NT- beware

[spacecadet]

Just had an extraordinary email from Alamy asserting that any image taken on NT land, even from a right of way, is covered by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act prohibition on commercial activity. Incorrect, I'd say- you're not exercising CROW access rights when you're on a footpath, you're entitled to be there anyway.

 

Hi Mark,

 

This is what we received from our NT contact;

 

In terms of grounds around pay-to-enter properties, if the land is NT owned they are subject to our policy even if they are on a public footpath or bridleway. We do not apply our policy to open access coastline and countryside but we do around free access parkland at our pay-on-entry properties. Might be worth sending people the government guidance (see below) which expressly does NOT grant users permission to take and sell images -

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities

 

The CROW Act has a list of ‘general restrictions’ that limit what people using their open access rights may do, unless you give them permission to do something on the list, or the right to do something already exists.

They can’t:

• run commercial activities on the land such as:
  • trade or sell
  • charge other visitors for things they do on your land
  • film, photograph or make maps
  •  

(I've edited the list).

 

Another overreach by the NT, unfortunately. The bit in bold is new. The NT appear to be claiming that CROW restrictions apply to public footpaths on land subject to CROW. Watch out,  folks. Apparently the NT is sending letters before action for trespass and Alamy will forward them.

 

The legal advice from the various photographers' organisations, of course, is that you don't need permission to take photographs from a right of way. It's an argument we probably can't win, unfortunately, but at least we can be aware of it.

[Martin P Wilson]

Why is anybody bothering to shoot NT properties at all these days, even from a public right of way? Why give them any publicity?

 

I resigned my membershsip several years ago and don't think I have visited an NT property since.

 

But it comes down to understanding the law and seeking permission where necessary. Too many photographers want an easy life (i've been there) rather than taking responsibility for the proper running of their business which includes getting appropriate permissions. Shooting yet more "found" and other easy acess pictures of major tourist sites and other attractions is pretty much a waste of effort and it is why stock rates are rock bottom. Economics 101 - supply and demand!

[spacecadet]

I'm not shooting them- I just don't want my existing lawfully obtained images removed. The month before Alamy did its latest sweep I had a sale of one they subsequently removed and then put back.

You can't win, though, when a bully like the NT is misapplying the law. They started with the NT byelaws and when that got doubtful they've moved on to CROW.

Fortunately there are plenty of great houses still owned by the families so free of the NT's preserved-in-aspic tweedom. we visited one in August- I won't name it. They obviously wouldn't dream of treating photographers in the NT's shameful way- no mention of photography anywhere in fact. Delightful.

[Brian Yarvin]

You could have fooled me but I always thought it was a real privilege to have your destination photographed by professional photographers. Travel photography isn't investigative journalism! You are doing the subjects you photograph a favor! Choose those you want to flatter and avoid complainers. Life is too short and the best are too great.

[spacecadet]

Thanks Brian. The so-called National Trust would indeed fool you. The point was that I'd just had a sale of one of the images Alamy took off and then reinstated. Now the NT is trying to widen the net.

I'll take note. it's not difficult to avoid them- partly it's a matter of principle to avoid the continual lockdown of places where photography is possible.

[Sultanpepa]

Living life is screwed down so tightly these days it's no surprise so many are falling to depression. Pffffff. Anyway, I thought it may be a help to some who like me are over the border and subject to different public access laws. The following link takes you to the NT for Scotland pdf. I hope it's of use to visitors and residents alike. This is from 2007 but I haven't came across a more recent one.  http://www.nts.org.uk/conserve/downloads/Photography_and_Filming_at_Trust_Properties_2007.pdf 

[spacecadet]

Handy to have that, thanks. So the situation is quite different and NTS is not trying to throw its weight about. Unfortunately our CROW Act doesn't allow commercial activity as yours does. The danger is that the NTEWNIbut definitelynotS, as I should probably now call it appears to be saying that CROW provisions override one's rights on a public right of way, which is daft, I think, but they're the ones with lawyers and a billion-pound turnover.

[Bill Brooks]

Photographers still have to push back. 

 

There was time in the 1980’s in the USA National Parks when park rangers were overenthusiastic in telling anyone with a professional looking camera that professional photography without a permit was forbidden. Technically it was, but to be applied only in the case that the professional photography activity would interfere with the enjoyment of other park visitors.

 

It turned out that the same park ranger enforcers were submitting their own stock photography, without a permit, to the major photo libraries.

 

The practice stopped, but only after photographers pushed back.

 

In Canada we had certain signature buildings trying to extract a payment for shots of city skylines that included the buildings. The cruise ship terminal in Vancouver, comes to mind. Until photographers protested that is.

 

In the case of the NT in the UK, it’s a cultural thing. NT couldn’t exist in NA because we would tear the useless buildings down and build a Trump Tower.

 

There is no limit to the creativity of bureaucrats.

[spacecadet]

My pushback only worked for 3 months. Only one sale in 3 years, but as I've said it's the principle.

[AlessandraRC]

I don't even know what you are talking about 

[Allan Bell]

Unless you have images of National Trust properties in the UK you need not worry.

 

Allan

[domf]

So if someone from Poland has an image of a NT property in the UK and licences the image to someone in the US, how does the NT have jurisdiction over 2 parties outside of the UK?

[spacecadet]

It doesn't need it. It's throwing its weight about. It could bring an action for trespass in the UK but it wouldn't get far against a non-resident. So it goes for easy meat- the picture library which has sole discretion to remove images. So the NT can't even be sued for tortious intereference with contract

[spacecadet]

Unless you have images of National Trust properties in the UK you need not worry.

 

Allan

Not Scotland, see above.

[Allan Bell]

 

Unless you have images of National Trust properties in the UK you need not worry.

 

Allan

Not Scotland, see above.

 

 

 

They will probably soon be an independent country so not included in the UK.

 

Allan

[AlessandraRC]

Unless you have images of National Trust properties in the UK you need not worry.

 

Allan

 

 

Don't think I do!

[Dave Richards]

I took some pictures in the village of Montague in Somerset. Got an email from Alamy saying that the NT were asking if I had authorisation to take and sell pictures of their property Montague House and, if not, for them to be deleted. The upshot is that not one of the pictures was of Montague House or any other NT property in the area. There are keywords "Montague" and "house" applied to the pictures and it seems they have simply done a search and not even bothered to check the images they were complaining about. I challenged this and Alamy, to their credit, desisted from deleting the pictures until NT responded to the challenge. Needless to say NT haven't responded so the images remain.

[spacecadet]

So not only is the NT a bully, it's a lazy bully.

[wiskerke]

 

 

 

 

 

Whoah! LOL! infinite possibilities this:

Scotland Europe

Scotland Abroad

Or just Europe; Abroad etc.

Great Scotland?

The Wall?

Wiseacreland?

 

Do you think they are going to want a queen/king of their own?

As the (fake) Chinese curse goes: may you live in interesting times.

 

wim

[spacecadet]

I agree, poachers and gamekeepers and all that. They did take advice on the Network Rail matter apparently but they do seem to be dancing to the NT's tune somewhat on this one.

What is interesting though is that Alamy now claims to be protecting us rather than itself. One might have a case against the NT for tortious interference if the Alamy contract didn't give Alamy sole discretion to remove images.

The NT have the lawyers, presumably, but some of their interpretations do seem a bit rich. That's the problem with a big bully, you have to assume that they're either right, or they'll cost you a lot of grief even if they're not.

[M.Chapman]

I agree, poachers and gamekeepers and all that. They did take advice on the Network Rail matter apparently but they do seem to be dancing to the NT's tune somewhat on this one.

 

Alamy are a distributor for images from the National Trust Photo Library.

[spacecadet]

 

I agree, poachers and gamekeepers and all that. They did take advice on the Network Rail matter apparently but they do seem to be dancing to the NT's tune somewhat on this one.

 

Alamy are a distributor for images from the National Trust Photo Library.

 

Aah, so that's why they're being so nice to the NT. Be nice if Alamy would just admit it. "We are doing this to protect you from legal action" would then become "we are doing this to protect you from legal action and to protect the interests of our client".