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

skyandstone said:
Also, notice the extremely fair T+Cs to this competition. This is how competitions should be run.
Click to expand...

This is going off-topic I know, but last year, major sponsors included the national and regional tourist authorities, who reserved the right to use ANY entry for ANY purpose for a period of a year or more, for no payment.

In other words it was a copyright grab by the Tourist Boards.

I think the organisers (C. Waite) got a lot of stick for this last year; its good to see that the T&C's have changed....


......Thinks......

I haven't read it myself. Are you sure?;)

Edit - Having now skimmed through the T&C's it looks like the tourist board copyright grab HAS gone, but all "sponsors and supporters" may use entries on their websites in connection with the competition. It still seems to me that this is rather broad, given that there are so many sponsors.

The various caveats about obtaining permission from buildings' owners would appear to be in direct response to the heavy hand of the NT.
 
Im going to take up hot air balooning as a hobby

- will get superb images
- wont standing on NT property
 
Richard King said:
Im going to take up hot air balooning as a hobby

- will get superb images
- wont standing on NT property
Click to expand...

Now heres a thought, if Harry takes a step ladder in and I stand on that, I'm actually standing on Harrys property, and while Harrys step ladder is on NT land it's not taking any photographes. ;)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Now heres a thought, if Harry takes a step ladder in and I stand on that, I'm actually standing on Harrys property, and while Harrys step ladder is on NT land it's not taking any photographes. ;)
Click to expand...

I bet that would fox the average NT Traffic Warden. Tell him that the law relating to 'standing on' rights for land is restricted to a 100cm limit by an EU covenant. In fact, if you were sitting on Harry's shoulders... :D
 
I still say you just jump off the ground when taking a photo. As well as being off their ground, it'll add an extra challenge to your photography.
 
Whoops! I think I might have broken the law by taking this photograph a few days ago at Hatfield Forest (NT property). Having now published it here I could be in big trouble!

091_Hatfield_Forest_e_c_r_s_2.jpg


Actually, I think the biggest "crime" I committed was allowing a branch to touch the left side of the frame. Perhaps I should be charged with "careless photography likely to put the National Trust into disrepute!" :LOL:
 
I resigned from the NT 20 years ago because of the attitude of the people running it, I regard them as a commercial landlord of the worst sort, after reading this thread I see nothing has changed.
 
Johnny1982 said:
I ask because myself and my friend were up at Mow Cop castle (Cheshire) y'day having fun taking some portraits and landscapes.
A man wearing a national trust jacket walked upto us and asked us if we were amateurs.
He then went on to say its ok if you are but we will prosecute anyone selling images of the castle.

He said the castle is copyrighted by the national trust.

He then waffled on about some guys who were taking portrait shots of themselfs and having the castle as the back drop and using them shots commercially was illegal or whatever. I tuned out at this point.

I want to know if there is any truth behind this and wether you can or can't sell images of the castle at your own desire.

Anyone with some trusty know how wanna share their thoughts?
Click to expand...
Read your terms and conditions of entry on your ticket.
 
Marcel said:
That really doesn't say if the photos were taken *from* public or private land.
Public = Fine
Private = Trespass
Click to expand...

Any photo taken from with in and on there land you can not sell
If you take from a public space like on the road then you can do what you want, as you have not entered into a contract with NT
 
Just to throw this into the debate, isn't the NT and the British heritage owned by the people - Us.


graham
 
Just like local parks and council land. Technically owned by 'us', but managed 'on our behalf'. Something like that I think
 
On the subject of money in the bank, £900m doesn't seem THAT much, considering the number of properties they maintain, some of which will pay for themselves and many of which won't.
Bearing in mind that the NT needs to be able to maintain these buildings on an ongoing basis, and weather a recession/fall in charity donations. They absolutely must, like any other charity, have good reserves in the bank.

L
 
Old Chestnut time, folks....

Apparently, the NT are revising their policy re photography, but in the meantime -

"Categorically, we allow professional photography in open access landscapes and coastline for editorial use. This is also true of any photography taken from public highways or designated public footpaths at any of our properties - if a public footpath passes through a pay-on-entry properties you are legally entitled to take a photograph and sell it for editorial purposes (purposes that do not require a property release). We do not wish to unreasonable restrict wildlife and landscape photography on our free open access land but for very obvious reasons we insist that photography intended for commercial uses (especially advertising) is sanctioned by our Media Liaison Officer."

Chris Rowlin, Rights Manager, NT Picture Library

The question still arises about what a "commercial use" of a photograph is, but this statement is quite a reassuring one for those, like me, who do a lot of work on NT land.
 
They seem to have missed the point that a public footpath is is just that... public.
 
goldenlight said:
Actually, I think the biggest "crime" I committed was allowing a branch to touch the left side of the frame. Perhaps I should be charged with "careless photography likely to put the National Trust into disrepute!" :LOL:
Click to expand...

Pssst, I can help you with this crime, ill cover up the mess, now we are both in it!

2ujlhme.jpg


:LOL::LOL:
 
jerry12953 said:
Old Chestnut time, folks....

Apparently, the NT are revising their policy re photography, but in the meantime -

"Categorically, we allow professional photography in open access landscapes and coastline for editorial use. This is also true of any photography taken from public highways or designated public footpaths at any of our properties - if a public footpath passes through a pay-on-entry properties you are legally entitled to take a photograph and sell it for editorial purposes (purposes that do not require a property release). We do not wish to unreasonable restrict wildlife and landscape photography on our free open access land but for very obvious reasons we insist that photography intended for commercial uses (especially advertising) is sanctioned by our Media Liaison Officer."

Chris Rowlin, Rights Manager, NT Picture Library

The question still arises about what a "commercial use" of a photograph is, but this statement is quite a reassuring one for those, like me, who do a lot of work on NT land.
Click to expand...

Now that's actually a much more sensible and fair approach tbh.
 
What about taking cityscapes from their pay per entry OR free to enter land (when only the public space will be seen)?

Edit: It may not be a good idea to support them by paying the fare. Let them starve to death!
 
There seems to be a fair bit of NT bashing going on here... when it comes down to it they do a lot of hard work keeping many fabulous locations and building from going into disrepair.

I think it's pretty reasonable to try to limit people making financial gain from their hard work in restoring and maintaining their properties. Doubtless there are some officials that take things a bit too far, but if we don't allow them to make any money you will end up with a lot more photo's of overgrown ruins and a lot less of nice castles!

Not all photography has to be about making a fast buck ;)

--

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