Size of charity is really pretty irrelevant.
The RSPB is a large-ish charity (by UK standards), but it only has enough money at any one time to last an average of six weeks if all income dried up.
Whereas a tiny community group I'm in has almost no money in hand, but with almost no expenses, it could last much longer.

"The validity of the bylaws for this purpose are currently being contested by legal experts."

I hope this backfires and they lose the ability to enforce other arbitrary and outrageous restrictions in the process.

These people may be managers and caretakers, but the question I'd ask is, Who owns the land.

I'm going to claim ownership, trademark and copywrite the sun. Any photos taken in natural light (other than lava) will be mine because the photons/waves originate from my sun.

Let me guess someone already beat me to it ?

Quote from: ShadySue on August 30, 2014, 01:55
Size of charity is really pretty irrelevant.
The RSPB is a large-ish charity (by UK standards), but it only has enough money at any one time to last an average of six weeks if all income dried up.
Whereas a tiny community group I'm in has almost no money in hand, but with almost no expenses, it could last much longer.

With NT that isn't the case.  Their accounts are public and online if you're interested enough.  They're turning a sizeable profit per year (again, for a charity thats more than unusual).

So how do I make google to remove my house from google street view ?

Thats MY house?

Quote from: Lizard on August 30, 2014, 20:39
So how do I make google to remove my house from google street view ?

Thats MY house?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/remove-google-street-view_n_5563939.html
Apparently.

Quote from: gnirtS on August 30, 2014, 12:49

Quote from: ShadySue on August 30, 2014, 01:55
Size of charity is really pretty irrelevant.
The RSPB is a large-ish charity (by UK standards), but it only has enough money at any one time to last an average of six weeks if all income dried up.
Whereas a tiny community group I'm in has almost no money in hand, but with almost no expenses, it could last much longer.

With NT that isn't the case.  Their accounts are public and online if you're interested enough.  They're turning a sizeable profit per year (again, for a charity thats more than unusual).

I'm not a member of the NT, and I really don't have time to research the intricacies of the English Charity Commission regulations, and how they might differ from ours.

I'm not saying I'm happy about what they're doing, just that I don't see it personally as a reason to revoke my membership (I was an NTS member long before I submitted stock). I'll focus on the probability that they treat their photographers better than most micros treat us, and accept that YMMV.

Quote from: trek on August 29, 2014, 21:20
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.

i am not even sure what that means (photographer friendly nations.)
many nations have photograph-restricted places whether it be border crossing, toll bridges, private property, musuem, palaces, naval base, etc.  regardless of whether you shoot from off the property, from or distance or not.

This seems SO shortsighted! Like Val d'Orcia in Tuscant, Italy - people only know of the area because it DOES appear all over the place. Slapping copyright on it is going to deter photographers - and reduce visibility to the public!
The world has gone mad......