Is it illegal to sell images of landmarks under the national trust

so if it is a charity - or national asset - they have something to protect. Say I went and took a picture of a building that then went on to make me millions - is it fair I am making millions, while the NT struggles for funding?
 
Strolls said:
The Trust ... was founded as a not-for-profit company in 1894 but was later re-incorporated by a private Act of Parliament, the National Trust Act 1907. Subsequent Acts of Parliament between 1919 and 1978 amended and extended the Trust's powers and remit. In 2005 the governance of the Trust was substantially changed under a Scheme made by the Charity Commission.
from wikipedia​
It is definitely the case that the NT is & has been granted a number of privileges by the government. For instance the Wikipedia article mentions the right to declare land "inalienable", which prevents the government passing a compulsory purchase order on the grounds of a historic house in order to build a motorway (it may grant them wider-reaching powers than this, I'm not sure).
Click to expand...

I didn't realise that - it does look like there's been extra rights given to the NT although the paragraph above it does stress it's independence from the government.

The Trust is an independent charity rather than a government institution (English Heritage and its equivalents in other parts of the United Kingdom are government bodies which perform some functions which overlap with the work of the National Trust).​


HoppyUK said:
No I'm not. NT has been allowed by government, our government, to take over the running of these sites. This is so that we, the public, can have good access to them.

NT sites only exist because the public wants to visit them. Otherwise they would be left to crumble.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with the second part but the NT buy, or are left, their properties to save them for the public. They've not taken over the running of them from the government.
 
Alamy is requesting that images on its site of National Trust properties are deleted.

Sounds like the NT is putting the pressure on....
Click to expand...

But look at the way the NT are treating people who enter their photographic competition http://www.pictureyourself.org.uk/terms.php (scroll down to the section headed Your Contributions).

Seems the NT are just out to get free photos to use or sell on to others.
 
My experience with the National Trust has been fairly poor. I took a photograph or two initially of a local building that they own, having been asked via one of their keepers to take it for the front of their brochure. Having sent the image over with the watermark on they asked for me to send an unwatermarked copy over and sign over the copyright!

I said I would donate the image with a small disclaimer saying simply that I took it but this was not accepted and they seemingly went and re-took a very similar shot to use.

Very sneaky and underhand I thought, hardly like I asked for money for it and as such it has dampened my outlook on the trust to be honest
 
I've little doubt that the trust started out with laudable intentions as a not for profit company. I've equally little doubt that they lost any track of that quite some time ago.
 
One of the articles DigitalRelish linked to states that the NT have over £900 million cash in the bank (well, invested in stocks & the like). Paints a much more negative picture of "The Trust" to my mind.
 
Whilst it is not a public area and therefore, they can control where photography is allowed, they do not own the copyright on the buikdings.

Even if it was possible to have a copyright on a building, it would have run out by now. Think how old the buildings are and how long copyright lasts.


Steve.
 
jerry12953 said:
Alamy is requesting that images on its site of National Trust properties are deleted.

Sounds like the NT is putting the pressure on....
Click to expand...

Not quite true Jerry if you read the BJP article. They've asked that they be removed whilst it is established whether the photo was taken on NT land or public land. They've not asked for them to be deleted.

As for the rights grabbing competition, not very nice but everyone else is doing it too. No worse than the BBC are they.
 
jerry12953 said:
And buildings as intellectual property? I suppose they've taken legal advice on this but it sounds pretty dodgy to me....
Click to expand...

The legal people have told him the right answer (they can legally restrict photography if the photographs are taken on NT land, and sue people who break their rule) but he seems to have a mangled understanding of WHY this is the case. It would be straightforward breach of contract - the terms and conditions of entry to a location form a contract if posted clearly (for anyone with LexisNexis access who is bored I think the case might be Muir v Glasgow Corporation) not intellectual property infringement. There is no such thing as intellectual property on a building - the architect could have a copyright on the design of the building (or design right? the whole copyright/design right thing confused me to no end) but there is a specific term in the Copyright Act stating that photographing a building doesn't infringe the architect's right. There is no such thing as intellectual property in a building itself.

(Note: IANAL)
 
MrCynical said:
There is no such thing as intellectual property on a building - the architect could have a copyright on the design of the building (or design right? the whole copyright/design right thing confused me to no end) but there is a specific term in the Copyright Act stating that photographing a building doesn't infringe the architect's right. There is no such thing as intellectual property in a building itself.
Click to expand...

And even if there was, the age of all NT buildings puts them past the copyright expiry limit anyway.

Not directly rated, but interesting: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html


Steve.
 
We went for a walk on some land belonging to the NT over the weekend and I spotted this
3459485332_6e1dc03f8b_o.jpg
on their byelaws sign. Looks pretty clear cut and obvious that commercial photography isn't allowed. It could be challengeable in couth though - the sign is on the BACK of the NT sign so unless you're actually looking for it, you don't know it's there until you leave!
 
The title of the post is Is it illegal to sell images of landmarks under the national trust

Whilst the NT can control what is allowed or not allowed on 'their' property, pictures of NT buildings can be taken from a public space and be used commercially. NT nay not like this but they can't do much about it.



Steve.
 
Surely the question is " what is classified commercial photography"? I don't think a " one off" picture selling a couple of photographs can strictly be classes as commercial photography.
In my mind a commercial photographer makes his living by photography. Someone who happens to take a photo and gets asked for a copy for a couple of quid is hardly commercial.

Realspeed
 
realspeed said:
Surely the question is " what is classified commercial photography"? I don't think a " one off" picture selling a couple of photographs can strictly be classes as commercial photography.
Click to expand...

I think "strictly" it can. Perhaps, if we weren't being strict, it may be interpreted as not. But then if the value of said pictures was £2000 would that change the issue?

It's clear cut.

What you might find is that, whislt it would still be wrong in the letter of the law, it would be beneath the notice of the NT unless they were seeklng to make an example (IMHO unlikely as the publicity would be more -ve than +ve)

In my mind a commercial photographer makes his living by photography. Someone who happens to take a photo and gets asked for a copy for a couple of quid is hardly commercial.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the commercial photographers who have paid the NT to be allowed to take images and sell them will be delighted that you're infringing on their market. Of course they'll agree it's perfectly alright for you to make a few bob. It's not as if anyone esle will do it now is it? [/sarcasm]

Final point, sorry for being a bit of a smart-@ss but it's Monday, sunny and I'm indoors :crying:.
 
realspeed said:
Surely the question is " what is classified commercial photography"? I don't think a " one off" picture selling a couple of photographs can strictly be classes as commercial photography.
In my mind a commercial photographer makes his living by photography. Someone who happens to take a photo and gets asked for a copy for a couple of quid is hardly commercial.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Commercial use means that the image will be used to generate income. It has nothing to do with how much income and how regularly it is being generated. I think you are straying into the topic of defining a professional photography there. ;)
 
MrCynical said:
jerry12953 said:
And buildings as intellectual property? I suppose they've taken legal advice on this but it sounds pretty dodgy to me...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For the life of me I can't see the post you're quoting.

MrCynical said:
... There is no such thing as intellectual property on a building - the architect could have a copyright on the design of the building (or design right? the whole copyright/design right thing confused me to no end) but there is a specific term in the Copyright Act stating that photographing a building doesn't infringe the architect's right. There is no such thing as intellectual property in a building itself.
Click to expand...
I think the Eiffel Tower claim (I posted this earlier in the thread) creates a very interesting precedent.

How can a lighting display on a building be copyrightable, but the building itself not? And, especially in the context of our current intellectual property laws (which I do think myself to be excessively strict), if you're selling a photo which is comprised almost entirely of a building (as in the typical Eiffel tower photo) why shouldn't the architect (assuming he's still alive, it's a recent building &c) profit from it? After all, he has done the majority of the work in making that building interesting and worthy of photography. The actual photography is merely a "derivative work" of the architecture.

I hope I don't get flamed for this, because I'm not really stating how I think it should be, just a law-amateur's thoughts based on this claim (mind you the Wikipedia article doesn't state that this has been pursued to court yet, so I might be making a lot of hot air over nothing).

Stroller.
 
Copyright exists in the intellectual property of the design.

For example, Ferrari owns rights to the design of its cars, but you can still photograph them. But try to sell a glass-fibre replica kit, and they will sue you. Successfully.
 
HoppyUK said:
Copyright exists in the intellectual property of the design.

For example, Ferrari owns rights to the design of its cars, but you can still photograph them. But try to sell a glass-fibre replica kit, and they will sue you. Successfully.
Click to expand...

Copyright is a strange law.

If someone gets hold of one of our engineering drawings at work and makes a product from that drawing, that is not a copyright infingement. Taking a photocopy of the drawing however, is.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Copyright is a strange law.

If someone gets hold of one of our engineering drawings at work and makes a product from that drawing, that is not a copyright infingement. Taking a photocopy of the drawing however, is.


Steve.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is!
 
This is going slightly OT I feel. I think there is adifference between the copyright of a design and the copyright of a document. If someone copies an exhaust or a building they might be copying the design but not the physical document from which the design came if you catch my drift.
 
Kev M said:
Not quite true Jerry if you read the BJP article. They've asked that they be removed whilst it is established whether the photo was taken on NT land or public land. They've not asked for them to be deleted.

.
Click to expand...

In most cases it would amount to the same thing in the end, though?

I was actually on the Alamy forum, and photographers there were not happy!
 
Just to make it clear, this new hardline stance by the NT now includes ALL forms of amateur publication, including publication to online image stores such as flikr.

After the recent scandals at Alamy, many pro photographers were telling the NT that they were going to give away their NT images for free. This would essentially kill the NT Photo Library stone dead. Suddenly the wording in their conditions has changed to try and protect themselves against this.

The NT have now have responded to block ANY form of publication, including amateur publication through ANY online system (e.g flickr, personal webpages etc).

So to summarise, this affects EVERYONE that photographs on NT land and wishes to share their work with the wider community. If the NT get their own way, photographs taken on their land will only be viewable behind locked doors and under torchlight.

A search of the web will highlight a growing number of new action groups that have formed to fight this. I would urge all photographers concerned with this situation to email the NTPL and publications such as Amateur Photographer who have and excellent history in fighting for photographers rights.

Andy
 
skyandstone said:
The NT have now have responded to block ANY form of publication, including amateur publication through ANY online system (e.g flickr, personal webpages etc).
Click to expand...

Practically impossible to implement. If people keep posting images to Flickr the NT will eventually give up.

They cannot request a blanket ban and ask Flickr to remove all images featuring NT property as Flickr do not have a sufficient knowledge base to differentiate. Therefore the NT would have to specifically request removal of every image individually and they would need to state good reason. Breach of copyright is not good reason in this case because a photograph of a building is not a breach of copyright.


Steve.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm coming to the conclusion anyway that the National Trust is not a charity I would like to support, and which has far money than it knows what to do with.
Click to expand...

When I posted this I had absolutely no idea that the NT was worth £900m!

What made me think they were well off was the amount of unnecessary work they seem to do at some of their "countryside" properties - like turning pieces of wild landscape into the equivalent of country parks with nice tidy paths and steps, and signposts everywhere.

So why do they need to charge £4 to park at these and other properties, I thought, when they were paid for by Jo(e) Public- often through appeals - and were for public enjoyment.

Restrictions on photography at their built properties has never affected me as I would rarely visit them. What really concerns me is if they were to try to restrict photography of or from their landscapes. They have a massive monopoly on some of the most spectacular land in the UK.
 
This is all a reaction to the massive increase in stock sales from web sources.

Like everyone else the NT has seen a dramatic reduction in their stock income through the NT picture Library.

It is nothing more than a bullying tactic to try and reduce the competition from other sources for photography that they could obtain income from. In other words, they see the income being gained from the sale of the pictures they have demanded (not requested - demanded) Alamy to remove as being something they have lost.

Like most people who obtained income from stock, theirs has dropped too. I used to get between £1500 and £2000 a month from stock, until Alamy started up. Then microstock etc. Those same images now earn about that a year. OK, I have others added since, but the stock income is nowhere near what it was.

I wouldn't cow tow to the NT. Tale your pictures, place them in libraries and get what you can from them. There are many more picture libraries out there with NT property images that will not be removing them. They do not have to - the NT are pushing their luck and they have succeeded in frightening off a major competitior who should have had the balls to satnd up against them.
 
This link might give you some idea of how weak the NT's own bylaws are.

Adair versus National Trust 1998 (Northern Ireland)
The NT lost this case in a spectacular fashion.
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/land-law-cases-52.php

Consider the analogy between the right to collect shellfish and the right to take photos. If the NT can't even win this case, how on earth do they hope to win one against a pastime as benign as photography. Note how the fisherman in the case was collecting shellfish commercially (as his livelihood).

This shows how common law over-rides any bylaw the NT might try to enforce.

This case would suggest to me that photography on non-ticketted public access land (even while off public rights of way) should not be a problem, even if it is done commercially.

The NT continually states that their right to restrict photography comes from their bylaws. What they fail to tell you is that the paragraph that describes this restriction is headed Hawking. The law was therefore designed to combat street sellers swooping on their visitors. How they could ever use this law against a conventional photographer puzzles me.

My message to everyone is not to be afraid of the threat of any NT bylaw that is over-riden by a common law right. These bylaws have been proven in court to be worthless, even when they are relevant, which the hawking bylaw is clearly not.
 
so just been doing some research into this and how it is going to affect things.

lake district owned properties by NT castlerigg stone circle, how many photos are there of that? cumbria county council on there visit cumbria website extol the virtues of coming to the circle to draw paint photograph the circle. plenty of pictures form the air etc.

have they tried to infom the counci lthey is breaking the bye law?

wonder if the NT realise the scale of thier task to prevent this from occuring?
 
I think the penny is starting to drop for a lot of photographers interested in landscape photography.

The wording in the policy has been carefully updated to restrict publishing of images shot on NT land by both amateurs and professionals alike. This includes images shot on wide open spaces on public access land such as The Giant's Causeway, The White Cliffs of Dover, The Farne Islands, Borrowdale and The Lizard for example. The policy attempts to assert that any such publishing constitutes a criminal act as set out in their own bylaws. The validity of the bylaws for this purpose are currently being contested by legal experts.

An email posted to the forums of the Royal Photographic Society outlines the NTs stance on this. This email was received from Chris Rowlin, The NTPL's rights manager.

"This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based. Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research but the Trust does not permit photography for profit or publication without permission. ....The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. "

Note the careful and deliberate use of the word OR.

The official policy of the NT's website also uses this catch-all which appears to include submission to image libraries such as flickr or online publishing on personal websites (even if non-commercial). This policy as written will also restrict amateur entry to photographic competitions not endorsed or run by the NT. This is already being enforced by the NT.

"The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use OR FOR REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM. Images taken at NT properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies OR ON-LINE PROVIDERS or provided directly to image buyers."
See http://www.ntpl.org.uk/index2.pgi

This issue no longer just a concern of professional photographers. Please join me in writing to the National Trust to voice your concerns over this change in policy. This is just another example of the erosion of photographers rights in the UK.

photo.library@nationaltrust.org.uk

More info here
http://copyrightaction.com/category/articles/news
http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=115562#post115562
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ews_281614.html
http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/
 
Note that areas like the Lake District have plenty of Public Footpaths on them. Whilst these footpaths may be on land owned by the National Trust, they are still public places and the same rules apply as any other public place.


Steve.
 
skyandstone said:
"This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based. Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research but the Trust does not permit photography for profit or publication without permission. ....The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. "
Click to expand...

Can the National Trust actually create its own bylaws? I would think not.


Steve.
 
However Steve, there is a difference between a public right of way and a publicly accessable footpath. The NT assert that you have no right to publish photographs taken on the latter while on their land.

The NT has indeen the power to create its own bylaws, however this was a power given to it to allow the control public nuisance and damage to its property. The National Trust Act does not allow them to make bylaws to protect its commercial interests. The validity of the bylaw is therefore in question by legal experts. Note the title of the bylaw as it relates to photography, 'Hawkling'. The NT fail to mention this title in all communication. Hawking is generally accepted as the process of swooping down uninvited on the public to sell wares at the properties themselves.
 
skyandstone said:
However Steve, there is a difference between a public right of way and a publicly accessable footpath. The NT assert that you have no right to publish photographs taken on the latter while on their land.
Click to expand...

They can assert what they like. However, in order to get a judgement against a photographer, they will have to 1. Know about an infringement and who the photographer was, 2. Prove it was taken from on their property and 3. Show some loss.

I still say that they can only allow or prohibit something at the time of taking. It is possible for someone to take a simple snapshot which turns out nice and after a few years ends up on a calendar or in a magazine. Something which was not its original intention.

If the publicly accessable footpath you mention is a designated footpath, it is a public right of way and you can photograph from it. The NT cannot ask you to leave either even if the path is on their land.

Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top