WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > General Photography > News & Views from the World of Photography


News & Views from the World of Photography Discussion on the Latest News in the World of Photography

National Trust photography restrictions?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 26-06-09, 17:02
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default National Trust photography restrictions?


This discussion started in the gallery, but I have copied it here so more people can see it:

Nedwardon't know if you guys are aware but there is photgraphy rights issue problem with one of the UK's biggest land owner the (NT) National Trust. They have claimed rights issues have been broken by photographers using Alamy stock vendors to sell shots of NT land which is against their bye-laws. They are also rights grabbing in competitions they run.

gordon g:As I understand it, there's no problem taking images on NT land for your own non-commercial use, which would include showing them on here, in portfolios etc. If you are directly renumerated for use of an image taken of their property from on their property, then yes, technically you should have a property release from them as the landowner. Images from public rights of way are fine. I'm not sure how 'access land' areas are regarded though.

Nedward:Hi Gordon, they (NT) have been taking the stance that all photography needs permission, there's a 1965 bye-law which states this. Then when challenged by individuals they say you can on non pay to enter sites have personal use for taking photographs, but state that if you are on a public footpath (which you have identify yourself) they are OK with commercial use. So their policy isn't clear enough. Much is down to "local" level. I wrote to them for clarity.



There has been much debate round it http://205.214.76.22/showthread.php?t=15317, this is a link to the RPS debate. I get involved in a small way arounf page 3 or 4. If you have time it's worth a look



There are a number of pro's wanting clarity as there seems to be a different response each time someone enquires. Also the Alamy issue is regarded as a predatory move to grab rights and generate income for the trust.



I'm strictly amateur so I just want to know what exactly they deem as personal use, there is an indication they don't like images on Flickr because of the Getty link. In fact they explicitly forbid all on line image databases in responding to my queries.



Cheers

Ned
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting and a little worrying to say the least if the NT were to enforce copyright rigidly - although I cant see how a ban on unlicensed photographers could be enforced on their large landscape properties.
On the NT website, I found the following:

Q. Where can I take photographs?

A. We welcome amateur photography out-of-doors at our properties. We regret that photography is not permitted indoors when houses are open to visitors. The use of mobile phones with built-in cameras is also not permitted indoors.

However, at most properties special arrangements can be made for interested amateurs (as well as volutary National Trust speakers, research students and academics) to take interior photographs by appointment outside normal opening hours.

Requests to arrange a mutually convenient appointment must be made in writing to the property concerned. Not all properties are able to offer this facility and those that do may make an admission charge (including Trust members).

All commercial photography and fliming requests must be channelled through the Broadcast and Media Liaison Officer. Telephone 01793 817400.


On the NT photo library site, there is a slightly contradictory statement, but it should perhaps be borne in mind that the NTPL is a separate and commercial operation, not the actual owner of the land:
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..

So - anyone any firm information or opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26-06-09, 18:27
NedWard NedWard is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 80
Default NT Photography Rights

I don't want to be a bore with this but I feel there are fundamental rights being undermined.

Below is both my request for information (bottom of the page) and the NT's reply. (under the next couple of paragraphs)

In any other situation I have no problem with landowners exercising rights and negotiating with photographers who have commercial intent. Neither do I have a problem with some NT pay sites, and especially interiors, where the use of the site would be disrupted or activity even harmful to art works etc.

What does bother me is whether the NT would try and enforce the bye-law on all sites. So would we need permission and possibly charges and rights restrictions on images made on the right to roam areas of NT property. They indicate they are not currently enforcing policy in these areas. But that doesn't mean they won't.


There are other issues with competitions too where all rights are seized on entry, this is seperate but still unacceptable in my view without negotiation or payment.



Here is the NT's reply


Dear Ned,

Many thanks for your email enquiring about what is and is not permitted with regard to the private and/or commercial use of works produced on National Trust land.

The National Trust is protected from unsanctioned commercial exploitation by a byelaw passed in 1965, which states:

'No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph'.

This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based. Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research but the Trust does not permit photography for profit or publication without permission. For commercial photography of gardens, architectural exteriors and interiors, permission is required. Please contact the Media and Broadcast Liaison Officer, Harvey Edgington on: 020 7447 6759. If permission is given, the photographers are asked to confirm contractually that the pictures are for one-time use only. We may invite them to consider lodging appropriate images in the National Trust Photo Library on an agency basis. Photography for other photo libraries is never permitted.


This policy has been in place for some years and is accepted by professionals in the photographic world. It was worked out in association with the Historic Houses Association and English Heritage. It echoes the sentiments of the founders of the National Trust who, even then, were concerned that the National Trust should not be exploited commercially.



The National Trust is a charity with the statutory purpose of conserving places of historic interest or natural beauty for the benefit of the nation. It, therefore, has a duty to protect and husband its resources so as to be better able to carry out its conservation work. This conservation remit means that it is vital to have the ability to manage the marketing of Trust property. The Trust must also be careful not to advertise inadvertently or endorse products with which it does not wish to be associated. In addition many of its properties are leased to tenants and their concerns have to be taken into account and respected accordingly.


The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. However, the editorial use of images taken on non-paying properties is not something that we are currently enforcing given that the issue of marketing property is not so sensitive. Therefore images you create on, for instance, Snowdon would not be monitored for improper use, whereas images taken at Fountains Abbey would be in breach of our policy.

You also refer to public rights of way. You are perfectly entitled to sell photographs taken on designated public footpaths or highways for editorial use, or any use where a property release is not required by the end user. This only applies to legally defined public footpaths and not to all footpaths. Where boundaries are unclear it is, I'm afraid, the photographer's responsibility to check whether or not s/he is on NT land. This would be true of any privately owned land, including land freely open to the public (such as the Royal Parks in London).

Any form of commercial activity conducted on paid entry National Trust properties must be sanctioned by the relevant department. This would include anyone setting up an easel to paint etc. Access to such activities is commonly granted but permission must be sought, as must evidence of the relevant public liability insurance (currently £6m).

I hope this is helpful to you.

Regards,

Chris.

Chris Rowlin
Rights Manager
t The National Trust Photo Library
www.ntpl.org.uk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my original request for information


Sent: 05 May 2009 18:34
To: Berry, Grant; Photo Library
Subject: Photography Rights, permissions


Dear enquiries,

I am seeking information with regard to photographic activities on Trust land for amateur and commercial use. As a keen photographer I want to make sure I am within the law.

Can you tell me what is allowed and what isn't. Permissions, licenses', exclusions etc.

If there are restrictions on the commercial use of images taken on Trust land can you explain what the restrictions are.

Also if a license can be purchased can you inform me of the cost and permissions it grants. Is there for instance a license that allows photography on mountain trails,fells etc. that covers activity annually or has each separate visit has to be negotiated, or attract a set fee. Further to this does each landscape view have a value?

I know to go fishing anywhere you need a "government" rod license. Does the Trust operate their own similar scheme for photography?

My primary query is related to landscape photography in the Lake District National Park. You may be aware there is some debate within photographic groups and communities about recent events where web based image libraries,vendors, etc. have been asked to remove images taken from Trust property and land. Rights issues I believe are at the heart such requests.

For instance what is the thinking on an amateur photographer posting an image of a mountain tarn, on say facebook or flickr where the intention is for relatives, friends etc. to view it. Do I assume there is commercial use on the part of facebook and flickr. The intention of the photographer is personal use? I suppose the term applied by the NT ......."any form of reproduction"..... covers such an instance.

I can understand the charges for the booking of Country Houses and estates etc. for Commercial filming and photographic shoots that restrict other user access or are overly intrusive. However if I pay to visit Fountains Abbey what are the restrictions on any images I make of the Abbey ruins or grounds. Surely I made a contribution to the upkeep of the site through the entry fee? So if I have to pay for commercial use of those images, what is the basis. It won't interfere with the NT's primary functions, or accessibility for others, the footfall won't accelerate erosion etc. So what part of the Trusts Act does it compromise?

I am a tad confused with more expansive areas that are covered by "the right to roam" and public rights of way where individuals and their photographic activity may be non intrusive. Whether they are for commercial reasons or personal use. Areas where there is no expectation of charges. Areas where land ownership and boundaries may not be clear on the day. If I make an image of Haystacks from the public highway and want commercial gain, I assume its the National Parks Parks Authority who could require permissions, fact is local government does not levy such charges, but what if I'm on the footpath to the summit?

Also can you inform me if the same types of any restriction and licensing apply to artists, painters etc. who may well "capture" the same landscape a photographer captures, and for commercial gain. If not can you advise the reasoning for any discrimination.

I can't find any easy reference to these issues on you web site.

Thanks for your anticipated help.

Ned Ward
__________________
Ned www.bleaklandscapes.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26-06-09, 19:15
andy153's Avatar
andy153 andy153 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bodelwyddan Denbighshire
Age: 78
Posts: 5,271
Default

I've read the attached info, Ned, Gordon. Interesting. I think the National Trust gets too big for its boots sometimes - I'm a member, but think they forget their origins. They were originally set up by Act of Parliament to take into care for the Nation, properties that could no longer be maintained by their owners, or properties that were handed to the Nation in lieu of taxes, death duties etc. And also by bequest, properties and areas of outstanding beauty or interest. Like any quango they now overreach themselves. We as citizens, are the Nation on whose behalf they they look after OUR collective properties. The Bye-law they quote is designed to deal with the offence of Hawking on national trust property. Hawkers and Pedlars were originally dealt with under the Vagrancy Acts of around 1815, and were still in force in the sixties. Now we have got rid of rogues, vagabonds, incorrigible rogues etc so if challenged I think they may find the ridicule rather uncomfortable. I have taken pictures in NT properties, and have arranged for my old photographic society to do the same. I agreed with their no tripod rule and have always found that a polite letter in advance works wonders. It's some years ago now but we also sent them copies of photographs for their use. If they try to enforce this one however I think they may find they have grabbed a tiger by the tail. Perhaps if enough member get together and attend the AGM further pressure can be bought to bear.
__________________
"I take pictures of what I like - if someone else likes them - that's a bonus" Andy M.

http://www.pbase.com/andy153

http://andy153.smugmug.com/

Equipment: Nikon - More than enough !!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26-06-09, 20:19
Adey Baker's Avatar
Adey Baker Adey Baker is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hinckley, Leics., UK
Posts: 965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy153 View Post
Perhaps if enough member get together and attend the AGM further pressure can be bought to bear.
Or resign their memberships. If thousands of members (many of whom must surely been keen snappers if not full-blown hobbyist photographers) stopped paying what are quite sizeable membership fees then the trust would be hundreds of thousands of pounds down in just a few years.

The idea that you can visit a well-known countryside location but can't share your photos of the occasion on-line or perhaps sell a copy of the shot to your friends is just ridiculous as many of the shots could well be taken from public rights of way anyway!

Of course, the trust must have some control of how photos are used in areas such as advertising, as they may very well not want to be associated with certain products but I would think the general laws of the country would cover these situations in most circumstances.
__________________
Adey

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...00/ppuser/1805

'Write when there is something you know: and not before: and not too damned much after' Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-06-09, 21:09
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

Thanks Ned for posting your letter and NT's response.
It does read to me like a restatement of the existing position on commercial photography (interesting about commercial artists though, and proof of public liability insurance). I would imagine that the terms of use of sites such as Flickr and Facebook might cause some people to fall into a 'commercial use' situation unknowingly though. (Who would be at fault though, if Facebook sold an image someone had posted up with no commercial intentions?) It would appear from what they have said that editorial useage of images from non-payment sites is also permitted currently (Perhaps 'tolerated' might be a better word).
They are explicit in allowing photography outside in non-payment sites for personal use.
I do agree with you and Andy though about how it looks - the whole thing leaves a rather sour taste when an organisation that should be the gaurdian of sites for us to enjoy appears to be taking steps to curtail that enjoyment.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26-06-09, 21:31
NedWard NedWard is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 80
Default

Gordon/Andy,
Yes a letter for permission is good etiquette, the recent "Estate Agent" shot I posted was from Wells by Sea, and I have permission for personal use, the difference being that the beach area is part of a true private owners estate. The NT mission states something like "for ever, for everyone" and its a National "Service". In trust for all of us. So there is a difference. Like I say, open right to roam areas should be free from restriction in photographic terms, whatever the use.
Fair enough for NT to negotiate rights and permissions for the pay entry and or sensitive sites.
I'm a fan of the NT and its conservation and access works, they say the law has been in existance for a long time and pro's are in agreement, so whats the fuss.

I can't help but think the "Alamy" affair is a cynical way of obtaining income and monopolising. I can't speak with authority as I'm amateur but if they wanted to enforce policy on open areas there's nowt we can do. Difficult as it would be to police if they targeted a few individuals for civil court action and won. Well the ripple effect could be profound.

The NT also have some fantastic photographers on the payroll like Joe Cornish, so it's not as though the ranks of amateurs can compete in terms of marketable quality. Certainly not if we can't practice

Cheers
Ned
__________________
Ned www.bleaklandscapes.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-06-09, 21:45
NedWard NedWard is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 80
Default

Adey,
I don't think there is enough interest from NT membership for a mass exodus, although I know there are one or two agreived pros who are members, and itching for a fight.
Two things could help
1. A lobby for clarity, unrestricted permission and assurances on right to roam land
2. A test case of civil action that the NT loses, however when they climb down it is usually on an individual basis only. That is granting permission only to the individual that wins in court, not a policy change for the rest of us.

And yes I agree there is enough law to protect them from image damaging, tacky and or inappropriate advertising use.

There is also broader unrest with the rights grabbing that goes on in competitions associated or run by NT. So if you enter any competitions its prudent to check the terms and conditions to make sure you retain copyright. Even un succdesful images are grabbed by NT.

Thanks for you contribution to this thread

Cheers
Ned
__________________
Ned www.bleaklandscapes.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-06-09, 21:50
NedWard NedWard is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 80
Default

Andy,
Sorry, I forgot to say, yes you are right with regard to the hawking bye law, and if I take the camera home I'm not on their property, however the bye law states no photography without permission and thats where the control is exercised.

My thanks to Gordon and yourself for contributing to the thread.

Cheers
Ned
__________________
Ned www.bleaklandscapes.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26-06-09, 23:33
Adey Baker's Avatar
Adey Baker Adey Baker is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hinckley, Leics., UK
Posts: 965
Default

The membership of the NT runs into millions so even a fraction of one percent would make a significant difference to their coffers.

A potential problem lies with the over-zealous member of staff or volunteers being vaguely aware of the situation with regard to taking photos for profit and assuming they have the right to challenge anyone who just owns a camera even before they lift it to their eye or who just takes family snapshots - we've all heard of the cases where police or community support officers (or whatever they're called) have gone beyond their authority and demanded people stop taking photos or delete images when they've done absolutely nothing wrong.

It could all lead to members resigning or potential new members just not bothering to join or people being turned away from ever having any interest in anything that they think they're not allowed to even photograph for the record of the day out.

On a wider level, it's just one more of our rights and freedoms being slowly chipped away. Nothing to do with the NT, but every time we take a photo of, say, a local 'event' we're recording a moment in history for future generations to look at - not just the event itself but all the fashions that the public are wearing, the cars in the street, etc., but if you daren't lift your camera even, because you might point it in the direction of a policeman or children or someone's shop window or something, then the moment is lost to future generations for ever.
__________________
Adey

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...00/ppuser/1805

'Write when there is something you know: and not before: and not too damned much after' Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27-06-09, 11:57
NedWard NedWard is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 80
Default

Adey,
Yes indeed very incisive, I agree that it is one of many erosions of freedom and could lead to more?

Imagine what the news would look like if each local authority devised bye -laws that meant thre media had to a) have permission and b) were subject to rights control with regard to the stuff they produce.

Put simply its censorship.

I'm not for one second saying the NT are attempting censorship, I think their motive is probably financial. However they are eroding freedoms in certain circumstances.
I can see you point on a membership rebellion, but I fear that there are many who just don't get it. If your focus as a memeber is say conservation, you may well be "conservative" by nature, so why change anything. Just a thought not a sweeping statement about NT members.

I have been made aware of the zealots employed by the NT, but also they have at local level individuals who are very reasonable and obligeing to photographers. I have photographed Fountains Abbey and chatted with NT staff on site without challenge, and to my shame without a property release. So I have the images in the metaphorical "shoe box" under the bed.........well nearly.

The point is lack of consistency with policy.

You make good reference to people wanting to record the "day out". The enthusiast however does more than that, they record our culture,heritage and history. Albeit to broad and varying quality.

I'm not sure what will happen, as there a range of issues which may well divide opinion and any oppositon.

Cheers
Ned
__________________
Ned www.bleaklandscapes.com
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.