National Trust: photography persecution

[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.