geogphotos

Going to Sissinghurst - pic potential?

Recommended Posts

geogphotos    195

National Trust property. 1,667 on Alamy for a search of 'Sissinghurst'.

 

What do you reckon as to stock photo potential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195

Am aware. Looking for loopholes:D

 

Pics of plants that could be anywhere? Any public footpath access? Anything really?

Edited by geogphotos
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Walker    159

It's a pay to enter so Alamy might remove any N.T. images taken inside or outside the property.  I don't remember there being any public areas around this property.

I doubt a tripod will be allowed and SLR's might affect the wrong kind of attention.  The little village of Sissinghurst is worth taking a few of - some nice old buildings etc.

 

John

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

I have had images taken outside Stourhead removed. Alamy reinstated some, but not all, on proof. I've lost some of Tyntesfield as well, and there are no public footpaths there.

Be aware that the NT is now asserting control over CROW access land, including rights of way, on the grounds that, on a very specious reading of the Act, photography is not one of the permitted activities. They're wrong, because footpaths belong to the highway authority, but they've got the lawyers, and Alamy has sole discretion to remove images under the contract. So we've lost that argument.

I think most of those Sissinghurst images are post-cull and not all that many are inside the paywall, sorry, grounds.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195

Thanks for the advice. Looks like pics inside won't be going to Alamy....but there are other fish in the sea.

 

Will have to remember to keep my cool. Normally I avoid NT property like the plague but this is wife's birthday treat. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MDM    616
55 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Will have to remember to keep my cool. Normally I avoid NT property like the plague but this is wife's birthday treat. :wacko:

 

Is it your wife's birthday or your's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MDM    616

So let me guess: your birthday present from her is a spade? :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195
20 minutes ago, MDM said:

So let me guess: your birthday present from her is a spade? :)

 

She did once buy me a DIY book :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

Nah. You need something stronger than cardboard to tie to the stick.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195

The book never got opened! They say 'it is the thought that counts'.  Evil woman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/06/2017 at 09:13, John Walker said:

It's a pay to enter so Alamy might remove any N.T. images taken inside or outside the property.

 

What about marking them as editorial only, no PU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195

There are other stock photo avenues which the arm of the NT does not reach. And actually there was quite a lot outside of the paywall. 

 

I don't have any scruples at all about taking pics on NT premises - they are custodians of our shared heritage. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Walker    159
11 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

 

What about marking them as editorial only, no PU?

The ones that I had removed were editorial only as I recall.  My understanding is that once you pay to enter and are within the 'pay' area you come under NT rules which you agree to when paying.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195
7 minutes ago, John Walker said:

The ones that I had removed were editorial only as I recall.  My understanding is that once you pay to enter and are within the 'pay' area you come under NT rules which you agree to when paying.

 

John

 

I looked out for these notorious NT rules at Sissinghurst. There was a sign at the till saying that visitors are welcome to take photos but please not to use tripods. There is nothing about photography printed on the tickets. There was no mention of any other limits on photography, so what have I agreed to when paying? 

 

People using flash in the library were gently reprimanded but told that they were perfectly welcome to take photos otherwise. I stood right next to one of the supervisors/volunteers and took a few pics  in the library with my Canon 5D and 24-105 - no problem at all. 

 

Who knows perhaps they are being more enlightened now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alamy    0

Hi Ian

 

Just to clear this up... from discussions with the NT we know that they print their photography policy in their handbook. They welcome people taking photographs for their own personal use, profiting from them is where problems arise. We wrote a blog post a while ago with their photography policy which you can find here - http://www.alamy.com/blog/photography-private-property

 

if you’re unsure if permission is required to take pictures and can't see clear signs then we suggest asking at the property before taking pictures and/or submission to Alamy.

 

We don't recommend uploading photos of pay to enter NT properties as you'll be in danger of having these removed and potential legal issues. 

 

Thanks

Alamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

I looked out for these notorious NT rules at Sissinghurst. There was a sign at the till saying that visitors are welcome to take photos but please not to use tripods. There is nothing about photography printed on the tickets. There was no mention of any other limits on photography, so what have I agreed to when paying? 

 

People using flash in the library were gently reprimanded but told that they were perfectly welcome to take photos otherwise. I stood right next to one of the supervisors/volunteers and took a few pics  in the library with my Canon 5D and 24-105 - no problem at all. 

 

Who knows perhaps they are being more enlightened now? 

This was discussed extensively on the forum during the last Alamy takedown. Since you seem to have missed it you could try a search.

Normally you would be correct about the terms of entry but the NT is not relying on contract law. The "notorious rules" are the 1965 byelaws which NT are interpreting very robustly. See the NT website.

They may be "guardians of our shared heritage" but they don't want any of us sharing what they see as their revenue. I believe that someone who used to work at Alamy (or was it another library?) went to work for the NT a few years ago. Poacher turned gamekeeper.

We've lost this battle- the NT has the goodwill of the nation, and the lawyers- and until the policy changes, or some wealthy enthusiast cares to bankroll a challenge to the byelaws, it will stay lost.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    195

This has been rumbling on for years.

 

Other libraries/agencies/distributors react differently to the pressure from the National Trust, one to two do so as deliberate, even provocative, policy. 

 

These days everybody can quote a rule and if you ask they will very often make something up. I was told that I couldn't take pics from a public highway of an archaeological dig last week - first they tried Health and Safety, then the Terrorism Act. I understand that they are twitchy about 'night-hawks' and I will hold the images back until the dig has ended in several months time, but they certainly have no right to prohibit photography. 

 

There is a considerable body of opinion that these historic NT bye-laws aimed at controlling hawkers and itinerants have little standing in law. Out of curiousity has anybody ever actually been taken to court by the NT and if so what happened?

 

But, okay, Alamy has its own policy and I will adhere to it. 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alamy said:

We don't recommend uploading photos of pay to enter NT properties as you'll be in danger of having these removed and potential legal issues. 

 

So what about the cliffs at Tintagel castle in Cornwall from within the paying part? Are they claiming to own 2 miles of coastline?

Please tell me if this image is acceptable

merlins-cove-merlins-cove-beach-cornwall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This applies to the above no? "Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Ashmore    376

I've had a similar quandary with Carding Mill Valley in Shropshire. It is NT owned land and there is a NT car park which you have to pay to use.... but anyone without a car (or who has parked their car in Church Stretton and walked) is free to walk in and out, up the Long Mynd and so forth (as I did many times years ago when doing the 'Chief Scouts Challenge' :)) and there is nothing to pay. So in this case I have gone for:

 

Property: Yes

Property Release: No

License: RM

 

With the Tintagel Castle example above though, there is mention of  "from within the paying part" ... I guess the question might be whether you can legitimately take a picture of that view without having first had to pay something. If not, I personally might think twice about having it for sale. But if you are allowed to get to a position to take that view without paying, then I guess you need to tick the editorial only flag in any case.

 

What is also a question for me is when you don't realise that you are on NT land. NT own miles of coastal paths and you could be walking about on them and just not know!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt Ashmore    376
17 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

To get to the above cliff you have to pay to get to the castle ruins, so you think I should delete it?

 

Personally, i would delete it. But I suspect other's may have different opinions.

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