National Trust (again)

[Bill Brooks]

When a country’s elites appear to impinge unfairly on the daily lives of it’s citizens, then you have unexpected events such as Brexit, Donald Trump, and The Arab Spring.

 

If you think that is over the top, read this about The Arab Spring.

 

“The catalyst for the escalation of protests was the self-immolation of Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi. Unable to find work and selling fruit at a roadside stand, Bouazizi had his wares confiscated by a municipal inspector on 17 December 2010. An hour later he doused himself with gasoline and set himself afire. His death on 4 January 2011 brought together various groups dissatisfied with the existing system, including many unemployed, political and human rights activists, labor, trade unionists, students, professors, lawyers, and others to begin the Tunisian Revolution.”

 

National Trust inspectors? Sound familiar?

[vpics]

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.  

Shame Alamy accepts those but not the images of their own contributors. I think they need to have a chat.

[Russell]

I have been looking at the NT Constitution. We need 5 members to propose and 50 to support a motion for debate at their next AGM (probably October 2017).

 

We could doubtless develop a motion reversing the NT's present stance on photography (certainly exterior photography) on NT property, and with sufficient support have it called at the AGM.

 

Any takers?

[spacecadet]

I'll cheer from the sidelines. Not a member- bad value even if there weren't other reasons.

[Stokie]

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

 

Same here.

 

John.

[M.Chapman]

I have been looking at the NT Constitution. We need 5 members to propose and 50 to support a motion for debate at their next AGM (probably October 2017).

 

We could doubtless develop a motion reversing the NT's present stance on photography (certainly exterior photography) on NT property, and with sufficient support have it called at the AGM.

 

Any takers?

 

+1

[Graham]

 

Any takers?

 

+2

[Allan Bell]

 

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

 

Same here.

 

John.

 

 

 

And me.

 

Allan

[regen]

Quote

 

Any takers?

 

+3

 

Regen

[Bill Brooks]

In my estimation, the takedown notices for some images, some images that are outside the NT mandate, interfere with the photographers copyright to those images. I think they also adversely effect the photographer’s reputation, and interfere in the photographers business relationship with Alamy.

 

Are other stock libraries culling such images of NT properties, that are outside the NT mandate, or only Alamy?

 

Given the legal climate around ownership of images, and a lawsuit already in progress in the USA, it astounds me that the NT might be behind such unwarranted claims.

[spacecadet]

I'd thought of tortious interference, but Alamy can presumably rely on the sole discretion clause on the contract. Alamy could presumably tough it out but chooses not to. 

I suppose it might depend on the exact nature of the correspondence and whether Alamy itself is being threatened but it would take a pretty robust, and expensive, legal argument to persuade a court to force Alamy or the NT to disclose what was said. 

Considering the quick reinstatement after the Network Rail matter, when Alamy said they had taken advice, we must assume they have on this as well.

The NT sales I've had aren't too bad a return on the effort by my standards, so I shall just go elsewhere and the NT can get stuffed. One does have to wonder where next though.

The revelation that the NT is preparing to sue some UK photographers for trespass is worrying. Perhaps it's just a rumour pour encourager les autres.

[Vincent Lowe]

There's an article in today's Guardian about the National Trust - not about photography as such but I think it gives an insight into the current mindset of the NT elite, with particular reference to the controversial purchase of Thorneythwaite Farm (the land but not the farm house) in the Lake District.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/13/challenge-provide-everyone-national-trust-under-fire-heritage-thorneythwaite

[Bill Brooks]

In order to make the sorting of NT images easier for everyone, why not put a phrase like “photo taken from public land” in the caption, description, or keywords.

 

Alamy give the photographers the phrase to use, and photographers be honest. Maybe even a question in Manage Images such as “Is this image taken from public land?” for all images, not only NT images.

 

This would eliminate much of the back and forth work between Alamy and it’s photographers, and save the NT from further condemnation from photographers.

 

The Guardian article is excellent, and shows why disgruntled non elite voters, vote for change.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

The Guardian article is excellent, and shows why disgruntled non elite voters, vote for change.

 

 

Yes, but the change they wanted and/or expected is usually not the change they get.

[John Walker]

I believe that there is also a situation where if you don't have to pay an entrance fee and are outside, the NT photography rule doesn't apply.

[spacecadet]

In law, of course, but according to my quoted email from Alamy NT are now applying the policy even to open-access land they own adjacent to pay-to-enter properties.

 

Hi Mark,

 

This is what we received from our NT contact;

 

In terms of grounds around pay-to-enter properties, if the land is NT owned they are subject to our policy even if they are on a public footpath or bridleway. We do not apply our policy to open access coastline and countryside but we do around free access parkland at our pay-on-entry properties.

 

The bit in bold is wrong in law.

[spacecadet]

 

In order to make the sorting of NT images easier for everyone, why not put a phrase like “photo taken from public land” in the caption, description, or keywords.

 

Alamy give the photographers the phrase to use, and photographers be honest. Maybe even a question in Manage Images such as “Is this image taken from public land?” for all images, not only NT images.

 

This would eliminate much of the back and forth work between Alamy and it’s photographers, and save the NT from further condemnation from photographers.

 

But the NT is now claiming that being on a right of way is not enough, see my post above. In any case Alamy appears to dance to their tune even when provided with evidence.

[Stokie]

Quote

 

Any takers?

 

+3

 

Regen

+4

 

Nearly there.

 

John.

[vpics]

Check this one out. There's also a nice video link on the right hand side. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

[spacecadet]

Check this one out. There's also a nice video link on the right hand side. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

Yes but try telling that to the NT or Alamy.

[Russell]

Thanks to all those who have indicated support. We're a long way short of the 50 we need. If you don't want to declare publicly, you can always p.m. me.

[Gordon Scammell]

I have been looking at the NT Constitution. We need 5 members to propose and 50 to support a motion for debate at their next AGM (probably October 2017).

 

We could doubtless develop a motion reversing the NT's present stance on photography (certainly exterior photography) on NT property, and with sufficient support have it called at the AGM.

 

Any takers?

 

Yes.  I'd be very happy to support this.

[Phil Preston]

I have been looking at the NT Constitution. We need 5 members to propose and 50 to support a motion for debate at their next AGM (probably October 2017).

 

We could doubtless develop a motion reversing the NT's present stance on photography (certainly exterior photography) on NT property, and with sufficient support have it called at the AGM.

 

Any takers?

Russell, Happy to be one of the 50 supporters.

[Bryan]

Thanks to all those who have indicated support. We're a long way short of the 50 we need. If you don't want to declare publicly, you can always p.m. me.

Count me in also

[TeeCee]

Me too ...