Author Topic: UK National Trust (Read 12645 times)

w7lwi · « **on:** August 28, 2014, 20:13 »

Looks like the National Trust is getting serious. They've required SS to take down all images showing NT properties and nothing new can be added, including editorial.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141415

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2014, 20:26 »

Quote from: w7lwi on August 28, 2014, 20:13

Looks like the National Trust is getting serious. They've required SS to take down all images showing NT properties and nothing new can be added, including editorial.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141415

Fair enough. The NT is a non-profit that also invests heavily in commissions for their chosen photographers. Mind you, at what distance can you legitimately shoot an icon such as Corfe Castle, owned by the NT, without it being deemed 'theirs' for example?

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2014, 23:08 »

Seems you can pay a fee for a license that permits editorial use. Perhaps SS would allow photos if they had a copy of the license.

Professional Photography
Professional Photographers' Permit Scheme

Professional photographers can now acquire an annual license from National Trust Images to take photographs out of doors on pay-on-entry National Trust land for editorial use. For further information about the scheme please email [email protected]

The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form without the consent of National Trust Images. Images taken at National Trust 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, +44 020 78247128, in the first instance.

emjaysmith · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2014, 00:31 »

I don't suppose that Shutterstock would take the risk, but under English law the National Trust can not legally impose such restrictions on photos taken of their properties IF they are taken from the public highway or other public areas which are not specifically restricted by order of government or local authorities.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:17 »

This is a lot worse than I thought, it's not just about Trust-owned houses it's about great swathes of the UK landscape, according to a post on Luminous Landscape:

The wording in the policy has been carefully updated to restrict publishing of images shot on NT land by both amateurs and professionals alike. This includes images shot on wide open spaces on public access land such as The Giant's Causeway, The White Cliffs of Dover, The Farne Islands, Borrowdale and The Lizard for example. The policy attempts to assert that any such publishing constitutes a criminal act as set out in their own bylaws. The validity of the bylaws for this purpose are currently being contested by legal experts. - Luminous Landscale

As a branch of my family owns property in Borrowdale, I suppose that it is now illegal to take family photos that include part of the landscape they live in. Here is what the Trust says about its role in Borrowdale :
"around Derwentwater ... the Trust cares for much of the valley, including Derwentwater – its island and Georgian Manor, Watendlath hamlet, Bowder Stone, Friar’s Crag, Ashness Bridge and Castlerigg Stone Circle".

Ashness Bridge, for example, is a classic landscape/postcard photo (there are still a dozen or so photos of it up on SS if you search, as well as quite a lot of the cliffs at Dover and some of the Giant's Causeway). The thing is, of course, that when you are out taking a picture of the South Coast cliffs of the UK it will be entirely impossible to know if part of the scene includes something ownde by the NT.

It is not even clear from their website whether they own some or all of the "Jurassic Coast" or are just writing blurbs about stuff that they think might interest visitors without it being under their control http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/local-to-you/south-west/things-to-see-and-do/jurassic-coast/

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:20 »

Oh, and check out Cornwall ..... http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/local-to-you/south-west/things-to-see-and-do/cornwall/ it seems there is almost nowhere on the coast of one of the most popular resort areas of the UK where outdoor photography will be legal any longer.

roede-orm · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:25 »

By the way, I wonder if restrictions for editorial use are compatible with the freedom of the press

mojaric · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:26 »

incredible...!

qwerty · « **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:29 »

looks like its isolated carrots only from now on.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:31 »

Quote from: roede-orm on August 29, 2014, 02:25

By the way, I wonder if restrictions for editorial use are compatible with the freedom of the press

I don't think there are any press freedom laws requiring people to allow news photos to be taken on their land.
Obviously, the NT will apply these by-laws arbitrarily: if a plane crashes into the South Coast cliffs they won't do anything about news coverage, but if you or I take a landscape photo of the same scene (minus crash) they MIGHT get nasty.

And England doesn't suck, it's a lovely place. It's the mandarins and jobsworths in England who suck.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:34 »

Quote from: qwerty on August 29, 2014, 02:29

looks like its isolated carrots only from now on.

I was thinking of uploading this to SS http://fineartamerica.com/featured/onion-string-paul-cowan.html

But I'm worried that Monsanto might have copyrighted some of the DNA!

It seems to be almost the entire English Coastline is under NT control, including a number of places I have photos of but I don't intend to pull them.

Ploink · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2014, 02:37 »

Quote from: roede-orm on August 29, 2014, 02:25

By the way, I wonder if restrictions for editorial use are compatible with the freedom of the press

Exactly! I was wondering the same thing...

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** August 29, 2014, 03:34 »

They rattled Alamy's cage 2 - 3 years ago, when they had a big cull.
Didn't realise the ban included such as the Farnes, though.

When I checked into NTS (there are sepatarate entities in Scotland and IIRC, Northern Ireland, so you'd need separate permits for each) years back, you could get a permit, but you had to give them 50% of the selling price, which is clearly untenable with stock sold through almost any agency.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2014, 05:44 »

Regarding the NTS (National Trust for Scotland) there is a document (dated 2007, admittedly) on their site referring to Photography and Filming at NTS properties which includes in Appendix 3 at the end a quote from the Scottish Outdoor Access Code section 2.9 indicating that

"Access rights extend to activities carried out commercially or for profit, provided that these activities could also be carried on other than commercially or for profit (ie by the general public for recreational purposes or for educational activities or for crossing land). For example a mountain guide who is taking a customer out hill-walking is carrying on a commercial activity but this falls within access rights because the activity involved – hill-walking – could be done by anyone else exercising access rights. The same would apply to a canoe instructor from a commercial outdoor pursuits centre with a party of canoeists. Other examples would be a commercial writer or photographer writing about or taking photographs of the natural or cultural heritage."

This would seem to indicate, though it may be open to interpretation, that photography for commercial purposes carried out in a similar fashion to any ordinary recreational visitor, which would presumably cover visiting the land and taking snaps, is acceptable. Within NTS properties of course there are normally signs prohibiting photography, which is of course a different matter.

Has anyone (Sue?) ever queried them as to if that includes stock photography?

gnirtS · « **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2014, 08:45 »

The NT rule is well publicised so can't come as a surprise to people and SS have to comply with removal.

Their draconian approach towards any form of photography is the reason i refuse to visit anything owned or controlled by them and will always recommend tourists and visitors to spend their money elsewhere. They often frequently overstep the so called "charity" tag.

It's quite common for them to ask for free photos off Flickr by visitors they can use and run competitions where all rights for ever are transferred to them on all entries.

My main issue isn't the actual buildings, its the large swathes of formerly public land they now "own", control and ban photography on. Completely natural environments that require very little if any maintenance and have no manmade structures on them at all. This alone makes a lot of UK landscape photography difficult.

They cannot and do not restrict photography OF the land from public paths and rights of way though but they try to avoid mentioning that fact. The problem is the influence they have with local government has and is allowing them to pass by-laws to reclassify formerly public access and rights of way as under their sphere of control.
As someone said above, large chunks of the UK coast is "private" as a result of that, things like the Giant's Causeway and so on.

miketravels · « **Reply #15 on:** August 29, 2014, 10:30 »

People want to visit places in England they see pictures of. If there are less images out there of the beauty of english landscape, less people may visit. Seems like a silly idea to not even allow editorial.

As someone mentioned on this or ss forum, cant the agencies pay a small commission per sale. NT could potentially make a ton from it. Although it may be hard to control which pics are NT if the keywords are bad or pic is quite generic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 29, 2014, 13:27 »

This is terrible. I have to go to Exeter for a couple nights next month for my real job and was thinking of renting a car and driving around Cornwall for a couple of days. If I had known I won't be able to take stock photos of anything there I would have scheduled to come back right away and skip it. I will definitely avoid any NT properties but it doesn't look like much is left. Should have gone to Spain instead.

It should not be legal for them to do this. For buildings or gardens that require an entry fee I can more or less see it, but for public access landscapes it makes no sense at all. Hopefully someone will challenge them and the courts will be more reasonable.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2014, 14:06 »

Quote from: macinlondon on August 29, 2014, 10:30

People want to visit places in England they see pictures of. If there are less images out there of the beauty of english landscape, less people may visit. Seems like a silly idea to not even allow editorial.

It may be (but I don't know) that if people write to them asking for pics for a specified purpose they will get them, either free or for a fee. That is fairly common in tourist destinations.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** August 29, 2014, 14:24 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on August 29, 2014, 05:44

Has anyone (Sue?) ever queried them as to if that includes stock photography?

My enquiry was NTS specific, and commercial stock. iS didn't have editorial at the time, and I wasn't on Alamy.

That must have been about 2007, possibly early 2008; but things have changed enormously at the NTS since then, and lots of senior staff left in the next couple of years. It's all about money-raising nowadays. For example, my husband was commissioned to produce an art installation at an NTS flagship property. As agreed, he got 50% at a point in the process, then they put a hold on it (the principal who had commissioned him had left, quickly, as had many others) and after a while it was clear the money wasn't being made available to finish it. My husband pointed out it wasn't fully safe, at the stage it was at. For a couple of years it had a red/white tape all around it, then it was taken down, 'as it was a safety hazard'.

That said, I haven't contacted them since.

I think this is the most recent of several threads on Alamy, referring to the NT specifically.
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/2530-national-trust-pro-photographers-scheme

However, Googling shows that the NT was really pushing the policy in various places in 2009 - there are lots of online discussions in various forums at that time. SS, as often, seems to be late in implementing these things.

Thinking about this earlier, I had an odd thought. Many places put restrictions on 'selling' images [1]. So is it theoretically OK to designate photos of these places as Creative Commons? (Don't want to start a debate on CC, I just had the thought). [2]

[1] Though sometimes it is on 'publishing' images. Interesting, more than one institution I know of, which specifically forbid 'publishing' images, have an official Flickr group specifically for 'visitors' photos'.

[2] (added later) I see the NT, unlike other groups, seem to have this covered according to their policy as quoted on this Flickr discussion from "64 months ago"
https://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/discuss/72157616719799087

Note the bit I highlight below:
"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."

PS, seems I was wrong, it's only a separate NTS, the National Trust covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sorry.

trek · « **Reply #19 on:** August 29, 2014, 15:20 »

Red Dove · « **Reply #20 on:** August 29, 2014, 17:37 »

Whilst I detest what the NT are doing, if you can't find a million and one other things in England to photograph besides bits of coastline, stately homes and castles you're in the wrong business.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** August 29, 2014, 17:44 »

Quote from: trek on August 29, 2014, 15:20

Sad to say but... this is a good reason to avoid vacations to England. I'd rather spend my money and pixels visiting photographer friendly nations.

Almost certainly, if you spent a lot of time looking into it, you'd find similar restrictions in many countries.
As we've noted here often, when organisations make specifications for 'commercial shooting', they really mean closing down areas or granting special access etc for a full model shoot or video shoot with lights, reflectors, assistants etc. They haven't really thought about the sort of stock shooting where the inconvenience to them or other visitors isn't much more than posed by an advanced amateur photographer shooting for a club competition.

gnirtS · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2014, 18:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 29, 2014, 17:44

Quote from: trek on August 29, 2014, 15:20
As we've noted here often, when organisations make specifications for 'commercial shooting', they really mean closing down areas or granting special access etc for a full model shoot or video shoot with lights, reflectors, assistants etc.

Not in this case. It wasn't long ago they banned *all* photography and tried to sue a photographer for very small scale image photography. They know exactly what they're doing.

I'd go as above, there are plenty of UK places that aren't NT to visit and photograph so i'd encourage people to do so and recommend to anyone you know not to donate or visit any of their properties. We're not talking a small charity here - in 2008 their accounts showed an income of near £200m a year and a worth of over £1bn and its likely increased since then.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** August 29, 2014, 19:04 »

Quote from: gnirtS on August 29, 2014, 18:43

Quote from: ShadySue on August 29, 2014, 17:44
Quote from: trek on August 29, 2014, 15:20
As we've noted here often, when organisations make specifications for 'commercial shooting', they really mean closing down areas or granting special access etc for a full model shoot or video shoot with lights, reflectors, assistants etc.

Not in this case. It wasn't long ago they banned *all* photography and tried to sue a photographer for very small scale image photography. They know exactly what they're doing.

I'd go as above, there are plenty of UK places that aren't NT to visit and photograph so i'd encourage people to do so and recommend to anyone you know not to donate or visit any of their properties. We're not talking a small charity here - in 2008 their accounts showed an income of near £200m a year and a worth of over £1bn and its likely increased since then.

Sorry, my comma was in the wrong place. Should have been "As we've noted here, often when organisations ..." which is different.

Bear in mind that English Heritage, and other national equivalents have similar rules.

I am a member of NTS and intend to remain so. It may be (or may not, I have no idea) that they treat their house / hired photographers much better than the micros treat us, and if so that should be positively encouraged, IMO.

Besides, the NTS ban fox hunting on their land, another plus point for me.

gnirtS · « **Reply #24 on:** August 29, 2014, 19:12 »

Well fox hunting is pretty much banned everywhere by law (at least the very inhumane methods). Other places do act similar but a supposed charity with a turnover of hundreds of millions, that has billions in the bank and has the really bizarre power to actually pass by-laws really is taking it to extremes. Whenever you query them over what is and isn't their land they get very defensive and vague as well.

It's even more amusing when they dont actually OWN the land in question!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: UK National Trust (Read 12645 times)

w7lwi

gostwyck

cuppacoffee

emjaysmith

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

roede-orm

mojaric

qwerty

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

Ploink

ShadySue

Gannet77

gnirtS

miketravels

sgoodwin4813

ShadySue

ShadySue

trek

Red Dove

ShadySue

gnirtS

ShadySue

gnirtS

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors