spacecadet Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Oh dear, has the NT been throwing its weight around again, or is the new policy to leave it to contributors? http://www.alamy.com/blog/photography-private-property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 So... if you climb over the wall and avoid the ticket desk then you're fine with the NT? Bit of a quandary if you take a few stock shots while burgling one of their properties ... which crime do you confess to, breach of copyright or burglary? Which is worse? The blog entry is a bit pointed, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I'm glad to see Alamy clarifying the situation that it is only on NT sites where there is an entry charge. I've not been clear about this at all until now. Although that would seem to rule out the Giant's Causeway which is a terrible shame if true - it is such a unique natural feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 What if we fly a drone over? Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 What if we fly a drone over? Regards Craig But you would need to be licenced to use it for our (business) use. Personally I find it cheaper to ignore NT (and English/Scottish Heritage) sites. They are done to death anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Walker Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Personally I find it cheaper to ignore NT (and English/Scottish Heritage) sites. They are done to death anyway! +1 - Waste of time covering NT as far as I can see. Plenty of other subjects to look for. My other thought is that why on earth do they want to control photographic use. Every published image of a NT property is free advertising - stuffed shirt idiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 I'm glad to see Alamy clarifying the situation that it is only on NT sites where there is an entry charge. I've not been clear about this at all until now. Although that would seem to rule out the Giant's Causeway which is a terrible shame if true - it is such a unique natural feature. You don't have to pay for that. They just make it difficult to avoid the charge and don't mention the right of way on the website. The pay-to-enter distinction rather proves they're making it up as they go along- the byelaw applies to all NT land but they're only applying it to pay-to-enter. They also display woeful ignorance of the concept of property releases. They are using a byelaw to try to establish a commercial monopoly which may itself be unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Personally I find it cheaper to ignore NT (and English/Scottish Heritage) sites. They are done to death anyway! +1 - Waste of time covering NT as far as I can see. Plenty of other subjects to look for. My other thought is that why on earth do they want to control photographic use. Every published image of a NT property is free advertising - stuffed shirt idiots! Actually in part they are defending the livelihood of the photographers who are part of their own stock library. You can get a permit to shoot NT property...been widely discussed before. And not all advertising is wanted, I shot NT property (with permission) in slide days and at certain properties they really needed to know if an article was coming out in the press since they would have to deal with added parking problems - a real issue in some places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 You can get a permit to shoot NT property...been widely discussed before. Not to put images anywhere but their own library, you can't. It's in the same letter asserting the byelaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Personally I find it cheaper to ignore NT (and English/Scottish Heritage) sites. They are done to death anyway! +1 - Waste of time covering NT as far as I can see. Plenty of other subjects to look for. My other thought is that why on earth do they want to control photographic use. Every published image of a NT property is free advertising - stuffed shirt idiots! They have their own agency which has its own images on Alamy and probably on other agencies as well. Sorry to say it's for all property, not just the ones you have to pay for, according to their policy. This has been debated in the UK a lot. The solution is to put the images in a library outside of the UK jurisdiction. My guess is that they will not be foolish enough to go after an English newspaper publishing images from a large US agency. (They may send you a bill though, if you're UK based.) Maybe you could even put a restriction on your images, you have with a UK agency. If that agency would have National Trust images in its collection, it would be pretty simple: do those images earn more than the images of the non-aligned photographers. After all the whole thing is about money. Not about principle. My guess is that Alamy did the math and that most of the images would go to national clients. It would be interesting to know if the math still holds after they cleansed the collection. After all why not counter sue? Yes we obliged, but it's costing us money and that's unfair competition. However the public may be in favor of the NT. It's one of the UK's most favorite charities: 4.24 million can't be wrong. Their annual report over 14/15 boasts: [there's] Growing support for what we do. My guess is they're right. I found this article about the photographers' rights situation in the UK useful, but if you google, there's a lot more out there. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I gave up my membership of the NT many years ago, the photography thing was only a final straw. I felt that NT, and other similar bodies, were behaving as a private landlord rather than as a trustee of public assets. I have visited very few of their properties since.As I said earlier I see little point in taking yet more pictures of subjects that every photographer has in their portfolio (and similar properties overseas). Need to find my own niche, it's coming together I hope ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Not to put images anywhere but their own library, you can't. It's in the same letter asserting the byelaw. Nothing wrong with dealing with the NTPL, many pros have made a good deal of money from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Nothing wrong with dealing with the NTPL, many pros have made a good deal of money from it. Yes.. Just done two commissions for the NT/NTPL; their contract is one of the fairest around at the moment km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptoprocta Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 PLEASE Alamy, give us an editorial only button, instead of faffing around with restrictions (hoping we have the right combination), then getting emails asking us to remove them, as they limit sales (which is surely the point), then getting another email asking us to add them again to particular images. One button. Can't be too much to ask for, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Short sighted view by NT, they would probably make more money from the entrance fees of shooters than they ever would from stock photo sales. I'm still a member. There are some properties (mainly the grounds and gardens, houses don't do it for me) that I like to visit time and time again, but it's very frustrating not being able to market shots taken there. Yes, I could join their scheme, but, when I last looked, the cost appeared to outweigh any probable benefit. ( Best calendar sales this year $48 gross so $24 to me, it's just not realistic). Surely they can't be worried about competition from stock shooters turning up on the day when the places are crowded with punters. I can envisage editorial shots including the visitors ($3 Net from the DM), but to get decent stuff you need to be there before/after closing time, for the better light, when there are no people about, and when you can use a tripod indoors. They might think about taking a leaf out of Durham cathedral's book, when they allocate an evening to photographers and charge a reasonable fee for the privilege. Some of the preserved railway lines also do this, and the fact that they continue to provide the service indicates to me that they are making money out of it. Finally, it gives me infinite pleasure to report that Alamy has just sold one of my shots of a NT property ........... taken from a public path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 How many images of NT properties are available from the competition? Any of those competitors based in the UK? How many images that are being published come from NT photographers and how many from their competitors? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 How many images of NT properties are available from the competition? Any of those competitors based in the UK? How many images that are being published come from NT photographers and how many from their competitors? wim Just had a quick look at another agency. Some photos of NT houses are offered as RF, only a few mention the NT, and I could not find any with the NTPL credit. By no means an exhaustive search however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Okay ... Let me get this straight ... there are so many pictures of a place (or small group of places) that there's a whole agency that's devoted to it. And those places are absolutely filled with with amateur photographers shooting and submitting zillions more images by the minute, and you are fighting to shoot even more pictures there? Do I have this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 20, 2015 Author Share Posted December 20, 2015 No.The National Trust owns hundreds of properties, tens of thousand of acres of land, a thousand miles of coastline and even 59 whole villages. Admission to some of the more popular stately homes can cost £15 a head. It is one of the wealthiest charities in the UK, has an income in the hundreds of millions and has its own picture library. It is trying to preserve that library's monopoly by claiming that a byelaw intended, fifty years ago, to prevent itinerant photographers hawking prints on the premises applies to any photograph taken for reward taken on its land. To this end it has been forcing Alamy to take down images of its properties. This of course means less competition for its own images on Alamy.Not everyone is enamoured of its chocolate-box approach to heritage or its treating of the nation's property as its own private club. Perhaps a bit of openness, in the form of photographs not under its control, would be a good idea all round.I don't know if amateur photographers are submitting 'zillions' of images but there are those of us who would like to be able to submit images and not be hamstrung by some bogus regulation; many other similar properties are happy with photography and do not seek to control it in this way. There are ways around it and many here do manage to have images published of NT properties.I wonder if you would put up with such a regulation in one of your national parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 How many images of NT properties are available from the competition? Any of those competitors based in the UK? How many images that are being published come from NT photographers and how many from their competitors? wim Don't forget that the NT has it own publications and uses for images which mostly come from the NTPL. I wasn't a fan after they changed the regulations, having worked for local NT property mangers in the past. Since they offer a route for photographers, I am less hostile to them. There are other organisations which charge for permits, happy to have had a number over the years and they've all been value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.