Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The NT have a new competition to find the wraparound landscape image to be used on their 2020 Handbook. There are two prizes, the winner gets his or her picture used on the Handbook and £1500 to be spent on NT Holiday cottages. The runner up gets £500 to be spent on the same.

 

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/2020-national-trust-handbook-photography-competition

 

All entrants must be legal residents of the UK and their images may be used to promote the competition for a period of 5 years, other uses may be discussed. All images must be taken on NT property. Full terms & conditions here:

 

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/2020-national-trust-handbook-photography-competition-rules

 

The 29th June issue of Amateur Photographer magazine (actually came out on the 26th) published a very short letter from an Alamy contributor under the heading “Same old NT” pointing out that they made him remove all his pictures of Corfe Castle taken from public highways from Alamy so in his words "the NT has a nerve" running such a competition.

 

As it happens, and just by chance presumably, the Online Picture Of The Week is also of Corfe Castle, in B&W shrouded in mist, taken from a surrounding hill. The AP and the paper manufacturer that sponsor that weekly competition can use these pictures "for promotion purposes online and in social media".

 

In a comment underneath the letter the AP regret that the NT "are too often institutionally hostile to photographers with professional looking kit" and ask that any of their readers with experiences of dealing with the NT “good or bad or have taken pictures of their properties from public land” to write in and they will publish them."

 

Of course I am aware that the NT Photo Library is an important contributor to Alamy in their own right with over 45,000 images so discussion of any possible ambiguities here may not be encouraged, but you could always write to the AP if you had a particular experience to recount.

Edited by Harry Harrison
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the NT gets its claws into thousands of images that it knows it can bully anyone else out of publishing because it purports to have property rights in them. A property right it completely fails to mention in the Ts and Cs.  You couldn't make it up.

As far as photographers are concerned the NT is nothing but a monopolistic predator.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

As far as photographers are concerned the NT is nothing but a monopolistic predator.

Well I couldn't possibly comment (!) but hopefully this topic can stay up as a source of information for other Alamy contributors. Sorry if I seem a bit paranoid.

Share this post


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

Well I couldn't possibly comment (!) but hopefully this topic can stay up as a source of information for other Alamy contributors. Sorry if I seem a bit paranoid.

You're not. There has been plenty of discussion over the years about this and not many  here have a good word to say about the NT. It's misusing a sixty-year-old byelaw to strongarm image makers and providers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the weekend I happened on a conversation involving NT lifetime members - I politely asked them to speak out at the next AGM or whatever and request the NT revise its photography policy.  I explained why as a photographer I refuse to join.  I said I am not concerned with needing a property release for images taken on their land but it is unacceptable that they bully people for photos taken from public highways and paths where there is no legal requirement.  I explained about the photos of coastlines being removed.  I doubt it will do much good but I kind of figured it cannot harm to let ordinary members who do not have a clue what the organisation does in their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by Alamy some time ago that they had removed one of my images at NT request.

 

I proved to Alamy beyond doubt that the photo had been taken from a open public footpath and they reinstated the image in their catalogue.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 01/07/2019 at 16:47, Allan Bell said:

I was told by Alamy some time ago that they had removed one of my images at NT request.

 

I proved to Alamy beyond doubt that the photo had been taken from a open public footpath and they reinstated the image in their catalogue.

 

Allan

 

 

Some they do, some they don't, I found.

There's even the outrageous suggestion (I wish I'd bookmarked it) from the NT that it doesn't matter whether they are taken from rights of way on NT land or not, because photography isn't one of the things permitted on a RoW. I'd like to see that one in court, but of course we won't, because the last thing the NT wants is its bullying called to account in case it loses.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to test the NT's arrogance in a court of law, but don't have the $$$ to do so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Some they do, some they don't, I found.

There's even the outrageous suggestion (I wish I'd bookmarked it) from the NT that it doesn't matter whether they are taken from rights of way or not, because photography isn't one of the things permitted on a RoW. I'd like to see that one in court, but of course we won't, because the last thing the NT wants is its bullying called to account in case it loses.

 

16 hours ago, John Morrison said:

I would love to test the NT's arrogance in a court of law, but don't have the $$$ to do so...

It is high on my list of things to do if I ever win the lottery - because you know, for the giggles.  Also a proper public service of use to thousands to get an actual solid court of law ruling on the subject to stop organisations taking the wee wee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Over the weekend I happened on a conversation involving NT lifetime members - I politely asked them to speak out at the next AGM or whatever and request the NT revise its photography policy.  I explained why as a photographer I refuse to join.  I said I am not concerned with needing a property release for images taken on their land but it is unacceptable that they bully people for photos taken from public highways and paths where there is no legal requirement.  I explained about the photos of coastlines being removed.  I doubt it will do much good but I kind of figured it cannot harm to let ordinary members who do not have a clue what the organisation does in their name.

I may be wrong but I doubt if anyone has been asked for 'photos of coastlines being removed...' I am not a NT supporter but am a member as I use their carparks for free when I am photographing their coastlines - and nobody has ever asked me to remove photographs of 'their' coastlines.  St Michael's Mount is owned by the NT - check out the number of St Michael's Mount on Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how many of those are actual NT images?

 

I tried a search for those but it did not work.

 

Allan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

Wonder how many of those are actual NT images?

 

I tried a search for those but it did not work.

 

Allan

 

 

Just put in The National Trust Photolibrary in the Contributor name box in the Advanced search menu.

And maybe do a search at their own website.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gordon Scammell said:

I may be wrong but I doubt if anyone has been asked for 'photos of coastlines being removed...' I am not a NT supporter but am a member as I use their carparks for free when I am photographing their coastlines - and nobody has ever asked me to remove photographs of 'their' coastlines.  St Michael's Mount is owned by the NT - check out the number of St Michael's Mount on Alamy.

It was not on this agency but another - and the photos were linked to.  Taken from a footpath of a stretch of cliffs and I think a distant castle in one.  Apparently, the NT own the land with a significant number of miles of coastline - this was slap bang in the middle.  The person actually highlighted where they were stood on the clearly mapped public footpath - and a discussion ensued about shooting from below high water mark or from a boat.  Of course, the agency in question had rolled over and submitted instantly to NTs demands much to the photographer's disgust.

Like I said I totally get that for photos taken on their land they can require property releases and do not have a problem with that.  It is just I have seen so many examples of them overstepping the mark and trying to shut down stuff taken from a public property where they do not have the rights.  I mean if they want to be that pedantic about things why not have it so photographs of NT property can be submitted to them, and sold by them, as an agency, with photographers getting a percentage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check out the restrictions NT put on their images available through Alamy, it's a stretch figuring out if they are available for any uses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

for photos taken on their land they can require property releases and do not have a problem with that. 

Many of us do have a problem with that. The NT is a charity, a very wealthy one, but in this regard it behaves like a grubby monopolist misusing the law for its own ends.

Share this post


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

Many of us do have a problem with that. The NT is a charity, a very wealthy one, but in this regard it behaves like a grubby monopolist misusing the law for its own ends.

 

The NT likes to style itself as a custodian of our heritage, yet too often behaves in a high-handed manner worthy of a Victorian mill-owner...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Many of us do have a problem with that. The NT is a charity, a very wealthy one, but in this regard it behaves like a grubby monopolist misusing the law for its own ends.

 

41 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

The NT likes to style itself as a custodian of our heritage, yet too often behaves in a high-handed manner worthy of a Victorian mill-owner...

To be fair charity or not the owners of a property are legally entitled to images taken on their property to require licences to use commercially.  I do not treat NT any different from anyone else on this subject.   
Yes, it is an overbearing self-satisfied bully - but hey on its property that is up to it.  It just oversteps the legal mark on editorial shots and shots from public land - and on these it needs to be pulled up by someone but nobody has the cash.

Share this post


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

 

To be fair charity or not the owners of a property are legally entitled to images taken on their property to require licences to use commercially.

Are you sure about that? We'd all be really interested if there were a reported case of an owner successfully suing for damages. It''s always assumed, and publishers seem to insist in releases, but that doesn't mean they're legally necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am no fan of the NT. I visited the Farne Islands in June 2010 and the NT levied a charge of £1 to land on 'their' islands.

 

Last Saturday I visited again and the charge was £34.80 !  

Share this post


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

Are you sure about that? We'd all be really interested if there were a reported case of an owner successfully suing for damages. It''s always assumed, and publishers seem to insist in releases, but that doesn't mean they're legally necessary.

Now that is a legal argument you can find a lawyer to take through court lol.  I will settle for taking the NT and photos shot from public land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just to update this, I see that this week Amateur Photographer has published 3 letters from photographers commenting on the original letter that I reported on. All 3 seem to be professional in one way or another and they all condemn the NTs action in getting those images of Corfe Castle removed, given that they were taken from a public place. One has a letter from the NT actually admitting that he is able to sell his own images of an NT owned lighthouse since they were taken from a public place. Nothing from NT themselves.

 

...actually although they do certainly condemn their main drift is that the NT have no right to do this, "bullying" was one adjective used,

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The National Trust has never tested these photographer restrictions in court, and I doubt they ever will. But they will continue to throw their weight about and cling to bogus terms & conditions and ancient bylaws. And to be sure, they ain't a cheap day out! And they are a charity. Don't seem to embrace a very charitable attitude!

Edited by Robert M Estall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Has there ever been an online petition?

 

Before you ask the obvious. No, I don't want to start one.

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/08/2019 at 22:37, Robert M Estall said:

The National Trust has never tested these photographer restrictions in court, and I doubt they ever will. But they will continue to throw their weight about and cling to bogus terms & conditions and ancient bylaws. And to be sure, they ain't a cheap day out! And they are a charity. Don't seem to embrace a very charitable attitude!

 

I don't know about other agencies but Alamy just rolled over and gave in to their requests- or did they check it out and were advised that the NT may have a case!

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.