no need to name names of course

Good to see you had a swift reply from the NT and they have clarifies their position as regards uploading to the web.
Unfortunately people who upload images on this website will still be contravening the NT rules as WAB appears, in their T&C to claim the right to pass on images to a third party.
At least I will still be able to post images on some forums who do not monopolise them and ,of course, be dishonest as far as stock photographs are concerned!

Cheers! I will still write though.

Acherontia

[Ukwildlifeo]

My biggest worry is this will set a precident and others, like the WWT, RSPB or Wildlife trust might follow suit and then thats basically a large amount of the good sites off limits to anyone trying to take photos to sell.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I hadnt responded before because i had unsubscribed to this thread because i've had my say and 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 chance of that Pete! You made some good points, quite a few of which I agree with and where we disagree I still respect your views.

Thanks for posting that response Hobjob - nice to see some clarification at last. Although the little cynic that lives inside me can't help wondering if it is just clarification or a frantic back-pedalling now that they've seen the strength of feeling against this policy. It'll be interesting to see if the wording of the policy on the NTPL site gets updated any time soon. At the moment it still forbids reproduction in any form.

I think they also need to update it to expand on their meaning of "commercial photography". I would argue that any images I upload to stock libraries of recognisable NT property are not available for commercial use. They can't be - I don't have a property release so they are limited to editorial, non-commercial use only. Alamy does this automatically but the NT is still insisting that such photos be removed so it seems that they are including editorial use in their definition of "commercial photography". Pretty shabby in my opinion.

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 and then thats basically a large amount of the good sites off limits to anyone trying to take photos to sell.

That thought had crossed my mind too Neil. If the NT get away with this and the rest follow suit then about the only place I'll be able to take wildlife photos with a view to selling them is in my own garden.

Dave P.

[Lancashire Lad]

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.

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).

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.