National Trust: photography persecution

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pressld2

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.

not so - very few grants come from general taxation ( those made from NE and defra are the only ones i can think of - and although the NT may be able to claim Stewardship payments these are not 100% funded for management). Lottery funding is clearly private not national as there is no compulsion to play, and also again the grants recieved by NT are for specific project and again not funded at 100%

Originally Posted by pressld2

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.

again not so - its isnt actually possible to leave your house or estate to "the nation" you can leave it to the crown - in which case it becomes part of the crown estates - which are largely not National Trust managed (with a few exceptions), or you can leave it to the exchequer - who will probably sell it (to fund invading foreign countries, bailing out banks or whatever else they want to spend money on) , if the govt decided it was of national interest and should be kept , it would pass not to the National trust but to the govt quango English Heritage (or the appropriate equivalent in other parts of the uk). However mostly you can, and people frequently do, leave your estate to the National Trust , often with a covenant forbidding them to sell it, by leaving it to them you can generate a tax break for your heirs on the rest of your estate , and often write in inclusions like that your widow should have tenancy of it until he/she dies etc

Originally Posted by pressld2

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.

but landscapes and flora and fauna all require management - and the trust spends a considerable ammount of its money on maintaining them. id also note that the £25 was for one days photography at a specific site not a carte blanche licence, and that is cheap (in fact £65 is still cheap) - royal parks are more , english heritage are more , sporting events are considerably more, comercial photography permits can run to hundreds of pounds (sometimes even thousands if the photography is going to have a negative impact on other users)

Originally Posted by pressld2

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".

again not so - the policy is quite clear, no comercial photography (or publication etc) without permission

Originally Posted by pressld2

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.

that is entirely alamys fault - the trust arent deleting the images , alamy are, and they ought to have the sense to check the circumstances first. However that said they are a private company and what they hold on their server is entirely up to them - if they want to make a policy of No National trust pictures, period, then that is there perogative and theres nothing a photographer can do other than place his or her work elsewhere.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by 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

You can ! the bylaws are not about taking the photo but what you do with it next - you can take photos for private or personal use , but not for sale or publication.

the problem has arisen over it being (debatably) publication if you put an image on a website.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by eeyore

again not so - the policy is quite clear, no comercial photography (or publication etc) without permission

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.

I don't want to argue the legal niceties of actual ownership of all this land (largely because I don't really know enough about it, in spite of my pontifications above ) but it seems to me that this doesn't square with their charter as a charity and it certainly doesn't square with their motto "For ever, for everyone".

Dave P.

[Lancashire Lad]

Since the Charity Commission is the regulating body for registered charities (including the National Trust), I've just sent them an e-mail, bringing this situation to their attention. (In case they weren't already aware).

I've asked them to investigate, and comment on what's going on. Hopefully they might have at least some influence on the NT, and might be able to get them to make some sort of authoritative statement.

I will keep WAB informed of any response.

Regards
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by eeyore

...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"....

I must disagree eeyore.

As far as I'm concerned, they have put the statement in black and white, there is no ambiguity at this present time. The clause says "The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form...."

They have thus far declined to confirm anything to the contrary.

Yes, for professionals, and for those amateurs intending to sell or profit from their images there is reason for agreement, but for amateurs only intending to display their images for pleasure/comment - no way.

It is yet one more example of the incidious grinding away of the rights and freedoms of the people of this country to go about their business without hindrance.

Regards
Mike.

[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.