bewildered walk [deleted] 11:51am, 1 May 2009
well ,well it was just a matter of time

www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2009/04/09/4756.aspx
encouraging caption [deleted] 9 years ago
Just a mater of time until what???

This has always been the case and not just adopted by the National Trust.

In order to issue images for commercial use you must have model / property release forms.

I don't see what the big deal is.
admin
mr hammy PRO 9 years ago
i don't want to get into any sort of arguement but the article says about publishing images, which i believe includes putting images on flickr.

i have some images of Dunham park on here and don't have any signed permissions and i'm not even a member of the National Trust, should i remove them.

p.s. i've bitten my tongue about my opinions.
actually crate [deleted] Posted 9 years ago. Edited by actually crate (member) 9 years ago
All the libraries I submit to won't accept any National Trust based images, they have a large legal dept apparently who are doggedly determined in their quest for recompense...same applies to the Inside of the City Art Gallery,sign at the desk get your sticky badge and promise any images you take will not appear on any retail site or online image library or else. If in doubt ask ,only takes a second, just always check with the building/property manager, giving them a freebie set of images is a way of getting permission.If you post on here I would just leave off any tags or titles that might lead someone to your stuff and if you've had the call from Getty and there are some National Trust images in there...don't supply them.
Here'sall the RPS chatter about it......
205.214.76.22/showthread.php?p=114532
bewildered walk [deleted] 9 years ago
Damien,
If you can give me some proof of this being "aways the case" I'd be a happy man unfortunately I am somehow struggling to believe this.If it is the case can you let me know if it was before the birth of digital cameras or after,

May be you like to inform them about the "Turner" paintings down at the city gallery that are no doubt painted on what is now National Trust land and get them to order the gallery to take them down for breaching copy right laws.

I know all about model/property release forms,the point is, this is not about forms it's about your rights as a photographer ( if you are a photographer) being eaten away on a daily bases,it's also about attitudes like yours that is killing MY rights as a Professional Photographer.
admin
mr hammy PRO 9 years ago
cheers mr max.

i was in the lakes at easter, and noticed quite a few signs on bits of land that were national trust, this surely can't apply to the little bits of the lake district that they own ?
Red Vee XIII Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Red Vee XIII (member) 9 years ago
The rights of those who own the land have always come before those who visit - not just the Trust but every landowner in the country - it's just that most owners let it slide if you take photos. The National Trust have every right to tell you not to make money from their land.

[quote from frannk]
Maybe you like to inform them about the "Turner" paintings down at the city gallery that are no doubt painted on what is now National Trust land

[unquote]

The Trust didn't buy the paintings from Turner when they bought the land. Simple as. By your reckoning, somebody who will own my house sometime in the future has exclusive rights to the photographs I take now. ??????

As a photographer, your only 'right' is to be able to take shots on your own land or open-air public land.
Red Vee XIII 9 years ago
mr hammy - The Trust allow you to sell photos taken on land you do not pay to access such as those in the Lake District. Only the gardens, houses and grounds of said houses are a no-no.
bewildered walk [deleted] 9 years ago
Can someone just remind me why the National Trust was set up?
Red Vee XIII Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Red Vee XIII (member) 9 years ago
The National Trust works to preserve and protect the coastline, countryside and buildings of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There are Trusts in most countries around the world.

It has nothing to do with photography.
bitrot 9 years ago
This is terrific. It's just this kind of friendly and fulfilling discussion I've been missing on this group. Thanks people!
admin
mr hammy PRO 9 years ago
thanks for that info, i just read it wrong, then. i thought that these people were fencing off the countryside and making money out of it.
i never pay to see things the natinal trust own anyway.
Red Vee XIII 9 years ago
mr hammy I would recommend membership to the National Trust. Their properties and grounds are beautiful. You need to visit three or four places to break even on the membership cost but after that it's all freebies.
Do a search on Dunham Massey, Tatton, Park and Lyme Park. These are (i believe) are your local Trust properties.

Man! They should give me a job!
ukphotoman59 9 years ago
"mr hammy - The Trust allow you to sell photos taken on land you do not pay to access such as those in the Lake District. Only the gardens, houses and grounds of said houses are a no-no."

um have to disagree having seen some of the contacts they are now inferring that is now not allowed.also read this which I feel means that nt are acting well outside their remit.

copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist

I think there nt would loose, they may have a bullying legal department but as yet they have brought no legal action against anyone, due to the above hawking rules. meaning that in order to the nt by laws and its powers would need a lords and parliament review of the legislation

ukphotoman
encouraging caption [deleted] 9 years ago
Frannk: Just Google UK Photographers rights and you will find endless documents stating that photographers do not have a given right to photograph on private property.

But of course if you are a pro photographer that knows all about release forms you will be well aware of the laws associated with being a pro.

These laws have been in place since before the birth of digital cameras.
Surely you covered photography rights / laws when you qualified??

Just because you have a camera you don't have the right to take / use images of what ever you like. Its basic mutual respect and if people observed the courtesy of asking permission the laws would not be needed.

My attitude is that there is a correct way to conduct yourself and to obtain the correct procedure for any assignment to be under taken and if that means getting permission with some terms and conditions from the nation trust then so be it.

They are not saying you cant do it they what you to have the respect to get permission.

It is not my attitude that is killing your rights it is arrogant photographers that can't respect other peoples rights.
ukphotoman59 9 years ago
"Frannk: Just Google UK Photographers rights and you will find endless documents stating that photographers do not have a given right to photograph on private property.

But of course if you are a pro photographer that knows all about release forms you will be well aware of the laws associated with being a pro.

These laws have been in place since before the birth of digital cameras.
Surely you covered photography rights / laws when you qualified??"

sorry that's not technically true at all. you can take images on private property until asked to stop or asked to leave. unless you agree to terms when entering a property, ie either verbally when entering, with a contract or via a bought ticket with terms attached which forms a contract. tresspass only becomes a criminal matter, if and when you do not leave or stop when asked to do so, and any damages sought would be very negligible and recoup able only if a very heavy/expensive civil case is brought for damages. I'm very sorry but your assertion to the above is incorrect.

The nt problem is many of the images being asked to be removed were shot by people when being invited by the nt onto their property, no terms were in force either verbally or contractually via a ticket, hence not enforceable. People are well within their rights to sell images of places without releases for editorial sales, and is even possible in many circumstances for advertising use, even when on private property. In Scotland its even wider as you have the right to roam. The laws where releases are a daily requirement are in the usa, we are not there in the uk yet, but people get releases just to save any hassle, advertising use is only upheld by the advertising watchdog, where a complaint must be made, suing for damages on an inanimate piece of property would be very difficult to quantify if not impossible, its difficult enough with people and look how, relatively low the max Moseley case settlement was and katherine zeta jones, very low in comparison to the court costs, i would say any damages awarded would cost millions to bring to court, for very small amounts like a few thousand for damages, hence, not worth it.

I have no problem with nothing inside rule, but outside common, people are having unidentifiable flower images removed juts because they have the property they were shot on removed. It's the short end of the wedge you watch, next they will aim at amateurs, next it will be the durdle door saga's all over the uk coastline.

“It is not my attitude that is killing your rights it is arrogant photographers that can't respect other people’s rights.”

Um I suggest you follow the thread on the ap forum, and what tony sleep has to say.

www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&a...

Cheers

ukphotoman
bewildered walk [deleted] 9 years ago
I'll feel the point I was making was that the nt was set up for the people and by the people of this country, so we could have the pleasure of walking on land and visiting places that would have other wise been taken away from us, read the mission statement www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-thec...
the arguments is not about having permission to take photographs of NT "Property such as building" but more so of the landscape that surrounds us.
Red Vee XIII Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Red Vee XIII (member) 9 years ago
Quoted from the Alamy site -

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 [eg, houses & gardens] and does not apply to public highways and paths.

It okay to photograph the landscape and sell your photos, just not the houses and gardens.

The Trust, however, wasn't set up so we would have nice places to visit. The fact you are able to go to these houses is just a byproduct of them needing money for their upkeep.

The reason you are allowed to go into the countryside is all down to the Mass Trespass in the Peak District.

ukphotoman - Quoted from the site you linked to

#17 - 'No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer
or expose for sale any commodity or article or
for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph'


Again, that word, 'property.' In all the Trust magazines they call their buildings and gardens 'property' but all their public-access countryside,'land.' That's the main difference, though it is quite knife-edged. We can trust the Alamy quotation, they would have had their lawyers take a kicking from the Trust. (:0)
nogger 9 years ago
That #17 is under the heading "Hawking" though. I'd guess that its original intention, when written into the NT's bylaws, was to stop photographers offering to take visitor's photos, for a fee, on Trust property.

I remember seeing people doing this - guy with a camera wandering up and down stopping folk and offering to take their photo for a fee - when I was a kid on holiday with the parents. Used to see it a lot on the prom at Blackpool as well. You had to trust he'd post them on mind.

I think the growth in ownership of cameras killed them off.
Red Vee XIII 9 years ago
I imagine the hawking rule could quite easily be carried foreward, ....expose for sale....take any photograph. I wouldn't like to go against them in court! Having said that, I do have a few photies from Trust properties on my flickr.

I had a guy with a monkey stop me in Benidorm back in '81 asking to take my photie for a fee. That's the guy, not the monkey. I was only six and didn't realise the monkey had no teeth. I'd have kicked the crap out of the guy if it happened now.
encouraging caption [deleted] Posted 9 years ago. Edited by encouraging caption (member) 9 years ago
ukphotoman59: You prove my point.

Please lets not forget that this is with regards to images for commercial use.

The difference between Pro and Amateur / Enthusiast seems to be getting confused in this thread as it so often does with topics like these.

If we are not intending to sell images it becomes an irrelevant topic.

If we are Pro togs selling images commercially then we should be aware of the Laws / Rules and follow the correct channels when photographing "On Private Property For Commercial Gain".

I just don't see what the problem is.

Frannk: I agree with you on the "By the people for the people" angle but like so many things this is sadly no longer the case.
ukphotoman59 9 years ago
"If we are Pro togs selling images commercially then we should be aware of the Laws / Rules and follow the correct channels when photographing "On Private Property For Commercial Gain"."

define commercial please. The only commercial photography I recognise is advertising and product association and that's how the law sees it.

the technical problem is until you buy a ticket you are not bound by terms, so you can sell images without releases for editorial uses, even though you may be on private land. that's all there is to it, there is no need to "go through channels" as the law is quite clear, editorial photography is not hawking.

so if you enter some land national trust or not, shoot something, where there is a view, with no ticket being bought (they have tried to use parking tickets as agreement in the past), then you can at will sell the images for editorial uses. its that simple, the nt are making it up which is why all the other libraries have told them where to go.

so what your saying is you cant do investigative hard edged journalism which informs the public, just because its on private property sorry don't buy that, its response is the thin end of the wedge. I will have to strongly disagree with most of what you have said damien.

cheers

ukphotoman
encouraging caption [deleted] Posted 9 years ago. Edited by encouraging caption (member) 9 years ago
The term commercial gain means to make money.

To gain entry to a private property you must be granted permission.
Be it by ticket or any other means

Once you have permission the owner has the right to impose conditions.
Such as no images for commercial gain.

If you enter a property without permission and take images then you are correct the owner can not imopse conditions upon you and you can sell them but you are then trespassing.
Although trespass is not illegal you can be challenged on the result of your trespass

But if what you are saying is correct we can all come over to your house enter your grounds without permission and then photograph what ever we like and sell the images and put it down to hard edge journalism.

Please its just none sense. If not in law but the moral issue.

And as of yet no one has explained to me what the actual problem is with getting the correct permission.

For me its all about respecting other peoples property.

It would have to be one hell of an image to get me to stoop so low as to disrespect someone else's property.

I am basing my argument on what i have been taught studying photography and what i have read.

Unless someone can state what the actual law is then i am going to leave it here as this will just go on and on.
And until such time as far as i am concerned it is all just opinion. (Not that thats a bad thing of course)

ukphotoman i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
A heated debate i can handle but going round in circles sends me dizzy.

Just for interest.

www.photographersrights.org.uk

And

www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
stagedoor PRO 9 years ago
It is the "commercial" bit which causes so much confusion.

Pure commercial photography is clear - a professional taking a photo with the intention of selling.

But if an amateur takes a picture, posts it on the web, "all rights reserved" and someone offers to pay to use the picture then the situation becomes less clear.

Attempting to ban all aspects of publication, whether "commercial" or not (eg on flickr) becomes even trickier to enforce. They cannot pre-date the rule, so any photos taken before the rule are legit. Any photo taken from a public highway of a National Trust building is legit. (and if you can do that what is the problem with photos taken within the grounds?).

Finally the NT exists to preserve land and property for the benefit of the Nation. Limiting harmless activities (such as photography) which will actually further (in most cases) appreciation of the buildings seems somewhat counter-productive.

PS I am not a lawyer and the above is my understanding of the law, not to be taken as gospel!
Osdog LRPS CPAGB BPE3* Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Osdog LRPS CPAGB BPE3* (member) 9 years ago
And....... have you seen that the NT are running a photographic competition each month. Upload your pic to the comp, and you lose all rights to it..... the NT say that they can use it for any purpose they want..... and that's why I won't upload anything to their site.

They want to ban commercial photography (that's fine as far as it goes) but then want to encourage photography for their own commercial benefit....... I think that stinks........

As for being able to take pics if you can walk onto their site and not pay.... that's not true. Once you pass their boundary, you are on their land, and they set the rules. I'm sure you can share images on the net, but not so sure you could sell one if asked.

There is a stretch of coastline on the south coast (so I understand) where all photography is banned - heaven help us that someone might get a nice shot for their wall.....

Sorry - rant over.......

copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-picture-yourself...

But read this first......
ukphotoman59 9 years ago
"If you enter a property without permission and take images then you are correct the owner cannot impose conditions upon you and you can sell them but you are then trespassing.

Although trespass is not illegal you can be challenged on the result of your trespass"

while that is true, criminal trespass only happens when something is damaged, (merely walking on to a property which i freely open to the public and taking images would not be a criminal matter) and or you do not leave or cease your activity immediately. terms can be imposed at that point but merely walking onto a property does not impose terms at all and there not binding as the important legal jargon to do with consideration has not taken place, which is general is at least 7 days to accept the terms of a contract, so we delve into some very grey areas and it's the landowners to ensure you are aware of the terms, which is very difficult to prove or enforce. which has been a major problem with the nt thing as a large proportion of the images taken off were, either taken before the nt took over management of the estate, people being invited onto the property by the nt for press days, and images taken on the estate being hire by third parties but the photographer being party to any agreement hence it not being enforceable on the photographer at all.

yes in theory you could come onto my property and take pics but the immediate time I ask you to leave and or cease your activity then, I have imposed terms verbally, you are then within your right to sell any images shot on my property up to the point of me asking you not to. however the uses would be limited to editorial sold without releases. If you watch things like watchdog and rogue, when they go onto properties and start asking difficult questions, it's a civil matter up to the point when they are asked t leave, if they don't when asked to do so then it becomes a criminal one, they could sue to damages in the civil courts, but they are lightly to be very small and cost more than the return.

There is a very well known advertising photographer I know, I mean in the 5 figure a day category, he shots or did shoot a lot of car stiff onsite, he never used nt land as it was far too expensive, he hired some farmers land adjacent to some nt land in the lake district somewhere. now the nt tried to take them to court over the use of landscape outside the farmers land, which appeared out of focus behind the car, when the car was shot on farmers land, needless to say it did not get anywhere but it shows the mindset of the trust.
the competition revels the true operating mindset of the nt, they should take a better view and have terms like the new york metro as large funding chunks come from the lottery and other public funds, so they should be more accountable.

cheers

ukphotoman

ps I am not blowing my own trumpet here but I do lecture in this stuff and have successfully defended myself and stood up for myself against some very big players. having said that there are some very big grey areas which would be decided by the courts, which is why as yet the nt has not brought any action against anyone as they are not quite sure which side of the coin it will fall, in their favour or against.
As an aside - Lyme Park in Stockport - lock their gates every night... I have been out with the warden there, and the main gates to the park (I think there are 3) are shut and people are not allowed to enter before 8am and after (I think) 8pm in the summer...... hours change in the winter. Car parking charges apply.....

The house and house gardens are accessed separately from the land, by payment of a fee....

However, you can walk into the park at any time the gates are open without charge.....

Lyme Park is owned jointly by Stockport MBC and the NT..... so ..... the question is who is the person who sets the rules here.... is it the NT or Stockport...... ?

Could Stockport override the NT if they so wished?

I agree with UKphotoman - the mindset of the NT needs to be reviewed - they are not doing themselves any favours..... I did think that I would not renew my NT membership this year. Hey Ho !
admin
th3g 9 years ago
This is a very interesting discussion with some great points being made but it is a great shame that there is some completely unnessecary personal sniping, this is exactly what has caused so many problems within the group and would be great if people within could be more civil to one another.

As for trespass a lot of my shots are taken in exactly these circumstances and I would always happily leave when asked so as to avoid it becoming a criminal issue.

With regard to the NT issue I think that they are well within their rights to impose whatever rules they want on their property just like any other organisation can with their properties.
I do agree that there are some grey areas and also conflict, as osdog mentions they regularly run competitions were photographers relenquish all rights to the photographs they submit, it would be generous of them to offer some compense as they are expecting a great deal from photographers for free.
Groups Beta