Richard Tadman Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 I've just come across this recent blog which raises a quite alarming issue of the National Trust attempting to claim commercial rights in views and landscapes of property they own. https://tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/national-trust-targets-photographers.html?m=1 It's hard to believe that this is legal and enforceable and the repercussions would be mind-blowing! Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 We saw them off over images taken from rights of way so they're ratcheting up the CROW angle by asserting that photography isn't one of the expressly permitted activities on CROW land, so they can charge for it. Outrageous, but they have the lawyers. Looks like they lied about not trying to enforce their byelaws on their free-to-enter land. Octavia Hill must be turning in her grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 When I lived in English, I did a number of jobs for the British Tourist Authority. They were pleasant, reasonable, and sane people to work with. What is wrong with this National Trust mob that they don't understand the value of FREE editorial publicity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 What's wrong? Hard to tell. We do know that they recruited an ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us. Seems a charity with an income of half-a-billion a year feels justified in trying to extract every last penny from its estate and banks on its huge popularity with the British public to divide and rule. It's easy to paint us as rapacious exploiters of the public realm for our own profit with a policy decreed from on high and so distant from the staff and volunteers that it never even impinges on the day-to-day running of the various venues. For them it might as well not exist. I'm not a fan of the NT, btw. In case I appear indifferent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 8, 2017 Author Share Posted August 8, 2017 An interesting comment in the original link about whether they will take on Google Earth? That would interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 I notice that the NT photo policy is quite carefully worded: - "The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form without prior written permission. " The use of the word "at" is interesting in that it seems to have been carefully chosen to circumvent the legal right to take photographs from public areas, while implying that any photography is forbidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Quote We do know that they recruited an ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us Whaat? First I've heard of this. That's a breach of market confidentiality, surely? Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 31 minutes ago, Richard Baker said: Whaat? First I've heard of this. That's a breach of market confidentiality, surely? Richard. There was a rumour about it a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Quote An ex-Alamy staff member, poacher turned gamekeeper, who now helps them pursue us .. There was a rumour about it a while back. I'd be surprised if this was true. An ex-employee rifling through his old company's archive to whistleblow on its contributors doesn't sound legally responsible. If it was proved, the National trust could be taken to court, no? Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 All Alamy's images are publicly accessible. Only the idea needed to have come from said employee. Presumably they'd have transferable skills without needing to do anything illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 Freedom of Panorama provision. Panorama freedom statutes or case law limit the right of the copyright owner to take action for breach of copyright against the creators and distributors of such images. It is an exception to the normal rule that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorise the creation and distribution of derivative works. (Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) I'm no lawyer but my reading of this suggests that copyright cannot be asserted - in the U.K. on views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 This isn't about copyright but contract. NT is trying to assert that selling images without a permit is a breach of the conditions under which admission was granted. As I see it, it's a very narrow interpretation of CROW. But as I said, they have the lawyers and they're relying on us knuckling under. I doubt the NT actually want their assertions tested in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, spacecadet said: This isn't about copyright but contract. NT is trying to assert that selling images without a permit is a breach of the conditions under which admission was granted. As I see it, it's a very narrow interpretation of CROW. But as I said, they have the lawyers and they're relying on us knuckling under. I doubt the NT actually want their assertions tested in court. Spacecadet I take your point but from the original link which I provided, I believe that the following is an attempt by NT to enforce a contractual relationship that doesn't [nor cannot legally] exist. "A commercial photographer who was planning to shoot some action photographs for an outdoor publication on crags which fall within one of the NT’s extensive Snowdonia estates, has been quoted £250 to £400 per hour to carry out his assignment. A fact that will surprise many who like myself believed that while private individuals and organisations like the NT can own the land beneath our feet, those iconic views will eternally remain ours to freely enjoy and capture as we please. The idea that a view be owned by a private individual, business or organisation is almost beyond credibility, I would imagine, to most people." Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I'm not saying the NT is correct, quite the contrary. I'm just outlining what might be its argument. However photographing views is one thing. Shipping in cartloads of equipment, lighting and models, tearing up the ground with 4x4s and the rest, involving a member of staff to oversee, is something else. I can't know what the poster is talking about, but there's some justification in a fee for that sort of show. After all you'd pay if you used a stately home. Photographing isn't the same as using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tadman Posted August 9, 2017 Author Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, spacecadet said: I'm not saying the NT is correct, quite the contrary. I'm just outlining what might be its argument. However photographing views is one thing. Shipping in cartloads of equipment, lighting and models, tearing up the ground with 4x4s and the rest, involving a member of staff to oversee, is something else. There's some justification in a fee for that sort of show. After all you'd pay if you used a stately home. Indeed; I don't think anyone would take issue with you on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.