National Trust images removed from Alamy

[IDP]

A few years ago, I became vaguely aware of the National Trust's rather draconian policy on photography and, as with many others here, it caused me some concern. Up until that time, I never considered who owned or ran a property of historical interest - I'd just go along, pay my entrance fee and, if I wanted to, take photographs. Naturally, over the years, I submitted a number of these to Alamy. I wasn't a member of the National Trust and didn't take much interest in it.

 

As I say, a few years ago I did become aware of their photography policy, largely due to a number of discussions on the Alamy forum. I don't know how long the terms had been in effect nor, therefore, did I know if my previously submitted images were covered. However, it did seem that there was an uneasy truce and that the NT weren't rigorously enforcing the policy. Consequently, I continued to submit images of Trust properties to Alamy.

 

It would seem that the truce has now ended. As of yesterday, Alamy have done a mass deletion of National Trust images - sadly, without informing us first. It's obviously been a work in progress for some time, given that every image seems to have been individually evaluated. However, there are still some anomalies with the few images left up for sale.

 

The irony is that, although Alamy have taken this step, RF images of the same properties are still available on microstock sites. Consequently, I don't know if this deletion is a unilateral decision by Alamy or whether they came under pressure from the NT.

 

Whatever the motivation, I don't feel it's right that working photographers should be prevented from photographing historic landmarks that are, after all, owned by the nation. Perhaps it's time that the Trust's policy was challenged in court.

 

Ian D

 

Edit: Images obviously taken from a public right of way haven't been removed

[Tony]

 

"I don't feel it's right that working photographers should be prevented from photographing historic landmarks that are, after all, owned by the nation. Perhaps it's time that the Trust's policy was challenged in court."

 

Ian D

 

HEAR, HEAR

 

Alamy has removed images of National Trust property taken from public places???

 

Even the National Trust says they have no objection to this, plus they know there is nothing they can legally do to stop it.

[spacecadet]

I have lost some of Stourhead which were definitely taken from the right of way because I didn't pay to get in. One sold last week. I'm not having this.

[Camera Girl]

Totally agree with both of the above.  The National Trust is meant to be protecting and maintaining properties and natural landscapes for us, the nation, in trust.  It should not see thier 'ownership' of them as if they were a private company or landlord.  It is the nation that owns the properties and therefore we photographers as part of the nation should be perfectly entitled to take pictures of and on our properties and do with them what we like.  I am happy to pay an entrance fee (and would even consider membership if they changed their attitudes and policies) in order to help with the costs of maintenance, but after that I feel I should be able to use any photographs as I see fit.

 

It is also very short-sighted of the NT to refuse to let us use the images 'for commercial purposes'.  \I can't envisage any iage being used in a negative way, so they are likely to be used to illustrate editorial articles, made into greetings cards or used in calendars - all of which is free publicity for the properties which will generate more footfall and therefore more income for the NT.  I did once contact the NT to ask permission to use an image taken in the gardens of one of the properties and they said no - it would compete with their own greetings cards (though I have yet to see one of their cards actually feature that particular garden). I was not intending to sell my cards through their shops and I would think that individual retailers would decide whether or not my cards would compete with any others they stock and choose which range they prefer.

 

Aaaaargh!  Don't get me onto the subject of the NT!!!

[spacecadet]

I'm more put out by the lack of notice from Alamy. I wonder what else is affected. No doubt their cover is the new contract term. I'll be asking for a list of what's been deleted because MI doesn't show it.

[Alamy]

We're working closely with the National Trust on this and they say you’re very welcome to take pictures while visiting their properties for your own personal use but they don’t permit photography at its pay-on-entry properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form (without consent). They also say under no circumstances should images be submitted to photo libraries and agencies.

 

Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission.

 

If you’ve got any images of National Trust properties on Alamy think back to when you were there. If you paid to get in then we’d recommend deleting these from your Alamy collection. If you didn’t pay to enter, it’s fine to have them on sale but you should be adding ‘editorial only’ restrictions.

 

We're in the process of sweeping through the collection to remove any images that do not adhere to the NT policy. 

 

To avoid any confusion, we are waiting until the sweep of image deletions is finished before sending email notifications. Some of you will have already seen your images deleted - we will confirm in the email which of your images have been included.

 

Once you've received the email, if you believe any of the images we’ve listed for removal are taken on public property then please let us know and we can investigate with the National Trust and do our best to get them back on sale as quickly as possible.

 

We appreciate that many of you do not agree with the National Trust's policy, however we have taken this action after careful consideration for what is best for our business and our contributors. 

 

Thanks,

 

Alamy

[Tony]

So you have deleted around 6 of my images taken from a public footpath or other public place.

 

Just because the images have National Trust in the keywords it dosn't automatically mean they are in contravention of their draconian policy.

[Alamy]

As mentioned in the statement above, if you believe any of the images the NT have listed for removal are taken on public property then please let us know and we can investigate with the National Trust and do our best to get them back on sale as quickly as possible for you.

 

Cheers,

 

Alamy

[spacecadet]

Only England. There are separate National Trusts.

I must say this seems underhand. Alamy is usually so open. Notations that the images were taken from rights of way have been ignored.

[Pearl]

Only England. There are separate National Trusts.

I must say this seems underhand. Alamy is usually so open. Notations that the images were taken from rights of way have been ignored.

 

I don't know about Northern Ireland but Wales does not have it's own National Trust so I presume this applies to Welsh properties too.

 

Pearl

[Alex Ramsay]

Yeas it does - I've just checked my Welsh NT properties and they've all been greyed out

[spacecadet]

At least this has been done with some attention- images containing IP which doesn't obviously belong the the NT have been left (unless it's by mistake, of course) but it is rather patchy. Mine look as if they could have been taken from inside the pale but fortunately, hopefully, I can prove they weren't. I hope I don't have to resort to photogrammetry.

[Guest]

The NTPL has a scheme to allow professional photographers to photograph pay to enter properties, they also have long supported photographers via the NTPL and commissions. Indeed about 46,000 images from the NTPL are on Alamy.

[spacecadet]

Yes, and they are now extending their monopoly. They are not supporting photographers by removing their images.

However they do not own the views of mine which were photographed from the right of way and which have sold.

[spacecadet]

Edit: Images obviously taken from a public right of way haven't been removed

Images not obviously so taken have, q.v. The "policy" they follow dates presumably from the 1965 byelaw which they are abusing,so everything's covered, just about.

We do indeed need a rich benefactor to challenge them in court, but my suspicion is that they may not want to test the law, for fear of losing, so they just throw their considerable weight about.

[wiskerke]

The NTPL has a scheme to allow professional photographers to photograph pay to enter properties, they also have long supported photographers via the NTPL and commissions. Indeed about 46,000 images from the NTPL are on Alamy.

 

Which obviously needed a bit of help.

Or is this too cynical?

 

wim

[Abiyoyo]

According to Wikipedia "Historically, the trust tended to focus on English country houses, which still make up the largest part of its holdings, but it also protects historic landscapes such as in the Lake District, historic urban property"

 

That's means that all Lake District images could be removed as well?

 

As well as "The trust owns or has covenant over about a quarter of the Lake District;[19] it has similar control over about 12% of the Peak District National Park (e.g. South Peak Estate and High Peak Estate).[19] It owns or protects roughly one fifth of the coastline in England, Wales and Northern Ireland"

[spacecadet]

 

The NTPL has a scheme to allow professional photographers to photograph pay to enter properties, they also have long supported photographers via the NTPL and commissions. Indeed about 46,000 images from the NTPL are on Alamy.

 

Which obviously needed a bit of help.

Or is this too cynical?

 

wim

 

No, it isn't.

[spacecadet]

According to Wikipedia "Historically, the trust tended to focus on English country houses, which still make up the largest part of its holdings, but it also protects historic landscapes such as in the Lake District, historic urban property"

 

That's means that all Lake District images could be removed as well?

No. They own some of the land but are only  trying to remove images of pay-to-enter properties.

[Guest]

 

The NTPL has a scheme to allow professional photographers to photograph pay to enter properties, they also have long supported photographers via the NTPL and commissions. Indeed about 46,000 images from the NTPL are on Alamy.

 

Which obviously needed a bit of help.

Or is this too cynical?

 

wim

 

 

Cynical and probably wrong. The Trust commissioned photographers when I was shooting NT property for local estate managers in the 90s and I'm sure long before. They have their own publications and so have long needed photography. In the 90s there was concern over articles about gardens which couldn't cope with influxes of visitors, the one I mainly shot was one example (though parking facilites are now well improved).

[Pearl]

According to Wikipedia "Historically, the trust tended to focus on English country houses, which still make up the largest part of its holdings, but it also protects historic landscapes such as in the Lake District, historic urban property"

 

That's means that all Lake District images could be removed as well?

 

As well as "The trust owns or has covenant over about a quarter of the Lake District;[19] it has similar control over about 12% of the Peak District National Park (e.g. South Peak Estate and High Peak Estate).[19] It owns or protects roughly one fifth of the coastline in England, Wales and Northern Ireland"

 

No it shouldn't.  Read what Alamy has said above - this is the relevant bit

"Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

 

The NT also owns a lot of Snowdonia which is free to access so should be safe.

 

Pearl

[MDM]

 

According to Wikipedia "Historically, the trust tended to focus on English country houses, which still make up the largest part of its holdings, but it also protects historic landscapes such as in the Lake District, historic urban property"

 

That's means that all Lake District images could be removed as well?

 

As well as "The trust owns or has covenant over about a quarter of the Lake District;[19] it has similar control over about 12% of the Peak District National Park (e.g. South Peak Estate and High Peak Estate).[19] It owns or protects roughly one fifth of the coastline in England, Wales and Northern Ireland"

 

No it shouldn't.  Read what Alamy has said above - this is the relevant bit

"Images taken on free, open access coastal and countryside land owned by the National Trust can be sold editorially without permission."

 

The NT also owns a lot of Snowdonia which is free to access so should be safe.

 

Pearl

 

 

Yes but presumably this means that all non-editorial uses are forbidden. For example, where does Alamy's Personal Use category come in this (presumably not allowed) and what about selling prints on PoD sites or even privately?

[spacecadet]

One policy is just to get on with it. QC don't know what most of these places look like. I'm asking for all my keywording from deleted images. Just in case I need them for another purpose, of course.

[IDP]

 

 

The NTPL has a scheme to allow professional photographers to photograph pay to enter properties, they also have long supported photographers via the NTPL and commissions. Indeed about 46,000 images from the NTPL are on Alamy.

 

 

Which obviously needed a bit of help.

Or is this too cynical?

 

wim

 

Cynical and probably wrong. The Trust commissioned photographers when I was shooting NT property for local estate managers in the 90s and I'm sure long before. They have their own publications and so have long needed photography. In the 90s there was concern over articles about gardens which couldn't cope with influxes of visitors, the one I mainly shot was one example (though parking facilites are now well improved).

I fail to see the relevance of that comment, Geoff. Wim was undoubtedly referring to the fact that the NT may have needed help selling on Alamy - by removing competing images. If they believe they have their own excellent photography, then they shouldn't be concerned about competition - the client will license the best image for his/her purpose. Imposing a monopoly isn't the way to go about it and it ultimately reduces customer choice.

 

Ian D

[Mal Knight]

Just gone through one of my pseudo's and it seems that it is not only NT images that have been removed so far I have counted 3 images not connected to NT whatsoever in fact one is of a street scene in Porthcawl to which there are 1000,s of other images.

 

Mal K