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

1. If you publish, you can be found
2. Fairly straightforward in most cases
3. If it is a criminal matter then they need show no loss

However, practically, the bylaw doesn't appear to be worth the paper it is written on, so any proceedings would need to be initiated under a civil action for damages. No photographer has ever been taken to court so no test case has been fought so far (they would undoubtedly lose and it would be a PR disaster). However the latest hardline stance by the NT suggest there is going to be an imminent crackdown and the bullying and threats will continue.
 
Skyandstone,

What you are suggesting here is that the National Trust is now trying to forbid any "commercial photography" on ANY of its land - not just its pay to enter properties.

Am I right?

If so, this is the very worst of all worst-case scenarios for all landscape photographers.

(And what I suggested that the NT would try to do if it thought it could - but that's another matter)
 
What you are suggesting here is that the National Trust is now trying to forbid any "commercial photography" on ANY of its land - not just its pay to enter properties.

Am I right?

I hope you are not right as that would include half of the coastline of the Isle of Wight (where I live).

I don't use it commercially myself but I know a couple who do.



Steve.
 
Steve,

The scary thing is, its not even commercial photographers that are being targeted.

This policy forbids ANY type of publication, including online publication to the likes of Flickr, webpages, magazines, competitions etc

Andy
 
Then I'm a criminal! Let's hope they find my website. I like a good argument!

Two of my images in the current black and white themed competition on this site are from and of NT property. I assume they think that's not allowed either.


Steve.
 
Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research

I think I would argue that posting to Flickr and/or personal websites is personal use.


Steve.
 
This email from the NT was posted to the flickr national trust group which would suggest otherwise

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/discuss/72157603813072167/

Any use of images beyond your own private and personal use is considered commercial photography, so even if no fees are generated by the usage, reproduction or distribution of the images beyond your own private or domestic use is prohibited.

Private and domestic use seems to mean ' kept in a shoebox under the bed' and viewed only by torchlight.'
 
Well, like I said, I would argue that Flickr and personal websites are personal use, not commercial.




Steve.
 
so when do we start a website specifically for free distrubution of photos of NT properties and areas.

the NT or dictatorship was desogn to protect and preserve the heritage for the people of this land, as a charity. might be worth looking at the orginal grant of charity status to see if it is meant to be a none profit making charity.


sorry will no longer respect or pay them a penny.

might be worth starting a national awareness drive so every person who takes pictures is aware they could be a criminal.
 
They can consider it whatever they like, it doesn't make it law though, personal use could well include sharing the image with friends, facebook, blogs etc, I suspect they would be on sticky ground in court with that. To be honest I suspect they would be afraid to chance it, a court judgement against them would leave them wide open to photography and possible compensation claims from people who have had images pulled in the past.
 
so when do we start a website specifically for free distrubution of photos of NT properties and areas.

the NT or dictatorship was desogn to protect and preserve the heritage for the people of this land, as a charity. might be worth looking at the orginal grant of charity status to see if it is meant to be a none profit making charity.

sorry will no longer respect or pay them a penny.

might be worth starting a national awareness drive so every person who takes pictures is aware they could be a criminal.

An excelent idea, and needs seriously looking into. Seconded!
 
To be honest I suspect they would be afraid to chance it, a court judgement against them would leave them wide open to photography and possible compensation claims from people who have had images pulled in the past.

That's what I would think too.

Also, they can't just do a blanket ban. They would have to inform the photographer/website owner on a picture by picture basis and that is far too much work for anyone to consider.

I assume this applies equally to you in South Wales. Isn't the Pembrokeshire coastline now a national park? Not sure if that means it's NT though.



Steve.
 
sorry will no longer respect or pay them a penny.

I have never been a member but I do sometimes leave donations at the local sites as the local people do actually do good work. It's just the corporate part I disagree with.

I am an English Heritage member though and I still can't work out why we have English Heritage and National Trust when they both do more or less the same thing.



Steve.
 
That's what I would think too.

Also, they can't just do a blanket ban. They would have to inform the photographer/website owner on a picture by picture basis and that is far too much work for anyone to consider.

I assume this applies equally to you in South Wales. Isn't the Pembrokeshire coastline now a national park? Not sure if that means it's NT though.



Steve.

I would assume it applies equally here, if they try and pull all the pics of pembrokeshire coastline they are going to need a pretty big legal department, and a fair bit of time! there must be hundreds of thousands around. Wayne
 
I would assume it applies equally here, if they try and pull all the pics of pembrokeshire coastline they are going to need a pretty big legal department, and a fair bit of time! there must be hundreds of thousands around. Wayne

I would think the rate of posting images would exceed the rate of successfully having them removed.


Steve.
 
I am an English Heritage member though and I still can't work out why we have English Heritage and National Trust when they both do more or less the same thing.
Steve.

I don't know the history of English heritage but I see it as much more of a building protecter than the NT.

The NT was set up in 1895 by rich landowners who didn't want the nasty ordinary people of the city spreading over their nice land with urban sprawl.

Originally they didn't give a toss about buildings, that came much later. Perhaps the reason why so many fantastic great houses were demolished in the first half of the 20th century (some twelve and a half thousand I believe)

I have always disliked the NT ever since I lived for a time on Brownsea and saw the mismanagement, but since they took over the Banks estate (Kingston Lacy and a huge chunk of Dorset) they have really managed to upset people. I think many of the tenants still wish the Banks family were in charge.
 
The NT was set up in 1895 by rich landowners who didn't want the nasty ordinary people of the city spreading over their nice land with urban sprawl.

On the contrary, trapper, The NT was setup to benefit the poor. NT land was to be considered a 'garden for the poor'.

Their current policy seems to against that original idea as far as photography is concerned.

Regarding a national campaign, the links I supplied will give you all the info you need to get involved in this protest. Please support Copyright Action. Also I would uge you all to email the NT direct and tell every photographer you know.

Regarding a possible test case. Interesting point raised. If the NT did take a photographer to court and they lost, this would indeed open the floodgates to court action by other disgruntled photographers who have perhaps have lost income (e.g as a result of their images being removed from Alamy). I don't think the NT would ever take that chance.

Finally, regarding releasing all our images for free. This would kill the NTPL stone dead. This is exactly what the Alamy photographers were threatening to do. Hence the new NT policy restricting any sort of image sharing or publication, not just for profit. They don't want NT images released into the public domain at all. And that includes Flickr/Wikimedia/Panoramio/personal werbpages etc.
 
Originally they didn't give a toss about buildings, that came much later. Perhaps the reason why so many fantastic great houses were demolished in the first half of the 20th century (some twelve and a half thousand I believe).

Just to go off on a tangent here, last month I visited the Weald Open Air Museum. They are a superb saviour of old buildings - albeit not in their original environment.

Well worth a visit if you are interested in that sort of thing.



Steve.
 
On the contrary, trapper, The NT was setup to benefit the poor. NT land was to be considered a 'garden for the poor'.

From the national Trust website

The National Trust was founded in 1895 by three Victorian philanthropists - Miss Octavia Hill, Sir Robert Hunter and Canon Hardwicke Rawnsley. Concerned about the impact of uncontrolled development and industrialisation, they set up the Trust to act as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings.

Even that is spin, as they really weren't interested in houses to begin with, only land, but it was all about preventing expansion of towns and cities. No mention of benefiting the poor.
 
OK, I'll accept they weren't rich land owners.

This is an unbiased view without spin from the NT I think.

http://www.theneedlesbattery.org.uk/trust.shtml

My views on the National Trust are based on my experience of them for 40 years and the information I was given long before the internet existed so I've done a bit of googling to check.

They were formed to save land though, as I was always told, property was a secondary issue.

They are a bloated inefficient organisation, and I still dislike them intensely. They have a privileged position with Government that nobody else has, and it is a bit innocuous to bang on about how they have nothing to do with them.

They get property though the arrangement whereby owners can forego death duties (now IHT), itself an iniquitous tax that has led to the break up of many estates and the separation of houses from the income that supported them.

they also have a special arrangement whereby land and property can be given inalienable rights, protecting it forever from compulsory purchase.

However in my opinion they have been too quick in the past to trade these off because of their special relationship with the establishment.

As you can probably tell, I am not a fan.
 
I've just spent the last couple of hours following this up on various websites linked to the one originally posted by skyand stone.

It appears that AT PRESENT the NT has no intention of prohibiting so-called "commercial" photography on its wider land holdings, thank god. But it obviously believes that it has the right to do so by the very fact that owns the land.

If all landowners took this attitude, what would there be left to take pictures of? The front lawn and the garden shed? And better make sure the field at the bottom of the garden doesn't show?

It seems to me that the National Trust is in a very priveleged position as a result of its legal status. Not to mention that so much of the land it may wish to prohibit photography on in the future was paid for by the general public through appeals and legacies, etc.

The summit of Snowdon, together with some surrounding land, for example, was purchased by the National Trust maybe 10 years ago following a public appeal headed by Antony Hopkins entitled "Save Snowdon". Save Snowdon, from what, exactly? It was already protected as an SSSI and National Nature Reserve. The NT asked for £3m with this misleading campaign, raised £4m (apparently) from well-meaning people who thought they were doing the right thing and saving it "for the nation".

Now it seems there is a risk that the NT may ban "commercial" photography on this land because it is THEIR property. There must be dozens of other cases around the UK where this has happened. Operation Neptune enabled the NT to buy long stretches of the UK coastline and the NT now believe it is THEIR land to do with as they wish.

Please someone help me to calm down.........
 
It appears that AT PRESENT the NT has no intention of prohibiting so-called "commercial" photography on its wider land holdings, thank god. But it obviously believes that it has the right to do so by the very fact that owns the land.

So is it just actual buildings which they are concerned with at the moment?



Steve.
 
Please someone help me to calm down.........

CALM DOWN..... CALM DOWN.

voices_scousers_200x150.jpg




Steve.
 
I have had an interesting conversation with another photographer today.

This photographer recently entered one of the current NT competitions in good faith without delving too deeply into the small print of the T+Cs. When he heard of the of the ongoing issues with the NT rights grabs he was horrified. After reviewing the small print for himself, he requested that his images be withdrawn from the competition. He has heard nothing for the NT for over two weeks and his images are still on the online competition database.

It will be interesting to see if the NT take an honorable approach in this case. After all, the competition deadline has still not passed. Surely everyone is entitled to a cool off period?

I'll let you all know when I hear more.
 
I have re-found the relevant letter from the NT about photography on its land. It is the response to an email rom a photographer and I hope s/he does not mind me copying it here.


Quote begins



Dear *****,

Many thanks for your email enquiring about what is and is not permitted with regard to the private and/or commercial use of works produced on National Trust land.

The National Trust is protected from unsanctioned commercial exploitation by a byelaw passed in 1965, which states:

'No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph'.

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. For commercial photography of gardens, architectural exteriors and interiors, permission is required. Please contact the Media and Broadcast Liaison Officer, Harvey Edgington on: 020 7447 6759. If permission is given, the photographers are asked to confirm contractually that the pictures are for one-time use only. We may invite them to consider lodging appropriate images in the National Trust Photo Library on an agency basis. Photography for other photo libraries is never permitted.

This policy has been in place for some years and is accepted by professionals in the photographic world. It was worked out in association with the Historic Houses Association and English Heritage. It echoes the sentiments of the founders of the National Trust who, even then, were concerned that the National Trust should not be exploited commercially.

The National Trust is a charity with the statutory purpose of conserving places of historic interest or natural beauty for the benefit of the nation. It, therefore, has a duty to protect and husband its resources so as to be better able to carry out its conservation work. This conservation remit means that it is vital to have the ability to manage the marketing of Trust property. The Trust must also be careful not to advertise inadvertently or endorse products with which it does not wish to be associated. In addition many of its properties are leased to tenants and their concerns have to be taken into account and respected accordingly.

The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. However, the editorial use of images taken on non-paying properties is not something that we are currently enforcing given that the issue of marketing property is not so sensitive. Therefore images you create on, for instance, Snowdon would not be monitored for improper use, whereas images taken at Fountains Abbey would be in breach of our policy.

You also refer to public rights of way. You are perfectly entitled to sell photographs taken on designated public footpaths or highways for editorial use, or any use where a property release is not required by the end user. This only applies to legally defined public footpaths and not to all footpaths. Where boundaries are unclear it is, I'm afraid, the photographer's responsibility to check whether or not s/he is on NT land. This would be true of any privately owned land, including land freely open to the public (such as the Royal Parks in London).

Any form of commercial activity conducted on paid entry National Trust properties must be sanctioned by the relevant department. This would include anyone setting up an easel to paint etc. Access to such activities is commonly granted but permission must be sought, as must evidence of the relevant public liability insurance (currently £6m).

I hope this is helpful to you.

Regards,

Chris.

Chris Rowlin
Rights Manager
t The National Trust Photo Library
www.ntpl.org.uk


Quote ends
 
My comments on the above official letter.

This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based.
They are telling us that the whole policy is based on the dodgy hawking bylaw, quoted out of context and being used outwith the scope of section 24 of the National Trust Act. This is the act that describes the situations in which the NT is legally allowed to make and apply its own bylaws. Section 24 makes it clear that bylaws are to be used to prevent public nuisance and damage to property. It says nothing about using bylaws to protect its commercial interests.

Photography for other photo libraries is never permitted
No clarification then on on image sharing photo libraries such as Flickr, but this statement would almost certainly include it.

the Trust does not permit photography for profit or publication without permission
Note the careful use of the word OR again to prevent any publication, not just commercial

This policy has been in place for some years and is accepted by professionals in the photographic world.
Untrue, a google search on the Alamy fiasco will convince you of that. I'm sure it is accepted by the small number of their own commissioned photographers who appear to be allowed to sell NT images on their own commercial websites.
E.g this photo taken on NT land at Murlough Bay Northern Ireland
http://www.joecornish.com/products/view_product.asp?catid=444&sectionid=10&page=12

This would include anyone setting up an easel to paint etc.
And so other artists are now being targeted it seems.

The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes
Now this really is the eye opener.
 
Thank you skyandstone.

I posted the letter for information, and am grateful to you for commenting on it.

I would be interested to know if it is acceptable to photograph "commercially" from Access Land, as well as Public Rights of Way.

There must be many, many other photographers and photo libraries who are selling (or offering for sale) images of/from NT land, either via the web or by other means - myself included!

Edit: Access Land being that which the Right to Roam is applicable.
 
from the charities comm the information the NT gives is

"THE PRESERVATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION OF LANDS AND TENEMENTS (INCLUDING BUILDINGS) OF BEAUTY OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND, AS REGARDS LANDS, FOR THE PRESERVATION (AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE) OF THEIR NATURAL ASPECT, FEATURES AND ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE. ALSO THE PRESERVATION OF FURNITURE, PICTURES AND CHATTELS OF ANY DESCRIPTION HAVING NATIONAL AND HISTORIC OR ARTISTIC INTEREST. (FOR FURTHER DETAILS SEE THE NATIONAL TRUST ACTS, 1907 TO 1971). "

so they want to preserve it for us but not lets us benifit from it?
 
That is the key question Jerry.

Do the NT have any legal power to stop this where no ticket is bought and the public have a legal or historical (common law) right of access?

But lets get away from purely the commercial angle. I am far more concerned about my right to publication, exhibition and freedom to communicate my photography in whatever medium I choose.

In this internet age, the world of the photo amateur is joined at the hip with commerce. After all, most amateur photo competitions these days are run by commercial companies or magazines. Also, Flickr holds advertising and is run for the profit of shareholders. After Alamy, will Flickr be next? Or will we be receiving a writ in the coming months over NT photography we exhibit on our webpages? Even if we are not selling it, is it not acting as advertising for our talents?
 
another question is how much are the well know photographers advising and guiding the policy?

if they are is it because they are losing out to some fantastic shots that are now being taken by amateur togs and affecting their money making shots?
 
That is the key question Jerry.

Do the NT have any legal power to stop this where no ticket is bought and the public have a legal or historical (common law) right of access?

But lets get away from purely the commercial angle. I am far more concerned about my right to publication, exhibition and freedom to communicate my photography in whatever medium I choose.

In this internet age, the world of the photo amateur is joined at the hip with commerce. After all, Flickr holds advertising and is run for the profit of shareholders. After Alamy, will Flickr be next? Or will we be receiving a writ in the coming months over NT photography we exhibit on our webpages? Even if we are not selling it, is it not acting as advertising for our talents?

Yes. It is shocking to think that the NT might even consider preventing any kind of artistic endeavour - other than the overtly commercial (eg film production) - on their land. Perhaps it will never happen, but I still suspect they would try to stop it if they thought they could.

As far as commercial use goes, I make a modest living from landscape photography in Wales, and the NT owns a large perecentage of the most spectacular landcapes around. I do have a vested interest, but there also is a principle at stake here.
 
another question is how much are the well know photographers advising and guiding the policy?

if they are is it because they are losing out to some fantastic shots that are now being taken by amateur togs and affecting their money making shots?

I would have my doubts about this. I think the NT is trying to maximise its income, not the photographers. I believe, however, that the Joe Cornish's of this world do earn 50% of the fees from their pics in the NT photo library.
 
A very good point Hotchef.

The market is becoming more dilute as the technology puts high quality imagery into the hands of the masses. I believe that NT images are next to worthless now anyway as public domain imagery and creative commons imagery is available all over the web. There is no doubt that the NTs own photographers and the NTPL itself must be concerned about that.
 
The market is becoming more dilute as the technology puts high quality imagery into the hands of the masses.

The most famous photographer of NT properties is Joe Cornish. Current technology is nowhere near competing with the quality he can achieve with a large format camera.



Steve.
 
I. I think the NT is trying to maximise its income, not the photographers. .

i think from the returns to the charity bods they made 33 mill from 2008. that wasnt from subsiduary companies either.

so like they neeed to do that!!!1
 
The most famous photographer of NT properties is Joe Cornish. Current technology is nowhere near competing with the quality he can achieve with a large format camera.

Steve.

I would disagree. I don't want to take this off topic by starting a digital versus LF war, but there are many people out there that are getting very good at stitching digital imagery. Also in 99% of cases, the lack of a large format camera would not be a restriction to publication, particularly for online publication.
 
Also in 99% of cases, large format camera would not be required, particularly for online publication.

This is true of online images and small images in NT publications but Joe Cornish also sells large prints so I don't see his sales being affected by Joe Average with his Nicanoltax D440000 Mk.IV

It would be interesting to know if he pays NT a licence for his images. I assume he does.


Steve.
 
Back
Top