National Trust: photography persecution

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by wildlifesnapper

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.

Good! I didn't want to have to take Keith up on his kind offer of a character reference!

Originally Posted by 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,

I've done a fair bit of reading up on this over the last two days and found out that as well as the attempt to prevent photographers selling their work the good old NT have also been guilty of running "rights grabbing" competitions. See here: National Trust lose high profile photographer in competition rights row | Copyright Action

Originally Posted by acherontia

I wonder what would happen if Mr A took a photo to do a painting to sell for profit?

There's nothing in the byelaws or the NT policies to prevent this. The photograph would obviously be for the painter's own personal use and as Neil pointed out, they're not trying to stop painters and illustrators selling their work - just photographers.

Originally Posted by acherontia

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.

I'm sure they still do. Alamy ask you to enter the location where a photo was taken and they have been searching for the names of National Trust properties in order to decide which photos to delete. So if a photographer uploaded a picture of a puffin and specified the location as "Farne Islands" the chances are it will have been deleted. I shall upload pictures taken at NT properties with just the county in the location field in future.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by 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 see where you are coming from dave but technically/legally you arent correct.

They have no obligation to give you access to their land for the purposes of comercial photography ( whether it is your main income or not is irrelevent if you are selling the pics its comercial), therefore if you take photos on their land for sale you are in definite breach of the byelaw and the actual law as relates to photography on private land and would defintely lose in court.

and you wouldnt get a lot of support from the pro comunity as pro (and indeed semi pro) photographers are used to having to pay photographic licences when working on private land.

Like i said earlier if you want to take photos for sale on trust land all you need do is get a permit , which isnt expensive ( I think i paid £25 plus non exclusive use of images taken - though that was a few years back)

The same rule will actually apply in all sorts of places that amateurs take pics for free - most sports events , most zoos and wildlife parks, kew gardens, private estates so fourth and so fifth.

and in my view this is perfectly acceptable practice - why should pro photographers be able to profit from facilities provided by charitable trusts without making a contribution to their upkeep ?

IMO it is only in making the clause cover those who are not taking pictures for profit, but whom are publishing them on websites etc, that the trust has gone too far and i agree with mike that in that respect they would benefit from clarifying their position and ending the furore.

[Lancashire Lad]

Does anyone know if the story has been covered by any of the quality end of the national press? - If so, I'd like to get hold of a copy and read what's been printed.

If not I think it ought to be brought to their attention - I'm sure it would make for good copy, and might induce the NT to get off their backsides and make a public announcement.

Regards
Mike.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by wildlifesnapper

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 )

Originally Posted by acherontia

Good to hear that someone has challenged the nazi trust (I like it!)

I'd also note that reffereing to them in the public domain as the "nazi trust" is almost certainly libel or defamation.

not to mention being deeply offensive to those who suffered under the actual nazi's

I agree that the National trust may have gone a bit far in its bylaws , but some people need to retain a sense of proportion about just how calamitious this is.

oh yeah the jews, gypsies, poles, russians, germans etc had it rough under hitler , but I've got real problems , i'm not allowed to publish a photograph !!!

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by eeyore

...They have no obligation to give you access to their land for the purposes of comercial photography.......why should pro photographers be able to profit from facilities provided by charitable trusts without making a contribution to their upkeep ?.....

I would agree with this as far as photography inside the buildings, but what about the photography of the landscape in general? - As has been said, they don't own the land as such, they hold it in trust for the nation, and by the inclusion of the specific words "The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form".

By those last six words, they have effectively conspired to put a copyright on what would be many of the "classic" views of the nation's, (not the NT's), beautiful countryside & wild landscape.

Regards
Mike.

[zan]

What an interesting discussion this has turned out to be. I believe the situation only applies to the NT in England \ Wales, rather than Scotland (and the National Trust for Scotland), although I might be wrong... I think our 'right to roam' act would cancel out the enforcement of any equivalent byelaw tho. (Does anyone know if this is the case?)

Still, as an amateur photographer who sells a few images now and again, it's so offputting that the NT has introduced this policy. Even if I had no intention of selling an image from NT land, the terms at the moment read as though I would basically be prevented from using that photo in any way, for example as an entry in a competition etc.

With photography being such an important passtime to me, as I'm sure it is to many people, I will probably avoid NT sites from now on. I'm more interested in wildlife than the houses etc., and there are many other places that I can visit to see that, especially living in Scotland. Really seems a shame that they've taken such a hard line though, as it seems to be that they'll stand to lose out on a fair few memberships \ entry fees as a result.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I would agree with this as far as photography inside the buildings, but what about the photography of the landscape in general? - As has been said, they don't own the land as such, they hold it in trust for the nation, and by the inclusion of the specific words "The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form".

By those last six words, they have effectively conspired to put a copyright on what would be many of the "classic" views of the nation's, (not the NT's), beautiful countryside & wild landscape.

Regards
Mike.

the thing is mike - although i can see where that view comes from it isnt practically correct

the national trust are not (legally) "holding the land in trust for the nation" they do own it (although it is coventented that they cant sell it in most cases). In most cases they have either bought title out of their general funds or it has been donated or bequeathed to them.

They recieve no funding from general taxation and are thus not "national" in the sense that the national health service, or similar are, nor are they funded by the average man in the street.

their funding comes via visit fees, membership, donation, their trading arm (and grants for some specific projects) therefore they are answerable to their trustees and through them their membership. but they are not answerable to the government or the crown (except for the onus to act with the law as we all have to) or to the populace at large.

Also they are not placing a "copyright on views" they are acting entirely legally in making conditions of access to land that they own - you can still photograph the famous views from outside their land with no comeback ( to take daves example if i wanted to photograph the white cliffs of dover , I would do so from a boat or helicopter - and the national trust would have no call on that image, i certainly wouldnt be photographing it from the national trust land at the top ,or foot of the cliff. ) and as an amateur you can photograph whatever you want on their land - you just can't publish or sell without their permission.

( And I would bet that they didnt think of private websites when they said "publish" - the ramifications of whether mere display on the web qualifies as publication is a huge can of worms not yet fully tested by case law.

The term reproduction implies making more than one copy - and displaying one image doesnt qualify as reproduction. )

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by zan

What an interesting discussion this has turned out to be. I believe the situation only applies to the NT in England \ Wales, rather than Scotland (and the National Trust for Scotland), although I might be wrong...

The national trust for scotland is an entirely seperate organisation with its own rules etc - also I think (tho i'm no expert on the north of the border) that the process for making byelaws may be different up there.

Originally Posted by zan

I think our 'right to roam' act would cancel out the enforcement of any equivalent byelaw tho. (Does anyone know if this is the case?)

I do and they dont if you see what i mean. As with the english/welsh rights of way act (vis the discussion of footpaths further up) the right to roam act only confers the right to enter land for the purposes of recreational walking (and possibly cycling and horseriding in some areas) - it does not confer the right to enter land for any other activity - and therefore other activities such as photography remain covered by any byelaw which applies on the land , right to roam or not.

[zan]

But we have this clause, which allows access:

"for the purposes of carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit".

Would it be down to the relevant byelaw to state whether the freedom of access rights did \ didn't apply in any particular case then? I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, so perhaps I'm looking at this too simply!

[zan]

To be honest though, the part that really sticks in my throat is the idea that they can claim landscapes and wildlife. I know they can do it technically and legally, but it just seems to go against the ethos of managing a natural site. I can understand such claims in a zoo or wildlife park, and even in places that have carefully managed 'natural' habitat (e.g. extensive wetlands etc.) that wouldn't exist without the management. But places like, the Farne islands say, which are brilliant for wildlife anyway and are only really protected by the NT, it seems wrong that they can claim that and everything living there as their own.

I know they can, but maybe they shouldn't.