Richard Tadman

National Trust again

Recommended Posts

I've just come across this recent blog which raises a quite alarming issue of the National Trust attempting to claim commercial rights in views and landscapes of property they own.

 

https://tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/national-trust-targets-photographers.html?m=1

 

It's hard to believe that this is legal and enforceable and the repercussions would be mind-blowing!

 

Richard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399

We saw them off over images taken from rights of way so they're ratcheting up the CROW angle by asserting that photography isn't one of the expressly permitted activities on CROW land, so they can charge for it. Outrageous, but they have the lawyers.

Looks like they lied about not trying to enforce their byelaws on their free-to-enter land. Octavia Hill must be turning in her grave.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Rooney    1,302

When I lived in English, I did a number of jobs for the British Tourist Authority. They were pleasant, reasonable, and sane people to work with. What is wrong with this National Trust mob that they don't understand the value of FREE editorial publicity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399

What's wrong? Hard to tell. We do know that they recruited an ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us. Seems a charity with an income of half-a-billion a year feels justified in trying to extract every last penny from its estate and banks on its huge popularity with the British public to divide and rule.

It's easy to paint us as rapacious exploiters of the public realm for our own profit with a policy decreed from on high and so distant from the staff and volunteers that it never even impinges on the day-to-day running of the various venues. For them it might as well not exist.

I'm not a fan of the NT, btw. In case I appear indifferent.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are obviously trying to corner the market for the National Trust Photo Library of which there were around 45,000 images on Alamy alone last I checked.

 

I did ask the NT recently about obtaining a licence to photograph on their property but it was abruptly rejected.

 

Seems they will try and copyright even the dirt under our feet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that the NT photo policy is quite carefully worded: -

 

"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. "

 

The use of the word "at" is interesting in that it seems to have been carefully chosen to circumvent the legal right to take photographs from public areas, while implying that any photography is forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Baker    114
Quote

We do know that they recruited an ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us

 

Whaat? First I've heard of this. That's a breach of market confidentiality, surely?

 

Richard.

Edited by Richard Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    214

I enquired ( twice at several year intervals in case things had changed) about buying a NT photography permit but my impression is that it is set up to make it very hard and expensive to proceed. I would even have reluctantly accepted their rule about only supplying NTPL.

 

Annual NT membership

Annual permit fee

Annual Insurance

Annual membership of listed professional organisation  ( RPS is one) - annual fees and requires several years membership to gain awards/ accreditation

 

All we can do is tell anybody and everybody about it and let the NT know how much they are losing out in subscriptions from disgruntled photographers. One day the penny will drop that they would be much better off embracing photography and working with people rather than against them.

 

It just goes to illustrate how under-represented the interests of stock photographers are.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399
31 minutes ago, Richard Baker said:

 

Whaat? First I've heard of this. That's a breach of market confidentiality, surely?

 

Richard.

There was a rumour about it a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Baker    114
Quote

An ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us .. There was a rumour about it a while back.

I'd be surprised if this was true. An ex-employee rifling through his old company's archive to whistleblow on its contributors doesn't sound legally responsible. If it was proved, the National trust could be taken to court, no?

 

Richard.

Edited by Richard Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399

All Alamy's images are publicly accessible. Only the idea needed to have come from said employee. Presumably they'd have transferable skills without needing to do anything illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freedom of Panorama provision.
Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorise the creation and distribution of derivative works. (Section 62 of the UK 
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)

I'm no lawyer but my reading of this suggests that copyright cannot be asserted - in the U.K. on views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399

This isn't about copyright but contract. NT is trying to assert that selling images without a permit is a breach of the conditions under which admission was granted. As I see it, it's a very narrow interpretation of CROW. But as I said, they have the lawyers and they're relying on us knuckling under. I doubt the NT actually want their assertions tested in court.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

This isn't about copyright but contract. NT is trying to assert that selling images without a permit is a breach of the conditions under which admission was granted. As I see it, it's a very narrow interpretation of CROW. But as I said, they have the lawyers and they're relying on us knuckling under. I doubt the NT actually want their assertions tested in court.


Spacecadet

I take your point but from the original link which I provided, I believe that the following is an attempt by NT to enforce a contractual relationship that doesn't [nor cannot legally] exist.


"A commercial photographer who was planning to shoot some action photographs for an outdoor publication on crags which fall within one of the NT’s extensive Snowdonia estates, has been quoted £250 to £400 per hour to carry out his assignment. A fact that will surprise many who like myself believed that while private individuals and organisations like the NT can own the land beneath our feet, those iconic views will eternally remain ours to freely enjoy and capture as we please. The idea that a view be owned by a private individual, business or organisation is almost beyond credibility, I would imagine, to most people."

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,399

I'm not saying the NT is correct, quite the contrary. I'm just outlining what might be its argument.

However photographing views is one thing. Shipping in cartloads of equipment, lighting and models, tearing up the ground with 4x4s and the rest, involving a member of staff to oversee, is something else. I can't know what the poster is talking about, but there's some justification in a fee for that sort of show. After all you'd pay if you used a stately home. Photographing isn't the same as using.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'm not saying the NT is correct, quite the contrary. I'm just outlining what might be its argument.

However photographing views is one thing. Shipping in cartloads of equipment, lighting and models, tearing up the ground with 4x4s and the rest, involving a member of staff to oversee, is something else. There's some justification in a fee for that sort of show. After all you'd pay if you used a stately home.


Indeed; I don't think anyone would take issue with you on that point.

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