National Trust - again...

[M.Chapman]

https://cumbriacrack.com/2023/07/11/photographers-told-they-have-to-pay-to-take-pictures-on-national-trust-land/

 

Mark

[Robert M Estall]

Nothing really new going on. This seems to be connected to wedding photography location shoots and not our old argument about stock photography. But, as ever, I don't like to see National trust exercising their exclusion activities.  Basically, we are still at war!

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Robert M Estall said:

Nothing really new going on. This seems to be connected to wedding photography location shoots and not our old argument about stock photography. But, as ever, I don't like to see National trust exercising their exclusion activities.  Basically, we are still at war!

 

+1 - especially when they are not allowing local people to do their jobs in places like the Lake District which are vast. So much for looking after the land for the public. Very irritating. 

 

Kumar

[Nick Hatton]

I cant see anyway this could possibly hold up in court, surely you cant have a copyright on a landscape? Especially as no admission  has been paid so no contract.

[spacecadet]

6 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

I cant see anyway this could possibly hold up in court, surely you cant have a copyright on a landscape? Especially as no admission  has been paid so no contract.

Nothing to do with copyright.

Presumably NT is relying on the same byelaw they use to bully Alamy into removing images, and they don't want it tested in court in case they lose, so they resort to threats.

My view, which is worth exactly nothing, is that the byelaw doesn't prohibit the things they hope it does, because it was drafted to deal with itinerant photographers in the 1960s. The chaps who used to take your photo at the seaside and hand you a reference number to order a print. Almost before my time but not quite: my uncle was one.

Edited July 17, 2023 by spacecadet

[Allan Bell]

16 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Nothing to do with copyright.

Presumably NT is relying on the same byelaw they use to bully Alamy into removing images, and they don't want it tested in court in case they lose, so they resort to threats.

My view, which is worth exactly nothing, is that the byelaw doesn't prohibit the things they hope it does, because it was drafted to deal with itinerant photographers in the 1960s. The chaps who used to take your photo at the seaside and hand you a reference number to order a print. Almost before my time but not quite: my uncle was one.

 

I remember them.

 

Perhaps it could be an old new line of business in some way.

 

Thinks.🤔

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

....and the actual photographer said “I would maybe understand the fees for landscape photographers who specifically sell landscape images of places like Crummock,"

 

That's not entirely helpful, and just wrong in my view.

[Craig Yates]

As long as we respect the land and follow the designated paths we should be free to capture the beauty of our countryside and not be bullied by the likes of the National Trust.

And  a big no that landscape photographers should pay a fee, they should pay us for capturing those areas of natural beauty. I really hate the National Trust with a passion.

[Rebecca Ore]

I've vaguely followed this discussion over the years.   If I'm remembering correctly, the National Trust has its own photographers producing stock and may think that legal restrictions on others protects their photographers.    Is the National Trust a private charity or is it mixed government and private or is it fully nationalized?   Seems like if a private landowner, it can be more restrictive than if the land is part of government land like a national park or national forest in the US.  Have the US National Park Service ever restricted editorial commercial photography?

[spacecadet]

22 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said:

I've vaguely followed this discussion over the years.   If I'm remembering correctly, the National Trust has its own photographers producing stock and may think that legal restrictions on others protects their photographers.    Is the National Trust a private charity or is it mixed government and private or is it fully nationalized?   Seems like if a private landowner, it can be more restrictive than if the land is part of government land like a national park or national forest in the US.  Have the US National Park Service ever restricted editorial commercial photography?

It is a charity which is supposed to own its properties and land for the public good. UK National Parks here are very different from the US- the land is not owned by the government but by farmers, homeowners and other bodies- including the National Trust- and there are restrictions on land use within them. "National Park" is an indication of status, not ownership.

So in trying to control photography as it does the NT is behaving very much like a private landowner- and a quite rapacious one at that- and relying on a 60-year-old byelaw of dubious relevance.

 US National Parks do require permits for some jobs, but the rules seem much less restrictive than the NT's

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm

 

"In most cases, still photography does not require a permit. A permit is required for still photography only when: 

1. the activity takes place in an area closed to the public; or 
2. the activity uses a model, set, or prop; or 
3. the National Park Service would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity."  Specifically in relation to the thread:
4. "Portrait subjects, such as wedding parties and high school graduates, are not considered models, if the image will not be used to promote or sell a product or service."

Edited July 17, 2023 by spacecadet

[Richard Tadman]

The National Trust would do well to read the publication "The Book of Trespass" by Nick Hayes - a Sunday Times best seller. In summary, he argues cogently that the vast majority of our country is entirely unknown to us because we are banned from setting foot in it; due to a long history of enclosure, exploitation and dispossession of public rights. The words freehold and leasehold originated from giving the rights to 'hold' the land as opposed to owning it.
The NT will not want to go to Court but employ lawyers to attempt to intimidate and bully the public. Wake up NT - it's totally counter-productive and why I cancelled my membership.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

Does Nat Trust distinguish between

editorial usage & non-editorial (aka commercial in US) usage?

if not, does that clash with UK freedom of press in public places?
😕 or is there no such bloody freedom in UK...?
😣 blimey, pass the Earl Grey, mates...

REGARDLESS, MATES, FIGHT IT FIGHT IT

THEY'RE CHIPPING AWAY AT YOUR FREEDOMS !!

Edited July 17, 2023 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Dave Richards]

2 hours ago, Richard Tadman said:

The National Trust would do well to read the publication "The Book of Trespass" by Nick Hayes - a Sunday Times best seller. In summary, he argues cogently that the vast majority of our country is entirely unknown to us because we are banned from setting foot in it; due to a long history of enclosure, exploitation and dispossession of public rights. The words freehold and leasehold originated from giving the rights to 'hold' the land as opposed to owning it.
The NT will not want to go to Court but employ lawyers to attempt to intimidate and bully the public. Wake up NT - it's totally counter-productive and why I cancelled my membership.

Maybe we should all take and upload as many pictures taken of, or on, NT land as possible (not paid entry venues). That would give them a bit of exercise!!

Edited July 17, 2023 by Dave Richards
Added text

[Robert M Estall]

a mass upload of NT sites is only going to give Alamy more work, won't change any attitudes at NT. Only a court judgment might do that and NT are going to continue to avoid that. As for Trespass, this is almost universally misunderstood; the owner of the property must demonstrate damage in one sense or another. just entering a property without permission IS NOT TRESPASS in the UK.  it is a civil matter, not criminal, so the police are not likely to respond unless a case can be made in an alternative notion

Edited July 18, 2023 by Robert M Estall

[Dave Richards]

1 hour ago, Robert M Estall said:

a mass upload of NT sites is only going to give Alamy more work, won't change any attitudes at NT. Only a court judgment might do that and NT are going to continue to avoid that. As for Trespass, this is almost universally misunderstood; the owner of the property must demonstrate damage in one sense or another. just entering a property without permission IS NOT TRESPASS in the UK.  it is a civil matter, not criminal, so the police are not likely to respond unless a case can be made in an alternative notion

Agree regarding mass upload, just me being a bit rebellious. I do have a personal axe to grind re: NT.

[Jansos]

On 17/07/2023 at 18:46, Richard Tadman said:

The National Trust would do well to read the publication "The Book of Trespass" by Nick Hayes - a Sunday Times best seller. In summary, he argues cogently that the vast majority of our country is entirely unknown to us because we are banned from setting foot in it; due to a long history of enclosure, exploitation and dispossession of public rights. The words freehold and leasehold originated from giving the rights to 'hold' the land as opposed to owning it.
The NT will not want to go to Court but employ lawyers to attempt to intimidate and bully the public. Wake up NT - it's totally counter-productive and why I cancelled my membership.

Once upon a time I had a membership but I have almost stopped visiting NT properties due their ridiculous stipulations.

[M.Chapman]

Another related article here

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/wedding-photographer-stung-by-national-trust-fees-for-shooting-on-its-land

Perhaps one of the National Papers will pick up the story before long...

 

Mark

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

> Fees include a £50 photography fee plus photographers must pay an

> additional fee if they then wish to use the images for marketing purposes.

 

Here's what one bloody Yank thinks, by cracky:
💂🏼sticking his nose where no Yank nose belongs
a. charge fee, yes, but minimal, say £10, to cut down on chances

others visiting are annoyed by flocks of wedding shooters...

b. drop marketing fees as that happens off property

 

all this has prolly been triggered by residents being annoyed

by wedding shoots spoiling pristine views residents came to see...?

👨‍👩‍👧‍👧 we want our unspoiled views, the Yank has it right gawblimey

[Dave Richards]

10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Another related article here

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/wedding-photographer-stung-by-national-trust-fees-for-shooting-on-its-land

Perhaps one of the National Papers will pick up the story before long...

 

Mark

I resigned my membership in protest some years ago after a run-in with them. I had taken pictures in the village of Montacute which I uploaded to Alamy. Got an email from Alamy to say that NT had asked them to delete my pictures. Seems the keywords of Montacute and house had brought the images to NT’s attention and they jumped on it without actually checking the pictures, which were of houses in the village, not Montacute House NT property which I had not visited and had not photographed.

NT have had some really bad press in the last year or two so I’m with you in hoping the press will pick up on that some time soon. I think the Mail ran the earlier stories.

[geogphotos]

After years of vehement opposition I had a change of heart and am having a punt on the NTPL permit scheme. 

 

Just to be different!

[Ace]

The main reason I will never join as a member. 

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

and am having a punt on the NTPL permit scheme. 

 

Professional photographers' permit scheme

Professional photographers can now acquire an annual license from National Trust Images to take photographs out of doors on pay-on-entry National Trust land for editorial use. For further information about the scheme please email permit.photography@nationaltrust.org.uk

 

Interesting, it used to be £75 a year I think, so you submit them to the NTPL for them to sell and then "you are paid 50% of any profit we receive". Maybe they put them on Alamy.....

 

I suppose it means that you don't get hassled by jobsworths at NT sites.

 

"You can join our Professional Photographers Permit Scheme, which allows you to take images outside at all National Trust properties for a year. This would entitle you to sell images directly for editorial uses but would not allow you to sell images through photo libraries. All images are sent into NTPL for sale on an agency basis (i.e. you are paid 50% of any profit we receive)."

[geogphotos]

permit is £180 inclusive of vat

[spacecadet]

17 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

all this has prolly been triggered by residents being annoyed

by wedding shoots spoiling pristine views residents came to see...?

I know this has happened in the US but no, no reports of that. Just the NT rapaciously throwing its weight about, I fear.

Unfortunately the NT is on a par with the NHS in the affections of the nation, so fighting it is an uphill struggle.

[Steve F]

14 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

"You can join our Professional Photographers Permit Scheme, which allows you to take images outside at all National Trust properties for a year. This would entitle you to sell images directly for editorial uses but would not allow you to sell images through photo libraries. All images are sent into NTPL for sale on an agency basis (i.e. you are paid 50% of any profit we receive)."

 

I might have considered paying for this until I read this. I've seen NT photos on their postcards - the sort of landscape images where you have to keep going back day after day until you get the right weather and lighting conditions. Can't compete with that when I'm visiting with family on a day trip and getting a few shots.