Story here at the Alamy blog. What seems to have changed is that this is now being enforced. The National Trust has been asking for pictures to be removed.

I guess that this will also impact some UK microstock photographers.

The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form without prior written permission. These restrictions apply only to photography taken within the grounds of National Trust properties and does not apply to public highways and paths.Photographs taken for private and personal use may not be used in any other context, submitted to any photo libraries or on-line agencies or sold directly to any image buyers. All requests for commercial photography taken for profit at any pay-for-entry property must be channelled through the Broadcast and Media Liaison Office.

I'm only surprised that they haven't acted much sooner (and heavier by demanding compensation too).

They have their own very high quality photo agency which has been stocked by commissioning the very best UK photographers over many years. Being commissioned by the NT is about the highest accolade you can get __ on a par with Getty or Nat Geographic paying you money up front for a shoot.

I can understand the problem they have with photographs of their properties, but they also own large areas of coastline and countryside. Do the same rules apply?

Only at places where you have to pay to enter.

What is National Trust and what kind of properties do they own?

Are they some kind of banks with branches everywhere or some landowner who owns (public) places and/or parks?

Claude

Let me Google that for you;

http://tinyurl.com/c9wkqx

The National Trust is a charity that owns and manages a large number of historic buildings in the UK, like stately homes, large manor houses and gardens. They usually get them when the place in a state of poor repair or when the relatives cannot afford the massive death duties.

I had a photo of the glass roof/ceiling of the British Museum removed from iStock last week, so this explains why. The same photo is still on some other agencies, which has happened before. I guess there has to be some disadvantages to being the top agency*.

*In this context I'm using "top agency" in reference to being the most well known to people such as the National Trust.

Er, no, the British Museum is not owned by the National Trust.

Lee if you're talking about all the glass triangles then I read a while ago (sorry can't remember where) that there is the same problem taking photos of it for commercial use as there is with the gherkin. There's also various legal arguments about them both being in public places and therefore fair play etc but I think most agencies are just erring on the side of caution.