Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The head of comms at my local National Trust property, who I know pretty well, called me yesterday to ask why I haven't been responding to their recent photocall notices and why they were getting very little interest generally.

 

I explained the situation and that i now considered it uneconomical to cover any National Trust event. They were very surprised to hear what the head office has been up to ... 

 

Well done you.

 

Pearl

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The head of comms at my local National Trust property, who I know pretty well, called me yesterday to ask why I haven't been responding to their recent photocall notices and why they were getting very little interest generally.

 

I explained the situation and that i now considered it uneconomical to cover any National Trust event. They were very surprised to hear what the head office has been up to ... 

 

Well done you.

 

Pearl

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do you get paid for an event if you don't mind me asking ? And how do you get  call from them ? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do you get paid for an event if you don't mind me asking ? And how do you get  call from them ? Thanks.

I don't think you get paid for these- your 'fee' is the rights to the images. That's the point, the NT now grabs those rights.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said on my recent thread, NT is now asserting that CROW, which does not permit photography for gain, applies even to public footpaths on their land. They're wrong, but they've got the muscle, and Alamy has sole discretion in its contract, so we can only vote with our feet.

Definitely challenge those deletions, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Alamy had its recent cull of National Trust pictures, amongst mine deleted were several taken in Winkworth Arboretum.  There is a public footpath which runs right through the arboretum, from which it is perfectly legal to take photographs free from any claimed National Trust restrictions: access is available to anyone, as of right, not subject to National Trust terms.  The footpath is well signposted and follows some of the main paths in the arboretum, giving access to some of the best views.  Some of my deleted pictures were taken from the footpath.  I went to Winkworth again on Monday: I tend to go there a couple of times a year because it is near to where I live.  I had not previously noted which pictures were taken from the footpath, but this time I did make a note for those I took a couple of days ago, for future reference if needed.  Given the128 character limit in the Caption field, I do not want to waste these by inserting "taken from public footpath", but perhaps I will try including this in the Description field, to see if this does any good.

 

To Alamy's credit, they did reinstate some of my pictures of Winchester City Mill when I sent them proof that the photographs could only have been taken from outside National Trust property.

 

The National Trust has shot itself in the foot with its greed on this issue.  My wife and I used to have very positive feelings towards the National Trust, to the extent that National Trust was one of two equal residuary legatees under our wills (i.e. if the specific legacies all fail, then the residuary legatees inherit our estates).  We are a small family, with only two presently surviving named beneficiaries under our wills.  They are, statistically, likely to outlive us and if this happens, then of course neither residuary legatee would get anything, but it is not impossible that they will not: for example, last autumn the entire family was in the same aeroplanes on safari (some of the smaller ones of which in particular seemed to be death traps waiting to happen!).  I am fortunate to have had a successful career and our estates will, by most standards, be substantial.  Such is my distaste for the National Trust's policies on photography that we have changed our wills to remove National Trust as a residuary legatee.  They might well not have received anything anyway, but had they done so, the amounts would have dwarfed anything they could ever have made out of their photography policy.  Their greed, their loss.

 

Graham

I hope you've made the Trust aware of your decisions, Graham? It would be interesting to hear their response.

 

Alex

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When Alamy had its recent cull of National Trust pictures, amongst mine deleted were several taken in Winkworth Arboretum.  There is a public footpath which runs right through the arboretum, from which it is perfectly legal to take photographs free from any claimed National Trust restrictions: access is available to anyone, as of right, not subject to National Trust terms.  The footpath is well signposted and follows some of the main paths in the arboretum, giving access to some of the best views.  Some of my deleted pictures were taken from the footpath.  I went to Winkworth again on Monday: I tend to go there a couple of times a year because it is near to where I live.  I had not previously noted which pictures were taken from the footpath, but this time I did make a note for those I took a couple of days ago, for future reference if needed.  Given the128 character limit in the Caption field, I do not want to waste these by inserting "taken from public footpath", but perhaps I will try including this in the Description field, to see if this does any good.

 

To Alamy's credit, they did reinstate some of my pictures of Winchester City Mill when I sent them proof that the photographs could only have been taken from outside National Trust property.

 

The National Trust has shot itself in the foot with its greed on this issue.  My wife and I used to have very positive feelings towards the National Trust, to the extent that National Trust was one of two equal residuary legatees under our wills (i.e. if the specific legacies all fail, then the residuary legatees inherit our estates).  We are a small family, with only two presently surviving named beneficiaries under our wills.  They are, statistically, likely to outlive us and if this happens, then of course neither residuary legatee would get anything, but it is not impossible that they will not: for example, last autumn the entire family was in the same aeroplanes on safari (some of the smaller ones of which in particular seemed to be death traps waiting to happen!).  I am fortunate to have had a successful career and our estates will, by most standards, be substantial.  Such is my distaste for the National Trust's policies on photography that we have changed our wills to remove National Trust as a residuary legatee.  They might well not have received anything anyway, but had they done so, the amounts would have dwarfed anything they could ever have made out of their photography policy.  Their greed, their loss.

 

Graham

I hope you've made the Trust aware of your decisions, Graham? It would be interesting to hear their response.

 

Alex

 

 

+1

 

Might well be worth writing to them to ensure they're aware of how their policy is annoying their members. 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacecadet, I am not planning to waste Alamy's time and resources in challenging the old Winkworth deletions, particularly as I did not specifically note at the time where I was standing.  In relation to Winchester, my position was easily provable because there is a river which is central in my images, and the photographs could only have been taken from the bridge, which is public highway.  I also had photos of Leith Hill reinstated: there is general public access there. 

 

Alex, they did not consult me, and I did not consult them.  It would make no difference to have told them.  Every time the issue is raised, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I have been able to do something about it at my personal level; I do not care whether or not the National Trust is aware of this.

 

Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacecadet, I am not planning to waste Alamy's time and resources in challenging the old Winkworth deletions, particularly as I did not specifically note at the time where I was standing.  In relation to Winchester, my position was easily provable because there is a river which is central in my images, and the photographs could only have been taken from the bridge, which is public highway.  I also had photos of Leith Hill reinstated: there is general public access there. 

 

Alex, they did not consult me, and I did not consult them.  It would make no difference to have told them.  Every time the issue is raised, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I have been able to do something about it at my personal level; I do not care whether or not the National Trust is aware of this.

 

Graham

 

With respect, I think the National Trust would be interested that people are voting with their feet in regards to lost memberships and bequests.

 

I don't think they are aware of the strength of feeling amongst a lot of people and the more people that make them aware then maybe, just maybe, things might change.

 

John.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spacecadet, I am not planning to waste Alamy's time and resources in challenging the old Winkworth deletions, particularly as I did not specifically note at the time where I was standing.  In relation to Winchester, my position was easily provable because there is a river which is central in my images, and the photographs could only have been taken from the bridge, which is public highway.  I also had photos of Leith Hill reinstated: there is general public access there. 

 

Alex, they did not consult me, and I did not consult them.  It would make no difference to have told them.  Every time the issue is raised, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I have been able to do something about it at my personal level; I do not care whether or not the National Trust is aware of this.

 

Graham

If these arbitrary decisions are not challenged more and more outlets will be closed to us. We owe it to each other as professionals to defend our freedoms and livelihoods.

If Alamy realise how much effort it is costing them they may become less keen simply to roll over to all and sundry rights claimants.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the pictures will be free advertising for the NT. What is there not to like about it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the pictures will be free advertising for the NT. What is there not to like about it?

They must have decided that with a million subscribers and a billion-pound turnover they need neither free publicity nor the goodwill of photographers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Might well 

 

 

When Alamy had its recent cull of National Trust pictures, amongst mine deleted were several taken in Winkworth Arboretum.  There is a public footpath which runs right through the arboretum, from which it is perfectly legal to take photographs free from any claimed National Trust restrictions: access is available to anyone, as of right, not subject to National Trust terms.  The footpath is well signposted and follows some of the main paths in the arboretum, giving access to some of the best views.  Some of my deleted pictures were taken from the footpath.  I went to Winkworth again on Monday: I tend to go there a couple of times a year because it is near to where I live.  I had not previously noted which pictures were taken from the footpath, but this time I did make a note for those I took a couple of days ago, for future reference if needed.  Given the128 character limit in the Caption field, I do not want to waste these by inserting "taken from public footpath", but perhaps I will try including this in the Description field, to see if this does any good.

 

To Alamy's credit, they did reinstate some of my pictures of Winchester City Mill when I sent them proof that the photographs could only have been taken from outside National Trust property.

 

The National Trust has shot itself in the foot with its greed on this issue.  My wife and I used to have very positive feelings towards the National Trust, to the extent that National Trust was one of two equal residuary legatees under our wills (i.e. if the specific legacies all fail, then the residuary legatees inherit our estates).  We are a small family, with only two presently surviving named beneficiaries under our wills.  They are, statistically, likely to outlive us and if this happens, then of course neither residuary legatee would get anything, but it is not impossible that they will not: for example, last autumn the entire family was in the same aeroplanes on safari (some of the smaller ones of which in particular seemed to be death traps waiting to happen!).  I am fortunate to have had a successful career and our estates will, by most standards, be substantial.  Such is my distaste for the National Trust's policies on photography that we have changed our wills to remove National Trust as a residuary legatee.  They might well not have received anything anyway, but had they done so, the amounts would have dwarfed anything they could ever have made out of their photography policy.  Their greed, their loss.

 

Graham

I hope you've made the Trust aware of your decisions, Graham? It would be interesting to hear their response.

 

Alex

 

 

+1

 

Might well be worth writing to them to ensure they're aware of how their policy is annoying their members. 

 

And/or perhaps one of us should write an article for one of the photographic magazines about this issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the pictures will be free advertising for the NT. What is there not to like about it?

 

NT want to sell photos from their own library instead. Alamy also hosts images from the NT library (You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). The NT may also like the £75 + VAT fee photographers must pay for an annual permit and the restrictions they include with it, for example.

 

The Photographer licenses NTE the right to Use the Images, and all intellectual property rights in the Images subsisting anywhere in the world now or in the future, on an exclusive (subject to the Photographer’s right to license under Clause 4.3.1), perpetual, irrevocable basis such licence to commence on the expiry of the First Refusal Period.

 

The photographer may access National Trust sites only at such times and dates as may be agreed in advance with the relevant Property staff responsible for such sites; 

 

If you want to see the full permit terms please PM me.

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From personal experiences of NT's appalling membership administration, I doubt if writing to them on this topic would reach the appropriate person let alone generate any worthwhile reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just occurred to me that we may be overlooking Alamy's conflict of interest- the NT library is a major Alamy supplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we all get out and take thousands of images of NT property and upload all to Alamy. ;)

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to Alamy after their recent cull of NT images it only took a short email from me to have my pics of Little moerton hall reinstalled after showing they were taken from a public footpath

Edited by Nick Hatton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about we all get out and take thousands of images of NT property and upload all to Alamy

 

I fear we'd be breaking the terms of our contract with Alamy should we do so.

 

I will continue to press my claim with the Monopolies & Mergers Commission that the NT is abusing a dominant market position by restricting sales of images of it's properties to an in-house agency. I encourage you all to do the same as it seems that the M&MC is responsive to the volume of complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already 46,000+  images from the National Trust Image Library on Alamy.  They have privileged access times and viewpoints that the average photographer doesn't have.

 

I think this is very wrong and an abuse of power, but why waste time trying to sell images taken on NT property when there is so much competition already in place.

 

There's plenty of other avenues to explore.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just occurred to me that we may be overlooking Alamy's conflict of interest- the NT library is a major Alamy supplier.

 

Precisely...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to Alamy after their recent cull of NT images it only took a sort email from me to have my pics of Little morten hall reinstalled after showing they were taken from a public footpath

They have declined to do so with some of mine, or rather, they have re-deleted after only 3 months images which were reuploaded after I got no response to my proof that they were taken from the highway or public footpath.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.