National Trust - again...

[Inchiquin]

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 think it's more likely to be because NT are bloody-minded. It's been a source or irritation and frustration for photographers for years. In one instance I took a shot of a National Trust property while standing on a public road, i.e. perfectly legal, and Alamy still removed it.

 

Alan

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

I think it's more likely to be because NT are bloody-minded. It's been a source or irritation and frustration for photographers for years. In one instance I took a shot of a National Trust property while standing on a public road, i.e. perfectly legal, and Alamy still removed it.

 

Alan

They did that to me but put them back when I demonstrated the ROW. It's a bit of a toss-up.

The problem, even when you're not in one of their properties, is that the NT assert that taking photographs on a footpath (as opposed to a road) isn't a permissible activity- they say you can only walk on one. That's one of the pieces of nonsense they don't want tested in court.

[Allan Bell]

36 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

They did that to me but put them back when I demonstrated the ROW. It's a bit of a toss-up.

The problem, even when you're not in one of their properties, is that the NT assert that taking photographs on a footpath (as opposed to a road) isn't a permissible activity- they say you can only walk on one. That's one of the pieces of nonsense they don't want tested in court.

 

So they want photographers to walk on the roads and be knocked down by vehicles so the NT will not be bothered by them.

 

NT could be done for inciting obstruction of the highways.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

So they want photographers to walk on the roads and be knocked down by vehicles so the NT will not be bothered by them.

 

NT could be done for inciting obstruction of the highways.

 

Allan

 

No. My point was only about footpaths in relation to Inch's comment.

[Harry Harrison]

19 hours ago, geogphotos said:

permit is £180 inclusive of vat

Thanks, that's gone up a bit then but I think I was looking at something from 2014. Sometimes it's good to have a new challenge (speaking as someone who would like to think of a new challenge) so I hope it goes well. I was a bit suspicious of that "50% of any profit we receive" as opposed to "50% of any sale" but I suppose that's no different to the Alamy distributor thing.

[Harry Harrison]

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

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.

Yes, they have commissioned some very good photographers in the past and probably still do, Joe Cornish started with them I think. The quality of light and the direction it is coming from is so important with garden photography and those photographers will have access when the public aren't allowed in, very early morning for example.  I used to take my films to CPL in Reading soon after they opened. Sometimes I would bump into a garden photographer who was doing the same, he was just starting out then. I was coming from the other side of Reading, he'd been down to Devon and back to catch the dawn light, the magic hour etc. He was very good indeed and went on to be very high profile, probably still is.

[Simon]

On 20/07/2023 at 17:34, geogphotos said:

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!

I tried it briefly, it was a nightmare to get anything uploaded and approved, seemed to be one guy doing it - so deemed to be a waste of money and I cancelled it.