Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UK National Trust - Crackdown on photography  (Read 23761 times)
amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« on: May 14, 2009, 04:44:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Some of you may be aware of the current furore centering around recent changes made to the National Trust's photographic policy.

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.

An email posted to the forums of the Royal Photographic Society outlines the NTs stance on this. This email was received from Chris Rowlin, The NTPL's rights manager.

"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. ....The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. "

Note the careful and deliberate use of the word OR.

The official policy of the NT's website also uses this catch-all which appears to include submission to image libraries such as flickr or online publishing on personal websites (even if non-commercial). This policy as written will also restrict amateur entry to photographic competitions not endorsed or run by the NT. This is already being enforced by the NT.

"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."
See http://www.ntpl.org.uk/index2.pgi

This issue no longer just a concern of professional photographers. Please join me in writing to the National Trust to voice your concerns over this change in policy. This is just another example of the erosion of photographers rights in the UK.

photo.library@nationaltrust.org.uk

More info here
http://copyrightaction.com/category/articles/news
http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=115562#post115562
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ews_281614.html
http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 06:12:56 AM by amcinroy » Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2009, 07:12:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Can't post a photo of a coastline in the UK? What's next, metering the air? The Beatles were prophetic - "take a walk, they'll tax your feet."
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2009, 08:48:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dalethorn
Can't post a photo of a coastline in the UK? What's next, metering the air? The Beatles were prophetic - "take a walk, they'll tax your feet."


Don't glee, we're on our own path to socialist hell and high taxation with obama and democrat controlled senate and house!
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 492


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2009, 10:02:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
Don't glee, we're on our own path to socialist hell and high taxation with obama and democrat controlled senate and house!

Socialist hell? What does socialism have to do with this? It's more to do with the privatization of public space. It was corporations that started plastering their logos on public buildings thus preventing me from photographing (and selling) that view because of trademark restrictions. When they grabbed that view for themselves, did they compensate me for the loss?  Are corporations socialist?
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2009, 10:14:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Socialist hell? What does socialism have to do with this? It's more to do with the privatization of public space. It was corporations that started plastering their logos on public buildings thus preventing me from photographing (and selling) that view because of trademark restrictions. When they grabbed that view for themselves, did they compensate me for the loss?  Are corporations socialist?

Don't really want to continue this here, wrong place to get political, my mistake, sorry!
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2009, 10:29:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Socialist hell? What does socialism have to do with this? It's more to do with the privatization of public space. It was corporations that started plastering their logos on public buildings thus preventing me from photographing (and selling) that view because of trademark restrictions. When they grabbed that view for themselves, did they compensate me for the loss?  Are corporations socialist?

The short answer is yes. It's important not to assume the true intent of the law from a literal reading. Everyone including govt. and corporations wants to secure as much property and resources to themselves as they can. Here they've gone an extra step and not only are they now the guardians of the properties, they consider themselves to be the originators or heirs of all rights thereto. It's not political per se - just a common power grab.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2009, 10:50:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Getting back to the original post this policy sounds ridiculous. Not being from the UK I'm not exactly sure what the NT is, how much land are we talking about here?

I find it shocking just how far the UK seems to be going in taking away photographers' rights these last few years, much more so than any other country I know of. I saw recently that there is also anti-terrorist legislation in the UK that makes it unlawful to photograph law enforcement officers in public places.

Add it all together and it's onerous enough that the UK is no longer a place I have any desire to visit.
Logged

amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2009, 10:58:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember, the UK is a relatively small country and the NT does not operate in Scotland.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the NT own
- 709 miles of coastline
- 250,000 hectares of land of outstanding natural beauty
- 300 historic houses and gardens, ancient monuments, nature reserves and parks

'Own' is perhaps the wrong word as they hold the property in 'trust' for the nation and rely primarily on public funds generated from membership of which they have approx 3.5million. They also receive significant amount of national lottery funds.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 11:01:01 AM by amcinroy » Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2009, 01:58:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Getting back to the original post this policy sounds ridiculous. Not being from the UK I'm not exactly sure what the NT is, how much land are we talking about here?

I find it shocking just how far the UK seems to be going in taking away photographers' rights these last few years, much more so than any other country I know of. I saw recently that there is also anti-terrorist legislation in the UK that makes it unlawful to photograph law enforcement officers in public places.

Add it all together and it's onerous enough that the UK is no longer a place I have any desire to visit.
England definitely isn't worth visiting anymore. Scotland on the other hand really is worth visiting. You can take photos pretty much wherever you want and a city like Edinburgh (I'm not biased btw as I'm not from Edinburgh) is infinitely more beautiful, friendly and interesting than a shit-hole like London. When I lived in Birmingham, literally anywhere you went someone would question what you were photographing and ask you if you had permit, no matter how beautiful or dull the subject was (99% of things in Birmingham are dull). One time I tried taking a picture of a building for a college project and got threatened by security but as I said before no-one cares in Edinburgh what you photograph.

As for white cliffs of dover, Borrowdale etc, boring. If you want to see beautiful landscapes head to the Scottish Highlands. Absolutely stunning.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2009, 03:23:24 PM »
ReplyReply

LOL Chris, tell me how you really feel, don't hold back.   No but seriously thanks for the info, Scotland is definitely on the travel 'life-list' for me. I'm glad to hear that this NT b.s. doesn't apply there.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 03:23:46 PM by JeffKohn » Logged

amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2009, 03:31:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Chris, the England comments are perhaps a little unfair. I'm a Scotsman myself, but even I will admit that England does have some beautiful scenery. The Cornish Coast, Peak District and patchwork fields of the Cotswolds immediately spring to mind.

Thankfully the NT does not have jurisdiction in Scotland. However, here in Northern Ireland where I currently live, the NT holds great swathes of coastline. I personally love to photograph the Giant's Causeway which has been photographed by photographers, both commercial and amateur, since the early 1800s. There is  great tradition of photography here and I personally don't want that freedom taken away from us.



Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2009, 03:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

You're right, some of my comments were perhaps a little unfair/extreme, apologies for that. Some parts of England are still really nice (I love North Yorkshire), but the National Trust increasing their restrictions on sites reminds me of the frustrations of this country.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1567


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2009, 04:42:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: amcinroy
Some of you may be aware of the current furore centering around recent changes made to the National Trust's photographic policy ...
Do you mind if I copy your post on a UK outdoors website - might increase the numbers of objectors to this stupid policy
Logged

amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2009, 04:52:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Go ahead Bill and please link here when you do so.

I've been trying to get this information out on the web to make people aware of what is going on. The NT competition rights grabs and the NT/Alamy controversy have started to make people look very closely at the fine detail.

Again I would like to point out that this policy affects every photographer from the humble snapper right up to the pro tog.  

Cause for concern I think.

A flickr user also reports an email correspondance from the NT which states
Any use of images beyond your own private and personal use is considered commercial photography, so even if no fees are generated by the usage, reproduction or distribution of the images beyond your own private or domestic use is prohibited.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust...57603813072167/
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 04:57:44 PM by amcinroy » Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2009, 07:47:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A flickr user also reports an email correspondance from the NT which states
Any use of images beyond your own private and personal use is considered commercial photography, so even if no fees are generated by the usage, reproduction or distribution of the images beyond your own private or domestic use is prohibited.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust...57603813072167/
The amazing thing to me is that in the US this would never stand up in court. There's a definition for commercial use, and entities can't just go redefining it to suit their agenda.
Logged

amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2009, 01:27:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

I don't think it would stand up in a UK court either.

This email is just an example of how the NT bullies and frightens photographers into accepting their rules. They are free to make their own rules of course, but not on public access land where it conflicts with a historical right to roam and photograph.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 01:36:12 AM by amcinroy » Logged

Andy McInroy Photography
Landscapes of Ireland and Great Britain
http://www.andymcinroy.com
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2009, 07:29:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm afraid I totally agree with Chris' comments about England, in particular any part south of York. There are a million places more worth visiting than that claustrophobic hell hole full of smug pedants governed by a neo-facist dicatator.  Whatever might still have been worth seeing 10 years ago is now covered over by Walmart or Tescos, and the rest is simply an opportunity for the thugs in uniform known as "the police" to throw their weight around. Unfortunately I will remain a British citizen for at least another few years.

However, this NT land grab is nothing new: some years back, in Italy, the regional government of Tuscany tried to copyright the landscape .... I believe there was some discussion about it here, but it might have been on the old forum. Whatever, either it didn't stick, or everyybody ignores it, like most other laws in Italy :-)
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2009, 10:34:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Some exceptionally m0r0nic contributors to this thread. Fascinating.
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2009, 04:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: OldRoy
Some exceptionally m0r0nic contributors to this thread. Fascinating.

Thank you for your contribution, Major. Mind you don't dribble all over your Daily Telegraph, now.

(if you were aiming your erudite prose at me, I might just add it gives me no pleasure at all to hold these opinions. But from my personal experience, and the reports I read and hear about how civil liberties, and indeed civil behaviour, is eroding in the United Kingdom, there is no way I'd ever recommend to anybody to go there. From Heathrow airport onwards, it is just is not a dreadful experience, for photographers and non-photographers alike)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 04:56:15 PM by drm » Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 341


« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2009, 06:46:05 PM »
ReplyReply

The national trust have a photo library populated with pictures from likes of David Norton and Joe Cornish with prints, posters etc. for sale.

Quote
The National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of Government. We rely for income on membership fees, donations and legacies, and revenue raised from our commercial operations.

I guess this rule is to help improve the profitability of it's "commercial operations" or at least protect it. It will be interesting to see if this is ever enforced as just a quick search on google will reveal hundreds of prints for sale of NT owned land.

I have never once payed the exorbitant fees for pay and display car parking in the lake district.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad