National Trust: photography persecution

[Lancashire Lad]

I hear what you say eeyore, but there are many many places where you simply would not be able to take the photograph without being on their land. (Unless you happen to be a millionaire and have the use of a helicopter at your beckon call).

For example: -
The National Trust owns around one quarter of the Lake District National Park which includes Buttermere, Crummock Water, Loweswater and large sections of Derwent Water, Ullswater, Rydal, & Wast Water.

Scafell Pike, Great Gable, and the Langdale Pikes are also in their trust. (Not to mention the many hill farms and famous properties such as Hilltop, Sizergh Castle, & Wordsworth's house).

The lake District is without question one of my favourite places, and Scafell, and the Langdale Pikes have, in my opinion, some of the most photogenic landscape views in England - Views that require the viewer to be standing on National Trust land.

Why should I be prevented from displaying photographs that I've taken of Jack's Rake on Pavey Ark, or Sty-Head & Sprinkling Tarns, or the mighty buttresses on Harrison Stickle?

If they are allowed to get away with this disgraceful attack on liberty, what might be their next move? - To prevent us from freely wandering about on the fells?

Regards
Mike.

[kiltoncomp]

Originally Posted by eeyore

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. )

just a thought, but would being a member of the national trust make the said member part of that "ownership" ??

[Tormentil]

You appear to be contradicting yourself eeyore.

Originally Posted by eeyore

................ 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 ?

I thought you said Professionals pay a 'licence fee' to take photo's on private land ??

Also...

Originally Posted by eeyore

....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).....

Does none of this (the permit fee) go to the 'upkeep' of the Trust ??

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by kiltoncomp

just a thought, but would being a member of the national trust make the said member part of that "ownership" ??

I wouldn't think it would, but even if it did, it would be like enforcing the payment of a levy, to get permission to display photographs of landscapes which are, after all, the national heritage of this country.

I would apply this to the photography of flora & fauna on NT land as well. - They don't plant all the wild flowers, they don't breed & rear all the wildlife that is roaming freely, with the ability to enter & exit their land at will.

Why, therefore, should they think they can have the monopoly on who can and who cannot display photographs of that flora & fauna?

Regards
Mike.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by eeyore

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.

I think this is highly debatable Pete. The grants you mention very often do come from general taxation and they have also received some pretty hefty chunks of lottery funding. The National Lottery is run by the nation for the benefit of the nation and therefore in my view it should be seen as public money, even accepting that not everyone plays the lottery.

Also, I know that some people leave the NT sums of money in their will but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone bequeathing their country house to the Trust. These are left to "The Nation" for the simple reason that if they were left to the kids then said kids would be forced to sell them to pay the inheritance tax. "The Nation" then asks the Trust to manage and maintain the property.

But let me also be clear - I would have no problem with having to pay a (reasonable) fee to the charity for the purpose of commercial photography of the historic buildings, gardens and such like that they manage. The figure of £25 you mention would seem reasonable to me. But I do think it would be unreasonable to charge this for photographs of the coastline and countryside and quite outrageous to charge it for photographs of flora and fauna. And as it stands, from what I've been reading, the Trust's policy is a simple "no commercial photography" and not "okay if you buy a permit first".

There is also the issue of trust - no pun intended - as at least one person who has had their images removed by Alamy says he did pay £65 (an unreasonable sum IMO) for a permit to photograph commercially. Many others have had images deleted that, they say, were taken from public land. This is as much Alamy's fault as the NT's, for not standing up for their photographers.

Dave P.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

You appear to be contradicting yourself eeyore.



I thought you said Professionals pay a 'licence fee' to take photo's on private land ??

Also...

Does none of this (the permit fee) go to the 'upkeep' of the Trust ??

There is no contradiction because those photographers who have paid a licence fee , have by doing so gained permission to take pictures comercially - what i was saying is that this arrangement seems perfectly reasonable to me as a semi pro because i see no reason why people should be able to take comercial pictures without making a contribuition to the upkeep by paying such a fee.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I wouldn't think it would, but even if it did, it would be like enforcing the payment of a levy, to get permission to display photographs of landscapes which are, after all, the national heritage of this country.

I would apply this to the photography of flora & fauna on NT land as well. - They don't plant all the wild flowers, they don't breed & rear all the wildlife that is roaming freely, with the ability to enter & exit their land at will.

Why, therefore, should they think they can have the monopoly on who can and who cannot display photographs of that flora & fauna?

Regards
Mike.

they do however pay countryside management staff and wardens and carry out habitat management tasks that improve the habitat for such species - however there is no practical way for them to prove that such pictures were taken on their land and thus these can be displayed without fear of any come back under the said byelaw , so long as you dont state that they are on NT land.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

I
Why should I be prevented from displaying photographs that I've taken of Jack's Rake on Pavey Ark, or Sty-Head & Sprinkling Tarns, or the mighty buttresses on Harrison Stickle?

I agree entirely you should have the right to display them, and you probably have, I also agree that the NT should issue a clarification of this - if on the other hand you wanted to make money from them I would still suggest that it would be fair to pay the landowner who spends a considerable ammount of resources on keeping that landscape picturesque a reasonable fee for the permision to do so

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If they are allowed to get away with this disgraceful attack on liberty, what might be their next move? - To prevent us from freely wandering about on the fells?

Regards
Mike.

again this goes to what i was saying about keeping a sense of proportion , it is a minor bylaw not a "disgraceful attack on liberty" - and they clearly arent going to stop you walking the fells (apart from the fact that they cant under access law as most of the fells are Access land) , they arent even going to stop you taking pictures there - in fact the same byelaw specifically says that you are welcome to do so for private or personal use.

[acherontia]

I'd also note that reffereing (referring) 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 !!!

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

[big bill]

I di not know much about the NT land and their laws but I think its abysmal and downright absurds that you cannot take a photograph of the landscape in which you live to photograph the buildings they could argue the security but the are just being heavy handed.
Up here you can go into Edinburgh Castle and photograph any of the building inside and out except for the Jewels room where ther Scottish Crown Jewels are kept here security reasons given,Holyrood Palace/Holyrood House Queens official residense whilst in Scotland again photography allowed anywhere same at Balmoral .
Rights to roam as far as I see it as long as you are sensible and follow sensible rules of closing gates ,around edge of crops ,not disturbing animals and keeping your dog on lead near animals you are free to walk practicaly anywere.
Again its the Big brother syndrome over the Photographers ,first its children then terrorism now property what next?