Guest Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 Perhaps they are concerned about the photographers who they support via the Trust commissions and the NTPL who have followed their rules....as opposed, one might say cynically, to those who want to earn money off the backs of the Trust's work and commercial rights. The Trust produces commercial products which help to fund their work - calendars etc etc, is it ok to have others benefit from the work they do without putting back some renummeration? I used to be irritated at the Trust's stance on this but since the permit scheme was introduced, I really don't see that photographers have too much of a case any more. If I were shooting that type of work these days, I would use the scheme...much in the same way I used the RHS scheme and various others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 The NT does not own the air or the views from footpaths. How much are we taking "off the backs" of a charity with income of half a billion a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Why are those images on the various micros? Answer: Those are not based in the UK. (Nothing to do with brexit this time.) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 As a "Member" of the National Trust, don't I already "own" a tiny portion of each of their properties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How are you finding which images have been removed? Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprocket Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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. I think you will find they are not owned by the nation. They are owned by the National Trust, which is a charity not a government department. State-owned historic properties are looked after by English Heritage or Cadw in Wales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Lewis Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Hi All Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that this cull seems to coincide with an influx of NTPL CONTENT ??? Jon Have not got access to Mac just looking on iPhone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How come the NT gets to decide what is a public footpath and what isn't? Surely it's a matter of fact to be settled with reference to the Ordnance Survey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How come the NT gets to decide what is a public footpath and what isn't? Surely it's a matter of fact to be settled with reference to the Ordnance Survey. Local Councils have a definitive map - OS maps aren't always accurate. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How come the NT gets to decide what is a public footpath and what isn't? Surely it's a matter of fact to be settled with reference to the Ordnance Survey. Local Councils have a definitive map - OS maps aren't always accurate. Pearl If anyone needs to check, www.rowmaps.org claims to have most councils' definitive map data up to date for 2014. If the NT is going to second-guess the Ordnance Survey then it really is getting ideas above its station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How come the NT gets to decide what is a public footpath and what isn't? Surely it's a matter of fact to be settled with reference to the Ordnance Survey. Local Councils have a definitive map - OS maps aren't always accurate. Pearl If anyone needs to check, www.rowmaps.org claims to have most councils' definitive map data up to date for 2014. If the NT is going to second-guess the Ordnance Survey then it really is getting ideas above its station. Mark, you said yourself that "Mine look as if they could have been taken from inside the pale" so it's perfectly understandable why your images in this case may have been selected. As mentioned, if you feel a mistake has been made, let us know, and we will work as quickly as we can to get the images re-instated if they were taken from a public area. Thanks, Alamy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I have been careful only to upload images of NT properties that comply with the guidelines, but my photo of Wallington Hall, that has sold in the past and was taken from the public highway, appears to have been removed. It looks like we must go back and check all of our images that have been taken that include sections of NT property, but I'm not sure how to begin as a search for that photo just draws a blank. Hopefully it is the intention to provide each person concerned with a list of removed images? Could do without the hassle...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I have been careful only to upload images of NT properties that comply with the guidelines, but my photo of Wallington Hall, that has sold in the past and was taken from the public highway, appears to have been removed. It looks like we must go back and check all of our images that have been taken that include sections of NT property, or is the intention to provide each person concerned with a list of removed images? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanGibson Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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 How are you finding which images have been removed? Pearl I received an email about an hour ago advising me of the removal of one of my images. I was going to contact them this afternoon after reading this thread - they beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I suspect a lot of NT volunteers who provide the charity with their photographic work for free may be reconsidering their position in light of this development. The NT will lose a lot of good will if they handle this matter without diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotbrightsky Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 It would have been helpful if Alamy hadn't deleted the images in question from our libraries before informing us of their decision. That way we could have checked the images without relying on Google Image Search to retrieve them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I doubt they even know about it. The NT can do no wrong in the eyes of most and some amateur photographers will do anything to see their name in print. I was looking for a NT forum to start a thread on but can't seem to find anything suitable. One is probably unlikely to find a sympathetic ear among amateurs anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 It’s my understanding that the ‘no photography’ bylaw dates back to the practice of itinerant photographers harrassing visitors by offering to take their pix… for a fee. I would love to challenge the NT in court, because they can be breathtakingly arrogant. If someone with a bit of legal nous would ‘take up the cudgel’ on behalf of editorial photographers, I would happily contribute £100 to a legal fund… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 It would have been helpful if Alamy hadn't deleted the images in question from our libraries before informing us of their decision. That way we could have checked the images without relying on Google Image Search to retrieve them! They're already off GIS, some of mine are anyway. Very efficient of GIS. But I agree, it seems underhand not to announce it. Most of us haven't got our email yet, and my images are already scrubbed from MI, Alamy, the lot. No chance even to retrieve the keywords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 It’s my understanding that the ‘no photography’ bylaw dates back to the practice of itinerant photographers harrassing visitors by offering to take their pix… for a fee. I would love to challenge the NT in court, because they can be breathtakingly arrogant. If someone with a bit of legal nous would ‘take up the cudgel’ on behalf of editorial photographers, I would happily contribute £100 to a legal fund… As I said earlier I suspect they don't want it challenged so they just lean on picture libraries. Pour encourager les autres. They might win in the magistrate's court, but challenging the byelaw itself would be a whole 'nother ball game. Judicial review or whatever- who knows? It would probably cost a few thousand just to find out. it's the 1965 byelaws. Hawking 17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph. It's intended to prevent hawking. What we do is nothing of the sort, but Alamy won't stand up to it. However 23. No unauthorised person shall without the permission of the National Trust: © Take any photograph in any Trust Building. No interiors. I don't expect to be able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I've just had an email and 3 have been removed. All 3 were taken from public paths/roads and were not even of properties that you pay to enter. Unbelievable!!!! Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Then tell Alamy. Ive' sent in an OS map from rowmaps.com with an overlay showing where they were taken from. Who on earth is calling the shots here? Are the NT just trying it on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Then tell Alamy. Ive' sent in an OS map from rowmaps.com with an overlay showing where they were taken from. Who on earth is calling the shots here? Are the NT just trying it on? I think we have our answer. Alamy's second email refers to the images the NT have listed for removal. Unless we hear to the contrary the NT appears to be in the driving seat here and in some cases it obviously hasn't got its satnav on. How depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 I never pay to enter NT properties as I have been aware of their restrictions for many years so, in theory, none of my images should be removed. This just makes me more anti the NT. Pearl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Me neither, but it hasn't helped us. We've still got to fight for images we know are in the clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.