losdemas Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 13 hours ago, geogphotos said: The other bone of contention is how intentionally difficult they make it to submit photos to the NTPL. A percentage of their images are taken by 'volunteers' and provided to them for free. These volunteer togs have to conform to strict requested requirements and also provide model releases when necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, losdemas said: A percentage of their images are taken by 'volunteers' and provided to them for free. These volunteer togs have to conform to strict requested requirements and also provide model releases when necessary. My nearest NT site is Sutton Hoo. The NTPL ones on their website are presumably by volunteers - they do not even offer good coverage of their own sites. Even so they prevent others from making images available either through NTPL on Alamy. My pictures of Sutton Hoo are available elsewhere apparently beyond the influence of NT's threats. A couple are on Alamy ( see below). Overall probably best not to think about them and just steer clear. One day the penny might drop that they lose more revenue and goodwill over this than if had an inclusive, welcoming policy towards photography. At Sutton Hoo there is a public footpath that goes right next to and through the burial mound site without any need to pay the entrance fee. It is only a short walk from the road. Just drive past the main entrance and park on the left at the next junction. The footpath starts on the opposite side of the road and runs down the edge of a field. Edited August 17, 2020 by geogphotos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, geogphotos said: At Sutton Hoo there is a public footpath that goes right next to and through the burial mound site without any need to pay the entrance fee. It is only a short walk from the road. Just drive past the main entrance and park on the left at the next junction. The footpath starts on the opposite side of the road and runs down the edge of a field. That's where I took mine. Very helpful of you to point it out- with luck it will cost the NT a few quid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb photos Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: That's where I took mine. Very helpful of you to point it out- with luck it will cost the NT a few quid. Quite a few estates, not just NT, have public footpaths running through them. Close to me Waddesdon Manor, and non NT Blenheim Palace. The walk from the rear of the Blenheim Palace estate through a turnstile brings back memories. As that entrance is fairly remote cars are at risk parked nearby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Photography Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 I just noticed that the Worcestershire 2021 calendar (Carousel Calendars) has a picture of Hanbury Hall. This is a National Trust property, but the image is credited to Paul Weston / Alamy. It was not taken from a Public footpath. Worcestershire Calendar 2021 I also noticed that the National Trust use Carousel Calendars as their official publishers for NT calendars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, MB Photography said: I just noticed that the Worcestershire 2021 calendar (Carousel Calendars) has a picture of Hanbury Hall. This is a National Trust property, but the image is credited to Paul Weston / Alamy. It was not taken from a Public footpath. Worcestershire Calendar 2021 I also noticed that the National Trust use Carousel Calendars as their official publishers for NT calendars. I have seen many NT properties in these calendars over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philtheclick Posted January 30, 2022 Author Share Posted January 30, 2022 I went to a NT property today and perused a few books published by the NT and was amazed to see quite a number of Alamy images in them, all properly acknowledged and credited. From this it would seem reasonable to assume that images can be uploaded if marked for editorial use only? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Tucker Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 On 30/01/2022 at 17:16, philtheclick said: I went to a NT property today and perused a few books published by the NT and was amazed to see quite a number of Alamy images in them, all properly acknowledged and credited. From this it would seem reasonable to assume that images can be uploaded if marked for editorial use only? I don't know, but if you read further up this thread you will see that NT license their own images through Alamy, so quite likely that is what they are? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 On 30/01/2022 at 17:16, philtheclick said: I went to a NT property today and perused a few books published by the NT and was amazed to see quite a number of Alamy images in them, all properly acknowledged and credited. From this it would seem reasonable to assume that images can be uploaded if marked for editorial use only? There are periodic purges - perhaps when the NT puts pressure on Alamy - and then things slip back and NT images get uploaded again until the next purge arrives. I assume that it greatly helps those doing the purging if they can search for 'National Trust' rather than individual property names one at a time. The whole thing is outrageous. The NT photo library is full of gaps and yet they make it almost impossible to submit to their agency ( even if you wanted to). I tend not to visit NT properties- by which I mean the stately homes and that sort of thing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 The NT's reliance on their bylaws to prevent publication of photographs of NT properties is fundamentally flawed, in many respects. The power conferred by bylaws regulates behaviour on site, for the NT's management of the properties. The NT, however, purports to extend the prohibition on the activity of commercial photography on its land, to the later commercial use of photographs taken on its land, irrespective of the reasons for which they were originally taken. That is not what the bylaw governs, they are not necessarily the same thing at all. The bylaw deals with behaviour while at the property. It does not confer rights to restrict the later use of photographs, even their commercial use. I have been a life member of the NT for decades. I have literally thousands of photographs taken at NT properties over very many years, including while I was working full time and before the idea of selling my photos or stock photography had even occurred to me. I took the photographs for personal pleasure and use, as a hobbyist and for memories. I did not take them for commercial purposes, they were not at that time commercial photography. My subsequent use of images that I later decided to sell for commercial purposes, after I had decided to enter into the world of selling my images and stock photography, which were not taken for commercial purposes at the point in time at which they were taken, is not governed by the bylaw, and the NT does not have any powers to restrict their use. They were not taken using behaviour that was at that time in breach of the bylaw, and once the site has been left, nothing can change that. I did not take the pictures for commercial purposes: their later use is therefore not controlled by the bylaw. There is nothing that the NT can do to prevent their subsequent commercial use. The NT has no power to re-characterise a later commercial use of a photograph which was not originally taken for commercial purposes, even if it is later used for commercial purposes. If the bylaw is enforceable at all (as to which there are other issues), it can only apply to images which, at the point in time at which they were taken, were taken for specifically commercial purposes. It is even arguable that pictures taken today, which are taken primarily for pleasure and personal use (which is what I still do) but with the possibility of some being used for stock photography, are not taken for commercial purposes (i.e. they were at the point in time at which they were taken not photographs taken for a commercial purpose, and thus not within the prohibition on commercial photography), but that is a separate argument. Graham 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 All that makes perfect sense, unfortunately since NT have 45,687 images with Alamy I don't see Alamy resisting any demands they might make. I'd like to be proved to be wrong about that obviously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Graham said: The NT's reliance on their bylaws to prevent publication of photographs of NT properties is fundamentally flawed, in many respects. ............................. but that is a separate argument. Graham Probably well argued for all I know but Alamy isn't going to give you the opportunity to argue it in court. They just follow the line of least resistance and remove images then try to make it a breach of contract even to have them in our collections. As I understand it the byelaw was introduced to control itinerant photographers, which is why it reads as it does. The "mission creep" to try to cover any commercial use I think is quite recent. As I've said before we need a wealthy benefactor to get a legal permission and then force a prosecution. I suspect the NT doesn't want this in court because it knows it would lose, so it resorts to bully-boy tactics. Edited February 2, 2022 by spacecadet 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: I suspect the NT doesn't want this in court because it knows it would lose, so it resorts to bully-boy tactics. That is exactly their modus operandi, coupled with their commercial clout to get image hosts to delete images. Graham 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said: All that makes perfect sense, unfortunately since NT have 45,687 images with Alamy I don't see Alamy resisting any demands they might make. I'd like to be proved to be wrong about that obviously. Yes, it really doesn't matter what the legal position is. Alamy makes the rules and decides what can and cannot be sold here. The NT may influence those rules and how they are applied due to the commercial value of its collection here and can use the old byelaws as a way to justify its actions. Mark Edited February 2, 2022 by M.Chapman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) Life is too short and I have better things to do, so I don't bother with National Trust properties anymore. Relinquished my membership of NT last year. Edited February 2, 2022 by Dave Richards added text 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 I have recently been in touch with the NT Filming / image departments regarding taking photographs and submitting them to a photo agency such as Alamy. I explained that they would all be marked as 'Editorial Use only' etc. The reply which I finally received from them was, " We do not permit the sale of our photographs to Image Libraries. Any images that are there are in libraries are there without permission and we are working with the agencies to have these removed. " I have just checked Alamy for "National Trust" and come up with 100,033 images. Granted quite a lot are from outside the boundaries, a lot are not pay to enter sites, such as coastal and moorland sites etc. but also some are of the buildings and must have been taken within the grounds.. I had 78 images on sale, some of which have made sales and no questions were asked. So it would appear that some people are turning a blind eye to the rules and regs of the NT which surely agencies and picture buyers should be aware of. I have deleted my 78 images, as the fees earned don't make it worthwhile if there were to be any repercussions, but as an NT member I will attempt to raise the issue at the next AGM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 (edited) On 11/01/2023 at 14:58, Stuart said: "We do not permit the sale of our photographs to Image Libraries. Any images that are there are in libraries are there without permission and we are working with the agencies to have these removed" Assuming that's an exact quote of what the NT said, the term "our photographs" is a bit strange. Typo or deliberate obfuscation? Do they mean photographs owned by them, or copies thereof? Do they mean photographs of any property owned by them? Strange wording since NT Photo Library DO sell photos via Alamy. Mark Edited January 13, 2023 by M.Chapman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 (edited) On 11/01/2023 at 14:58, Stuart said: I have just checked Alamy for "National Trust" and come up with 100,033 images As Mark says 'The National Trust Photo Library' have 45,687 images on Alamy, but I suppose that also gives them a certain amount of influence. Edited January 13, 2023 by Harry Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said: As Mark says 'The National Trust Photo Library' have 45,687 images on Alamy, but I suppose that also gives them a certain amount of influence. Half of Ian's influence then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 13 minutes ago, Steve F said: Half of Ian's influence then... That would indeed be an interesting contest 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Steve F said: Half of Ian's influence then... In terms of images yes... But maybe not in terms of sales revenue generated? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jansos Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 On 02/02/2022 at 17:24, Dave Richards said: Life is too short and I have better things to do, so I don't bother with National Trust properties anymore. Totally agree. I don't step onto NT land/ properties anymore - it is too much of a temptation to pull the camera out and start shooting and then get frustrated by all the legal ramifications. Anyone know what the situation with Historic England /English Heritage these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Other organizations have similar rules but don't cut up rough when they see photographers making a few sales. NT are out on their own! They would dearly like to outlaw the public footpath rule as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 2 hours ago, Jansos said: Totally agree. I don't step onto NT land/ properties anymore - it is too much of a temptation to pull the camera out and start shooting and then get frustrated by all the legal ramifications. Anyone know what the situation with Historic England /English Heritage these days? I wrote to them quite a while ago and their official response is similar to the NT but they don't appear to enforce or care so much. Don't think that they have their own photo library so don't have the same motivation to try and create a monoploy situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Does the NT take the same approach on e.g. beaches that they own? The Gower Peninsula, for example, is miles long, seems a bit ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now