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/

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you mind if I copy your post on a UK outdoors website - might increase the numbers of objectors to this stupid policy

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/

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.

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.

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 :-)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

…



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.



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?