National Trust: photography persecution

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by eeyore

yes - sorry i didnt make my meaning clear ( told you i wasnt a lawyer ) byelaw offences are criminal not civil but are usually (in my experience at least) subject to private prosecution , generally by the landowner or his agent.

it is unlikely that the crown prosecution service will be interested in taking the prosecution for transgressing them , or indeed the police be particularly interested in enforcing them. ( come to that its hard enough to get the CPS to prosecute propper criminal cases these days , some cops i know refer to them as the "criminal protection service"

I should think all this applies more to images of the houses or landscapes/famous landmarks and it's probably unlikely that they'd enforce it unless Martin Parr makes a famous image of 'fat lady eats ice cream outside Tatton Park' or Andy Rouse publishes 'Kingfisher dives off Alderley Edge' in his blog..... and they make a load of money NT wants into!

Do you ever get tired dancing about like that Eeyore??

Acherontia

[Lancashire Lad]

In my previous post, I said there might have been an unintentional misrepresentation of the NT's actual policy, and that until such time as the matter was clarified, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

Today, I've spent a couple of hours browsing on some of the vast numbers of bona-fide web sites, and also blogs, (including Alamy, Amateur Photographer Magazine, ephotozine, Flikr, etc. etc), which are commenting on this situation.

It seems that many such organisations & individuals have tried to get a proper response from the trust, with regards to whether this situation will be enforced in respect of amateur photographers merely uploading images taken on trust land, but with no intent of selling or profit gain.

I can find no response from the trust thus far, which would in any way appear to confirm that amateurs needn't worry.

I didn't want to comment further, without being certain of the specific wording of the trusts policy, and have managed to find the relevant statement on the National Trust Photolibrary website (to view, you would need to click on the "Photographers" tab, at this link): -
http://www.ntpl.org.uk/index2.pgi

To quote an extract from that page: -
"The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form. Images taken at NT properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies or on-line providers or provided directly to image buyers. Requests for access for commercial photography or filming should be directed to the Broadcast Media Liaison Officer (020 7799 4547) in the first instance..

The National Trust welcomes outdoor photography for private and personal use and research at many of its properties. We regret that photography, either with camera or mobile phone camera, is not permitted indoors. Special arrangements for photography can be made for amateur photographers and for research purposes by contacting the property concerned in writing. If access is allowed, you will need to sign a contract which confirms that images are for personal use only."

The highlighting of the words or for reproduction in any form, being my addition, in order to focus attention on that part of the statement.

Comments I've found which directly refer to the trusts clause, are unanimous in their belief that an amateur, uploading a photo to a website (with no intent of sale or profit making), would fall foul of the clause, and that this would encompass the photographing of anything and everything, whether it be the actual landscape itself, or of a single flower, if such photo's could be proved to have been taken on the trusts land.

This is indeed an abysmal state of affairs. The trust manages a significant amount of land in areas of outstanding natural beauty, including several hundred miles of coastline.

The fact that the furore has been growing for several weeks, and the trust have not issued a definitive statement to confirm/counter the beliefs, is, quite frankly, appalling. The whole of the trust's senior management, officers, and legal consultants, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

The trust is supposed to be looking after these areas for the benefit of the nation - people like you and me - and not behaving like some sort of iron fisted dictatorship.

Regards
Mike.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Comments I've found which directly refer to the trusts clause, are unanimous in their belief that an amateur, uploading a photo to a website (with no intent of sale or profit making), would fall foul of the clause, and that this would encompass the photographing of anything and everything, whether it be the actual landscape itself, or of a single flower, if such photo's could be proved to have been taken on the trusts land.

.

the thing that in my view makes this all a storm in a tea cup though is that although the clause does possibly encompass the situation you outline , until or unless the trust actually prosecutes someone for transgressing the bylaw in this way this is all theoretical.

the clause slightly afterwards "The National Trust welcomes outdoor photography for private and personal use and research at many of its properties. We regret that photography, either with camera or mobile phone camera, is not permitted indoors. Special arrangements for photography can be made for amateur photographers and for research purposes by contacting the property concerned in writing. If access is allowed, you will need to sign a contract which confirms that images are for personal use only." makes it fairly obvious that they are not aiming at amateur photographers at all but trying to curtail the sale of images of their property by pros and semi pros , which seems to me to be eminently reasonable.

it could also be argued as a defence that putting an image on a non comercial webpage with no intent to sell it could be counted as personal use and thus allowed by the byelaw anyway.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by eeyore

...the thing that in my view makes this all a storm in a tea cup though is that although the clause does possibly encompass the situation you outline , until or unless the trust actually prosecutes someone for transgressing the bylaw in this way this is all theoretical....

I accept what you are saying, but until such time, the uncertainty remains. And being uncertain whether they might be on the wrong end of that first prosecution could be a not insignificant consideration in the minds of anyone thinking of visiting & photographing trust property. (and I mean the great outdoors by this).

Great numbers of people are talking of cancelling subscriptions, refusing to visit trust properties etc. etc.

Surely, it must be in the trust's interest to clarify the situation without further delay, and end all the bad public relations, speculation, and conjecture.

Regards
Mike.

[pressld2]

But what about people who are trying to sell their images? Me for a start! I'm not a professional photographer and I'm not making a mint out of it - sold three photos is two years for a net profit of £112 - but that's not the point. By what right do they tell me that I can't offer for sale photographs of landscapes that I own every bit as much as they do?

I can understand that some of the items inside the properties may be susceptible to damage from flashguns and that photographers using tripods could cause an obstruction or be an accident hazard. I can also understand that there are security considerations - some of that stuff is pretty valuable. But outside? Landscapes? Flora and fauna? They've stepped way over the line here in my opinion.

If I want to take a photo of the White Cliffs of Dover, I will.

If I want to offer it for sale, through a photo agency or directly, I will.

If I'm lucky enough to find a buyer to sell it to, I will.

If the NT don't like it I'll happily see them in court. All it needs is one test case and their entire house of cards will collapse.

Dave P.

[acherontia]

Reading through Mike's (Lancashire Lad's) post it certainly does seem a sad state of affairs.
As he mentioned earlier - it is a TRUST held on behalf of the British people and subsidised in the main by the very same.
If I rented a field from someone i would hope to be able to photograph the flowers or wild life in it. The TRUST exists on behalf of the people who very often want to take photographs when they have paid , either on the day or by subscription, for that priviledge. I could undertand that indoor flash photography may damage priceless heirlooms but Hey! What harm is taking an image of a wild flower or a landscape going to do?

It does stink somewhat - doesn't it and I would tend to agree with Dave P as regards throwing down the gauntlet.
They're not doing themselves any favours are they?

Acherontia

[Keith Talbot]

Originally Posted by pressld2

If I want to take a photo of the White Cliffs of Dover, I will.

If I want to offer it for sale, through a photo agency or directly, I will.

If I'm lucky enough to find a buyer to sell it to, I will.

If the NT don't like it I'll happily see them in court. All it needs is one test case and their entire house of cards will collapse.

Dave P.

Go Dave!!

we're all here if you need a character witness

[wildlifesnapper]

Originally Posted by acherontia

I would tend to agree with Dave P as regards throwing down the gauntlet.
They're not doing themselves any favours are they?

Acherontia

Apparently the gauntlet has already been thrown by one agency that , unlike Alamy, did not buckle under the bully boy tactics of the Nazi Trust ( as they have been nick-named ) and told them they will not remove any images and if they want to take them to court - go ahead.
The big problem is if they do take someone to court and lose then they will lose all controll on any images - a HUGE risk !

By the way , do you know that you can go onto NT property and paint a landscape and then sell that for profit. Discrimination against photographers has been mentioned in some forums.

neil

[kiltoncomp]

Having just received the latest issue of the National trust magazine, I see that they hold digital photography workshops at many of their properties, also photo competitions etc

It made me wonder if the all photos taken on these courses also become the property of the NT?
After having to pay £65.00 for the course to then be told that the photos also belong to the NT might not go down to well to say the least,

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by wildlifesnapper

By the way , do you know that you can go onto NT property and paint a landscape and then sell that for profit. Discrimination against photographers has been mentioned in some forums.

neil

Even more unbelievable! Photography can be art too - but available to those who can't put paint on paper - like me. It does seem a bit discriminatory, or even snobbish. I wonder what would happen if Mr A took a photo to do a painting to sell for profit?

Good to hear that someone has challenged the nazi trust (I like it!) Bet Alamy has quite a few on there anyways - caterpillars and such don't have 'I belong to the NT' hung round them in big letters.

It made me wonder if the all photos taken on these courses also become the property of the NT?
After having to pay £65.00 for the course to then be told that the photos also belong to the NT might not go down to well to say the least.

They probably frisk them for hidden memory cards before they leave!
Seriously - what are they playing at? And more interestingly do they have some kind of hidden agenda? It just doesn't make sense to hit the people they hold the property in trust for over the head with big sticks! It's extremely alienating and the more is heard of it the more likely their revenue may dwindle.
I'm glad I'm not a member - haven't been since the kids were small and definately won't be now.

Acherontia