Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: UK National Trust - Crackdown on photography  (Read 23472 times)
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2009, 08:20:09 PM »
ReplyReply

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



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.

Those of us in the States shouldn't feel too smug about this issue. Periodically the National Park Service has floated draconian restrictions on "commercial photography" with internal policy intentionally drafted to come down hard on anyone using a tripod. This has led to periodic 'clarifications' exempting amateurs, but (for example) anyone running a photography workshop in a National Park has to purchase a commercial usage license.

And ddk-
if you think we're headed for "socialist hell with high taxation under Obama", it's worth pointing out that the Reagan and Bush/Cheney administrations maliciously underfunded the National Park Service, leading directly to today's crumbling facilities and a near-criminal maintenance backlog at numerous parks. When you find a National Park facility without working plumbing (and I've been in a few) you can thank Saint Ronnie for that.
Better yet, under both Reagan and Bush/Cheney attempts were made to make the National Parks "pay their own way", by clear-cutting forests and mining on park land. The same logic led to efforts to extort more money from photographers by imposing commercial fees on anyone with a tripod. These efforts were beaten back by court challenges...but I'll wager you despise all the lawyers who were fighting for your rights, too.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2009, 10:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Geoff Wittig
Those of us in the States shouldn't feel too smug about this issue. Periodically the National Park Service has floated draconian restrictions on "commercial photography" with internal policy intentionally drafted to come down hard on anyone using a tripod. This has led to periodic 'clarifications' exempting amateurs, but (for example) anyone running a photography workshop in a National Park has to purchase a commercial usage license.
And ddk-
if you think we're headed for "socialist hell with high taxation under Obama", it's worth pointing out that the Reagan and Bush/Cheney administrations maliciously underfunded the National Park Service, leading directly to today's crumbling facilities and a near-criminal maintenance backlog at numerous parks. When you find a National Park facility without working plumbing (and I've been in a few) you can thank Saint Ronnie for that.
Better yet, under both Reagan and Bush/Cheney attempts were made to make the National Parks "pay their own way", by clear-cutting forests and mining on park land. The same logic led to efforts to extort more money from photographers by imposing commercial fees on anyone with a tripod. These efforts were beaten back by court challenges...but I'll wager you despise all the lawyers who were fighting for your rights, too.

In big government, the liberals aren't really liberal, and the conservatives aren't really conservative. True, we have a few reactionaries and crazies, but by and large it's about big business, whichever end of the stick you're being beaten with. But maybe that's a good thing, since there aren't as many ups and downs that way. And you hafta admit, there's a certain charm to voodoo economics - look how nicely we greased the door and slid out of that econo-prison this time! Or as Cheech and Chong famously said - "Ah, recession, repression, it's all the same thing, man."

In my current stint in NE Ohio, I discovered that the area has been virtually remade since I left in 1981, with parks galore, well maintained, with decent security and no gangs or other troublemakers, and no harrassment of photographers. And this, despite a serious decline in government revenues for this area, the so-called rust belt. How does that happen, that revenues decline drastically, yet the parks improve so much?  I didn't bother asking anyone, having been here several months and taken a lot of tours, it seems that the parks have become a tourist attraction of some kind, like the beaches of Southern California, but with less obvious glamor and promotion.  I'm guessing that similar logic can't or just doesn't apply to many of the national parks elsewhere, for whatever reason. It's time for someone to look at a successful model for these parks, and cut back on the wasted time agonizing about government disinterest.
Logged
amcinroy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #22 on: May 16, 2009, 05:08:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting developments in this story.

The NT have just lost their first big name commissioned photographer, Simon Norfolk, in protest at what the NT are doing.

News story here
http://www.epuk.org/News/928/simon-norfolk-national-trust
Logged

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

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2009, 08:31:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: amcinroy
Interesting developments in this story.

The NT have just lost their first big name commissioned photographer, Simon Norfolk, in protest at what the NT are doing.

News story here
http://www.epuk.org/News/928/simon-norfolk-national-trust

A few years back I would shoot for the NT at a local level, house interiors, grounds etc. They were completely clueless, a meeting would go along the lines of, "we want a picture like this" they would hand me a transparency, I would be thinking you have one like that you are showing it to me, but hey I liked the work so off I would go with my Sinar and shoot one like that. They always paid twice, I got fed up with telling them you paid me twice, so I would let the money sit in the bank until the accounts spotted the mistake. They run on an old School network, I bet everyone at the top was Schooled at some posh up their own a*se expensive private School. The prices  in the shops for tea, cake and icecream show what a bunch of crooks they are, they will rip you off for products that everywhere else sells for a third less. What possible rights could they claim over the White Cliffs of Dover? they were there millions of years before the NT was born. Their job as a charity is to preserve the land and property not make a business out of it.
Maybe we should have a mass photography day at one of their sites and tell them face to face where to shove their idea.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2009, 03:49:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The law in the UK is very clear - there is no requirement for permission from property or land owners for taking pictures of or from public property, or property accessible to the public...  this, technically, in my interpretation, means that you can take pictures of anyone (over the age of 18) nude in their back garden from a cherry picker on the roadside verge!
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4001



« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2009, 03:23:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
The law in the UK is very clear - there is no requirement for permission from property or land owners for taking pictures of or from public property, or property accessible to the public...  this, technically, in my interpretation, means that you can take pictures of anyone (over the age of 18) nude in their back garden from a cherry picker on the roadside verge!
Drivel. Insofar as any generalisation is possible, what matters is where the individual being photographed is, not where you are. The law on the topic is complex and still developing: in some circumstances, even photographing someone in a street may be regarded as a breach of human rights (see the decision of the Court of Appeal in Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 - David Murray is J K Rowling's son).

If you wouldn't like it done to you, perhaps you shouldn't do it to others.

Photographing scenery is a different kettle of fish, since scenery has no expectation of privacy.

Jeremy
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2009, 01:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
...what matters is where the individual being photographed is, not where you are. The law on the topic is complex and still developing: in some circumstances, even photographing someone in a street may be regarded as a breach of human rights (see the decision of the Court of Appeal in Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446 - David Murray is J K Rowling's son).

If you wouldn't like it done to you, perhaps you shouldn't do it to others.

Photographing scenery is a different kettle of fish, since scenery has no expectation of privacy.

Jeremy
The spirit of the law is that there are no property right to photographs photographed from public property, so you can photo a building (or a scene) from public property, unlike is many countries.

I appreciate "anti-paparachi" legislation, but the theory is that anything that can be seen live from public property, can be seen in a photograph.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4001



« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2009, 12:28:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
I appreciate "anti-paparachi" legislation, but the theory is that anything that can be seen live from public property, can be seen in a photograph.
Well, that may be your theory but it is clear that some judges (including those in the Court of Appeal in Murray) would disagree. You must distinguish between people (who may have recourse to the Human Rights Act) and scenery (which won't).

We don't (yet) have anything approaching the French privacy laws, but there is a tendency for the law to regard privacy, even the privacy of those who normally revel in public exposure, as something which it should protect.

It was your earlier, misguided comment about the cherrypicker that prompted me to reply: take my advice and don't try it.

Jeremy
Logged
micrud
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2009, 01:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
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.
sorry but i strongly disagree with your comments there are an unlimited ammount of photographic locations in england without entering N T land your comment regarding london is just out of order,perhaps you are one of the many scots relishing indepependance from  england, well let me tell you most english people would tell you to get on with it, as we will all save a lot of money on our income tax, and we all cannot wait to rid ourselves of gordon brown, our scottish prime minister, let the scots get on with your lives, and we will then get on with ours, good luck with your independance, and good luck with your photography.
Logged
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2009, 11:09:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: micrud
sorry but i strongly disagree with your comments there are an unlimited ammount of photographic locations in england without entering N T land your comment regarding london is just out of order,perhaps you are one of the many scots relishing indepependance from  england, well let me tell you most english people would tell you to get on with it, as we will all save a lot of money on our income tax, and we all cannot wait to rid ourselves of gordon brown, our scottish prime minister, let the scots get on with your lives, and we will then get on with ours, good luck with your independance, and good luck with your photography.
Good look with my independence? When did I ever state I'm Scottish? I may live in Scotland but I've only lived here since October 2008.

I will forever stand by my comments that London is a dump. I've travelled around many parts of the world and London remains the unfriendliest, most hostile place I've ever been to (how often does someone get killed there, every 30 minutes?).

Makes absolutely no difference to me if Scotland is independent or not. I can't wait to get rid of Gordon Brown as well, he's even more useless than Blair.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 12:23:01 PM by ChrisJR » Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2009, 03:31:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Fascinating how often threads like this one degenerate into off-topic slanging matches. Sometimes far more interesting than the original post: not so in this case.
I'd second the idea of a mass shoot-in/out to publicise this issue. Location might be a bit tricky though. Somewhere in London maybe?
Roy
Logged
ijrwest
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2009, 10:57:12 AM »
ReplyReply


There are a lot of amateur photographers like me in the UK and I would say 99% of the time we can shoot without anyone interfering. Otherwise photography wouldn't be as popular as it is. I have been asked to stop shooting a few times by security guards - in areas that have 24-hour guards the owners are obviously uptight for some reason. Since the London bombings railway stations have also restricted photography, but they only notice you if you use a tripod. I have never had problems on National Trust property, with or without tripod.  If the NT tries to stop amateurs from sharing photos on flickr then they will lose more in ticket sales they they gain in photo sales - I don't think they will make that mistake.

I must put in a good word for London which has been bashed in this thread. Yes it's a dump in some ways but no worse than most other mega-cities. There's always something going on in London - and the best pictures sometimes come from the worst parts of town.

Iain West
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 655


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2009, 12:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ijrwest
There are a lot of amateur photographers like me in the UK and I would say 99% of the time we can shoot without anyone interfering. Otherwise photography wouldn't be as popular as it is. I have been asked to stop shooting a few times by security guards - in areas that have 24-hour guards the owners are obviously uptight for some reason. Since the London bombings railway stations have also restricted photography, but they only notice you if you use a tripod. I have never had problems on National Trust property, with or without tripod.  If the NT tries to stop amateurs from sharing photos on flickr then they will lose more in ticket sales they they gain in photo sales - I don't think they will make that mistake.

I must put in a good word for London which has been bashed in this thread. Yes it's a dump in some ways but no worse than most other mega-cities. There's always something going on in London - and the best pictures sometimes come from the worst parts of town.

Iain West

Shortly after 9/11, I was in northern California (certainly not your prototypic "dump") for business. One day I finished early, and went shooting. I came across an interesting roller coaster at a park which had closed for the day. So I set up a tripod in the parking lot, popped a Hasselblad on it, and started shooting. I got through maybe 2 frames when I was stopped by a security guard. I won't go into all the nasty details, but apparently, he really considered me a serious security threat. I don't believe there are too many terrorists out there planning on bringing down obscure roller coasters, much less refining their attack strategies with medium format shots made in broad daylight. Of course, some security restrictions are entirely sensible. But some security personnel are not.

I've shot in a lot of cities, in a lot of countries, and there is a unhealthy ration of stupidity nearly everywhere. It seems to me that this thread is about a particular large group of people entrusting too much control of their lives to a small group of unaccountable government, or quasi-government, officials. When it gets this bad with photography, it begs the question of how many similar unreasonable restrictions you're living with in other aspects of life. Sounds like you need a rather comprehensive reigning-in of out of control officials, before it's too late.

And, for the record, I had no problem shooting in London in 2004 and 2005. Got some nice panoramas in Hyde Park and elsewhere, all from a tripod. It would be a shame for those opportunities to go away.
Logged
rvestal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 04, 2009, 09:51:52 AM »
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.

The wording in the policy has been carefully updated to restrict publishing of images shot on NT land by both amateurs and professionals alike. ............


It should also be mentioned that about the same time as the original post was made, Almay (a large stock imaging site in the UK) sent e-mails to all contributors who had identifiable National Trust images on the site informing them that the images were going to be removed from sale within "12 days time".  I don't know which party (Almay or National Trust) initiated it, but there was a list of about 10,000 images that were identified as being for sale on the Almay site that were initially targeted for removal; after appeals and/or clarifications by contributors (mostly regarding images taken from public land) this number was reduced to approximately 8,000 which were actually removed.

Some of these images were identifiable only by the keywords that may have mentioned a specific NT property, but were images of flora/fauna and not buildings, etc.  I had 11 such images, all macros of dahila's, that were removed because of keywording.

Randy
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 11:59:06 AM by rvestal » Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2009, 11:00:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"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. "



Quote
"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

What is the permit fee?

It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. It is over reaching when a democratic gov attempts to intercede on the web distribution of non-copy righted photos based on where the photos were taken. We’re talking about people’s vacation photos. The idea appears doomed to failure.

While not a defense of the practice, the majority puts pressure on the gov to pay for this and that. The gov is mandated with coming up with ways to pay and look for easy targets of opportunity. Revenue consultants learned long ago that the easiest way to increase tax revenue comes form disorganized or disinterested groups. Professional photographers who shoot in these locations mostly amount to an industry of small business proprietors, so, like any small business, they are an easy target. The law appears to extend this target to anyone with a camera. That is why it’s an over reach.

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

At least in the US, restricting one’s vacation photos from being put on the web would never stand the test of time. The challenge here is getting a deep pocket to come up with the litigation related fees. How does the process work in the UK?
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 11:01:59 AM by Justan » Logged

NationalTrussed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2010, 09:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Has the NT v Photography issue gone away?

Google Earth which is esentially a free storage medium for poser "snappers" allows submitted pix to be placed in worldwide locations.

In Google Earth go to any National Trust Property either totally alfresco such as Lydford Gorge or Property in grounds such as Castle Drogo for instance and the area is littered with the blue box links to submitted pictures, both exterior and interior despite Google Earth restriction to only outdoor shots.

Maybe the way to protest without leaving home is for those interested to place their pix of NT Property on Google Earth.

Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2010, 12:00:19 AM »
ReplyReply

The Uk is far ahead of the U.S. doing such a push for this.  But please everyone needs to take a stand here NOW!

Write them and tell that if they try to enforce such an act that we will not support it and leave our money, tourism money in there town, villages, or countries.  I don't see how they can enforce this act.  But what's next the enforcement that no can paint it, draw, sketch it or write about it.  They can not enforce one art-form and not all.

But if you think that this is going to stop just here in the UK.  Think again, I have had Nat'l Parks and state parks try to enforce just the same insane acts. 

So I and everyone needs to take a stand anywhere this comes into play.  Make it known that you will not stand for it by separating photography from other forms or artwork.  Its a discriminatory act.  I let them know this right up front.

They have always backed down.  But you must be firm.  Tim
Logged
nkpoulsen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2010, 12:09:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I've always thought that national parks and photographers have together been an example of mutualism.

The parks owe much of their notoriety to photography.  I've always thought of this as a benefit to parks, because it brings visitors, and thereby brings revenue.

Correspondingly, the parks have brought fame and revenue to photographers who have provided the public with inspiring images of the parks.

So, it puzzles me why park authorities appear to bristle at the presence of serious photographers?

Is it because park authorities don't like to see visitors come to their parks???  It's a mystery.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2010, 02:19:07 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.
UK law, I think, states that there is no copyright, or need for property  or model release for any photograph taken from public property, or property accessible to the public... so, what right do they have?

Has there been a test case?

Would a photographer's organization fight a test case for you?

Do galleries and stock agencies accept photographs of NT properties?

How much does it cost to get permission to photograph NT property?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2010, 03:34:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure how English Heritage is related to National Trust (if at all), but they sent nastygrams to many photographers who had photos of Stonehenge online. Now they have backed off.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad