GS-Images

Images taken on National Trust land

Recommended Posts

This has been discussed before, but I want to clarify something. Many of us in the UK know that the NT don't like images taken on their land being licensed unless you hold a permit. I don't want to get into the morals of that as different people have different opinions. This is just about knowing where I stand with licensing one of my images. In doing research for keywording, I was surprised to read that the NT own the land where I took a photo of a particular historical object (best I don't give details for obvious reasons). I had no idea the NT owned the land. It's just a very large green area in the countryside, with a free car park, and it's open to the public, with no entrance fee. So I am not under any sort of contract from paying an entrance fee, which surely means the NT have no authority to demand we don't license images taken there, right?

 

I just want to get that clarified please before I finish keywording this image.  :)

 

Thanks,

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No entrance fee... no problem...

 

That's what I would have thought too, so thanks for confirming that John. In the past I have got this wrong when making a post in the forums on the subject of licensing images taken on private land, so although I've learned from that I just wanted to be sure I have it right.  :)

 

Cheers,

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can 

 

No entrance fee... no problem...

 

John, can you clarify in what way the imposition of an entrance fee in itself or not confers the right to take photos for commercial purposes on NT land.

 

I would tend to assume that if I am on NT land then I have to abide by their conditions, whether or not I've paid anything to be there. (Note: I'm not saying I'm happy with this state of affairs, just that it is my understanding of the way it is). It may well be that NT does not routinely enforce its rules about no commercial photography in areas of countryside where there is no significant building or structure, but does the rule still apply nonetheless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can 

 

No entrance fee... no problem...

 

John, can you clarify in what way the imposition of an entrance fee in itself or not confers the right to take photos for commercial purposes on NT land.

 

I would tend to assume that if I am on NT land then I have to abide by their conditions, whether or not I've paid anything to be there. (Note: I'm not saying I'm happy with this state of affairs, just that it is my understanding of the way it is). It may well be that NT does not routinely enforce its rules about no commercial photography in areas of countryside where there is no significant building or structure, but does the rule still apply nonetheless.

 

Alamy stated a few months back that "Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6044-national-trust-images-removed-from-alamy/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can 

 

No entrance fee... no problem...

 

John, can you clarify in what way the imposition of an entrance fee in itself or not confers the right to take photos for commercial purposes on NT land.

 

I would tend to assume that if I am on NT land then I have to abide by their conditions, whether or not I've paid anything to be there. (Note: I'm not saying I'm happy with this state of affairs, just that it is my understanding of the way it is). It may well be that NT does not routinely enforce its rules about no commercial photography in areas of countryside where there is no significant building or structure, but does the rule still apply nonetheless.

 

Alamy stated a few months back that "Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6044-national-trust-images-removed-from-alamy/

 

 

Thank you, that is a helpful clarification. I hadn't seen the earlier statement from Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy stated a few months back that "Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/6044-national-trust-images-removed-from-alamy/

 

 

 

I followed that thread with interest but somehow missed that quote from Alamy, so thanks for that.

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Not NT related but not far off. What's the situation with some of London's Pops (privately owned public spaces) - e.g Granary Square, KIng's Cross, Battersea Power station redevelopment and the area around City Hall, by Tower Bridge. It would seem that there is an ever growing list of places which are privately owned public spaces where photography is not allowed, unless you have a licence. I would like to know how is it remotely possible to know the boundaries of such places and whether anyone has been fined for taking an 'editorial' photo in one of these places. See: http://nickturpin.com/public-space-private-space/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Not NT related but not far off. What's the situation with some of London's Pops (privately owned public spaces) - e.g Granary Square, KIng's Cross, Battersea Power station redevelopment and the area around City Hall, by Tower Bridge. It would seem that there is an ever growing list of places which are privately owned public spaces where photography is not allowed, unless you have a licence. I would like to know how is it remotely possible to know the boundaries of such places and whether anyone has been fined for taking an 'editorial' photo in one of these places. See: http://nickturpin.com/public-space-private-space/

 

 

My own understanding of that is that if the land is publicly accessible and you haven't entered into a contract by purchasing some sort of ticket for entrance, then you can take photos and sell them (if they are privately owned, then you'll still need to get a property release to sell as non-editorial).

 

However, IF you are asked by someone representing whoever owns the property, such as a security guard, to stop taking photos or leave their property - Then you must do as they ask.

 

If that is not 100% correct, maybe someone else could correct me please.

 

If you have already taken photos up to that point though, and the security DON'T tell you that you cannot sell them, then I'm not sure where you would stand? I'd imagine it would be ok to sell them then. How about if they DID ask you NOT to sell them, but you still did. Where would you stand legally then?

 

Geoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Geoff,

 

I have just sent an Email to the National Trust asking for clarification on this issue.

 

This weekend I want to go Carding Mill Valley and the Long Mynd in Shropshire to get general landscape shots.  The area is owned by the National Trust and you have to pay for parking.

I have asked the questions if it acceptable to add photos taken to my stock sites?  If so can I use the place names in the title and description?

 

As soon as I get a reply I will post it here.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NT are getting more restrictive on photography at ticketed locations . Otherwise you're ok (having to pay for carparking doesnt mean it's a ticketed location)

 

Just done a shoot at Powis Castle for Alamy News yesterday...getting access for that was a complex process

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi all,

 

Not NT related but not far off. What's the situation with some of London's Pops (privately owned public spaces) - e.g Granary Square, KIng's Cross, Battersea Power station redevelopment and the area around City Hall, by Tower Bridge. It would seem that there is an ever growing list of places which are privately owned public spaces where photography is not allowed, unless you have a licence. I would like to know how is it remotely possible to know the boundaries of such places and whether anyone has been fined for taking an 'editorial' photo in one of these places. See: http://nickturpin.com/public-space-private-space/

 

 

My own understanding of that is that if the land is publicly accessible and you haven't entered into a contract by purchasing some sort of ticket for entrance, then you can take photos and sell them (if they are privately owned, then you'll still need to get a property release to sell as non-editorial).

 

However, IF you are asked by someone representing whoever owns the property, such as a security guard, to stop taking photos or leave their property - Then you must do as they ask.

 

If that is not 100% correct, maybe someone else could correct me please.

 

If you have already taken photos up to that point though, and the security DON'T tell you that you cannot sell them, then I'm not sure where you would stand? I'd imagine it would be ok to sell them then. How about if they DID ask you NOT to sell them, but you still did. Where would you stand legally then?

 

Geoff.

 

Thanks for the swift reply GS-Images -  It's a minefield of complexity. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have already taken photos up to that point though, and the security DON'T tell you that you cannot sell them, then I'm not sure where you would stand?

 

 

 

I for one would not like to be making any decision based on what security guards (who are not generally regarded as being authorities on the issues of image licencing) do or do not say

 

km

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nightmare of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) reared its ugly head again today. I was attempting to take some photos of various banks and buildings in Canary Wharf when I was approached by a security guard and told to stop. I was on a public footpath and some distance away from the bank in question but I was informed that all photos at Canary Wharf need permission. He suggested, politely, that I speak to the Press Officer for the area and try and get a pass. When I spoke to her she reiterated that any photo for stock use was not permitted but photos for personal use were fine (BTW, a permit for half a day costs £500!). Has anyone else encountered difficulties with photos at Canary Wharf? This article in the Guardian (featuring one of my pics which I only just found out about when searching for POTs) looks at the insidious creep of POPs throughout London. This type of media control by private companies makes me angry and is very unhealthy IMO and should be challenged at every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Keith says, taking legal advice from a security guard isn't too useful, but much of what appears to be public highway at Canary Wharf is in fact private. But if you are sure of your ground (as it were) you should persist.

Most of mine were taken on a tour arranged by the landlord (LDDC) so I think I'm covered.

Check the maps and go back.
Edit: I've just had a look at the DEFRA map and it appears there aren't actually any public footpaths at all at Canary Wharf. I dan't know about the roads but it's telling that it's omitted completely from Google Street View.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nt do have a scheme where you can pay for a license and revenue share with them, but NOT agencies. Ive seen several pics in papers from other agencies that clearly flout this. I had a take down for a flower pic where I had named the site. Pay to enter. What concerns me more is the concept of the nt saying vistas could be subject to license .. previous posts have covered this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English Heritage also have a policy of No Commercial Photography on or within their properties and that is clealy displayed on a notice board by the entrance along with opening times, admission prices etc. I gather that within their organization is a commercial operation which hires out such venues for film sets, fashion shoots and so on, and for that sort of use I can quite understand they would want a fee (I would!).

 

One would have thought though that an attractive picture taken in (say) one of their castle grounds, subsequently licenced from an agency such as this one and published in a travel magazine would have been welcomed - after all they want more people to visit their properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Simon said:

The nt do have a scheme where you can pay for a license and revenue share with them, but NOT agencies. Ive seen several pics in papers from other agencies that clearly flout this. I had a take down for a flower pic where I had named the site. Pay to enter. What concerns me more is the concept of the nt saying vistas could be subject to license .. previous posts have covered this.

 

I looked into this and found it a non-starter. First you had to pay to join an approved organisation ( obviously if you weren't already a member) and spend a year to two until you gained some sort of award/recognition, so that involves fees and time, then an annual NT fee, then an annual permit fee, only able to supply NT picture library and also some, admittedly non-arduous, stipulations about insurance cover. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Simon said:

The nt do have a scheme where you can pay for a license and revenue share with them, but NOT agencies. Ive seen several pics in papers from other agencies that clearly flout this. I had a take down for a flower pic where I had named the site. Pay to enter. What concerns me more is the concept of the nt saying vistas could be subject to license .. previous posts have covered this.

Just stick to the footpath and be prepared to fight when they strongarm Alamy to remove images. They are now also apparently asserting that you need their permission on CROW land because photography is not an activity explicitly permitted under CROW access. Crackers and probably illegal, but they have the lawyers and we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jansos said:

The nightmare of Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) reared its ugly head again today. I was attempting to take some photos of various banks and buildings in Canary Wharf when I was approached by a security guard and told to stop.

 

 

I spent a day at Canary Wharf last year and wandered all over taking photos with a prominent large DSLR, staying in some locations for a considerable time in order to get the right shot, and not once was I challenged. I don't know whether I was just lucky or whether my personal magnetism shielded me from scrutiny.

 

Alan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I spent a day at Canary Wharf last year and wandered all over taking photos with a prominent large DSLR, staying in some locations for a considerable time in order to get the right shot, and not once was I challenged. I don't know whether I was just lucky or whether my personal magnetism shielded me from scrutiny.

 

Alan

Unfortunately Jansos' card is probably marked now, especially as he went to the press office, so they know what he looks like. Could go back in disguise I suppose.

I see it thus. If you're asked to stop and don't you become a trespasser and can be asked to leave. But until you're challenged, you're not a trespasser. So what you already have is yours to do with as you please.

Bear in mind this is a public forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 10:12, spacecadet said:

Unfortunately Jansos' card is probably marked now, especially as he went to the press office, so they know what he looks like. Could go back in disguise I suppose.

I see it thus. If you're asked to stop and don't you become a trespasser and can be asked to leave. But until you're challenged, you're not a trespasser. So what you already have is yours to do with as you please.

Bear in mind this is a public forum.

spacecadet - unfortunately I think it was probably marked some time ago! Generally I think it is better to be above board otherwise it tends to come back and bite you on the backside.

The CW people were all very polite and helpful, in some respects, but it just seems absolutely wrong that you can't take photos in a growing number of former publicly accessible areas, which have now become privatised. I could understand it if it was an invasion of someone's privacy but these are just shots of the exteriors of buildings. What is it about branding that demands so much protection?  There are literally thousands of photos already in the public domain. IMO no point trying to shut the door when the horse has already bolted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where the likes of the tiny Sony RX100 series of cameras come into their own.  You just look like a tourist and are ignored.  Walk about with a full size DSLR and you are more likely to attract attention.  I'm not advocating taking photos where you shouldn't - just saving hassle with untrained security guard etc.
Also, try not to look like a professional.  Plan your shot before you lift the camera to your eye.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jansos said:

spacecadet - unfortunately I think it was probably marked some time ago! Generally I think it is better to be above board otherwise it tends to come back and bite you on the backside.

The CW people were all very polite and helpful, in some respects, but it just seems absolutely wrong that you can't take photos in a growing number of former publicly accessible areas, which have now become privatised. I could understand it if it was an invasion of someone's privacy but these are just shots of the exteriors of buildings. What is it about branding that demands so much protection?  There are literally thousands of photos already in the public domain. IMO no point trying to shut the door when the horse has already bolted!

Polite and helpful in every respect except letting you take photographs. If you read the CW site their excuse is obstruction and security, not branding or privacy. A poor excuse but there you are- they don't need one.

Sometimes I think these people stop one just because they can.  It's the parkkeeper syndrome- those with little power exercise it ruthlessly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite often give some half truths and assess the situation later. As others  have said there is not much point discussing the ins and outs with a security guard who is quite likely encouraged to take a firm approach to anything remotely resembling something that they might be blamed over by their bosses.

 

So I say I run a website which provides images for schools ( which is true), or that I live locally and am interested in how the area is changing, or that I like taking pics of modern architecture, or am trying out some new settings on my camera. It is for personal use, I just haven't yet decided how I will personally use the images;) I mean the pics have not been commissioned or anything, I am taking them for personal reasons.

 

But I will often then ask for permission to use for stock afterwards - see recent ones of Devizes museum https://geographyphotos.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/gold-from-the-time-of-stonehenge/ 

We came to an amicable agreement about them using my pics and me being granted permission.

 

I walked into a cricket-bat willow processing place the other day and the foreman actually ended up showing me around. There was no chance to explain about stock at the time. Later I emailed the owner and he was delighted for the images to be used for education, but would not give permission for stock without checking with his staff - whether they minded possibly being in a magazine or book. That permission never materialised though I do have a contact for the future - he offered to show me around etc - so I haven't used the pics for stock, only on my website for schools to use.

 

https://geographyphotos.wordpress.com/2018/01/29/salix-sawmill-what-is-being-made-here/

 

The National Trust I simply avoid.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now