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

Don't get me wrong folks, I respect what the NT stands for in theory. If I visit I expect to pay to use a carpark, toilets etc and I hope that money goes towards protecting these amazing places. What I do not expect is to be told where I can and cannot publish my photographs of natural landscapes.
 
skyandstone said:
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.
Click to expand...

the imagery from some digis is more than adequate for an A4 poster so it has to have some impact and i have seen some images on sites of people who iin my opinion outstrip some of the so called PRO togs.

so in my opinion it must be having some impact on thier sales or they wouldnt be such a bunch of Juan Kerrs!
 
Steve Smith said:
It would be interesting to know if he pays NT a licence for his images. I assume he does.
Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve,

I hope he does. I also hope he is bound by the terms comminucated by the NT to another member of the flick NT group.

Photographers may obtain day licences to photograph at NT properties. These are granted only when a specific project is being undertaken, and must be arranged prior to photography, they cannot be granted retrospectively. So, if a publisher were to contact you with regard to you undertaking photography for an article, book or other publication, you could request a licence which is charged for by the day and also takes into consideration the end usage. Once the images have been used in the project, the copyright reverts to the NT.
.
 
skyandstone said:
Steve,

I hope he does. I also hope he is bound by the terms comminucated by the NT to another member of the flick NT group.

Photographers may obtain day licences to photograph at NT properties. These are granted only when a specific project is being undertaken, and must be arranged prior to photography, they cannot be granted retrospectively. So, if a publisher were to contact you with regard to you undertaking photography for an article, book or other publication, you could request a licence which is charged for by the day and also takes into consideration the end usage. Once the images have been used in the project, the copyright reverts to the NT.
.
Click to expand...


so if he is making money from them then he is in fact a criminal just like the rest of us.

unless a book is a project so then he can still sell them or am i goin g totally off the wall and losing the will to take pictures any more?
 
skyandstone said:
If I visit I expect to pay to use a carpark, toilets etc and I hope that money goes towards protecting these amazing places. What I do not expect is to be told where I can and cannot publish my photographs of natural landscapes.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. In fact, at Newtown Harbour there are collection boxes in the toilets and I always put my loose change into one of them.

I can just about accept controlling commercial use of images of their buildings but I can't see how they can control use of images from natural landscapes. e.g. coastlines.

On the Isle of Wight for instance, there is a stretch of coastline which must be around ten miles long which comes under NT control. Luckily it has many public footpaths over, to and around it so if I ever had any queries I would state that any image in question was taken from one of them - as far as I can remember!

If there are no signs setting out their terms of condition of entry then they have no way of upholding any of them anyway. In the case of coastlines, there are so many different ways to approach the area that signs would be impractical.


Steve.
 
Let me make absolutely clear. Joe Cornish is in no way a criminal and I do not wish to tar him with the same brush as I do the NTPL.

But everyone must agree that an asymmetry exists where a publicly funded body allows only its own chosen photographers to profit from its landscapes on their own commercial and independent webpages.
 
hotchef23 said:
so if he is making money from them then he is in fact a criminal just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

If you look at any NT publication, you will find that the majority of the photo credits are to Joe Cornish so I imagine he has a good working relationship with them.

In fact, have a look here: http://www.ntprints.com/pics_3705/landscapes-by-joe-cornish.html

The two images marked 'West Wight' are part of the ten miles of coastline I mentioned earlier. I could take similar views to these and countless more without realising I was on NT property.




Steve.
 
hotchef23 said:
so if he is making money from them then he is in fact a criminal just like the rest of us.

unless a book is a project so then he can still sell them or am i goin g totally off the wall and losing the will to take pictures any more?
Click to expand...

I imagine JC has a VERY good relationship with the NT....!

SNAP!
 
Steve Smith said:
If you look at any NT publication, you will find that the majority of the photo credits are to Joe Cornish so I imagine he has a good working relationship with them.

In fact, have a look here: http://www.ntprints.com/pics_3705/landscapes-by-joe-cornish.html

The two images marked 'West Wight' are prt of the ten miles of coastline I mentioned earlier. I could take similar views to these and countless more without realising I was on NT property.




Steve.
Click to expand...

Note that according to the NT, it is the photographer's responsibility to find out exactly where NT land begins and ends.....

(This I noticed while trawling through the other forums this morning. Don't ask me to find it again, please.....)

And it is their responsibility to PROVE that a pic is taken from a PRoW......

PS I'm going out now. I really am....
 
so how much is a licence for the day to shoot some of thier buildings?

and yes i did say in fact he is a crimnial just like the rest of us.

if you apply the bye laws which are criminal law in their own words then he is breaking the law so must be implied that he is a criminal to be selling items. as is every other person who has published a photo to the web or shown their mates down the pub.

but i will say that no person has been prosecuted as of yet and no test cases have been taken to court so in fact mr Cornish is not a criminal nor any other person at this moment in time. ( just to clarify my point, a joke of implying the laws as the NT would want to do, there fore could result in Mr Cornish being convict or tried for the taking of pictures)

how is this if it ever gets taken up in law going to affect things like camera clubs, and the RPS when granting memberships and RPSF and the like?
 
jerry12953 said:
Note that according to the NT, it is the photographer's responsibility to find out exactly where NT land begins and ends.....
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still going to carry on taking pictures of and from NT property (landscapes, not buildings) and post them on my website. In fact if anything, this is urging me to do it, not stopping me.

Granted I don't sell prints* so I don't consider my use commercial but some interpretations of the NT's wording do.


* but I would If someone asked for one.



Steve.
 
hotchef23 said:
so how much is a licence for the day to shoot some of thier buildings?

and yes i did say in fact he is a crimnial just like the rest of us.

if you apply the bye laws which are criminal law in their own words then he is breaking the law so must be implied that he is a criminal to be selling items. as is every other person who has published a photo to the web or shown their mates down the pub.

but i will say that no person has been prosecuted as of yet and no test cases have been taken to court so in fact mr Cornish is not a criminal nor any other person at this moment in time. ( just to clarify my point, a joke of implying the laws as the NT would want to do, there fore could result in Mr Cornish being convict or tried for the taking of pictures)

how is this if it ever gets taken up in law going to affect things like camera clubs, and the RPS when granting memberships and RPSF and the like?
Click to expand...

It's probably not a good idea to describe JC in such terms. Like we suggested i'll bet he's got a very good relationship with the NT.
 
Steve Smith said:
Well, I'm still going to carry on taking pictures of and from NT property (landscapes, not buildings) and post them on my website. In fact if anything, this is urging me to do it, not stopping me.

Granted I don't sell prints so I don't consider my use commercial but some interpretations of the NT's wording do.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I know how you feel.

I'm just worried about what the future might hold, and I'm in a very vulnerable position if they decide to take out a test case!

PS I really am going out now.
 
If the NT do not charge Joe with anything, he can't be convicted, therefore he's not a criminal.

And I appreciate it was only meant in jest!


Steve.
 
Let me just give you an example of what concerns me.

Below the National Trust visitor centre at the Giant's Causeway lies a sea cave. It is rather a large sea cave at 300 yards long and 50 feet high. Yet no official NTPL photographer has ever been there and no image exists of the cave on the NTPL image library, or indeed any other image library. The reason being, it is rather a dangerous place to be.

Now, I don't photograph for the NT, but I have been there and I have taken a photo from inside the cave.

I am able to share my view with the world through my webpage. I am therefore contributing something new to our culture which didn't previously exist. If the NT had their own way, this new artwork would be supressed and forbidden. That is surely not what the NT policy should be doing.

And here it is. Portcoon Cave. I'm surprised the NT's own photographers have missed it.

ir281.jpg
 
good image did you stand on the public footpath and legal right of way to take it?
 
I was above the high tide mark and certainly in the forbidden zone.

I could almost hear the flushing of the toilets, the jangling of car park monies, and the bellowing of the NT photo police in the NT visitor centre above me.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm just worried about what the future might hold, and I'm in a very vulnerable position if they decide to take out a test case!
Click to expand...

I have just had a look at your website and I see what you mean. Good stuff though... keep it up!


Steve.
 
Jerry,

They will not take out a test case.

They will just contact your ISP and bully them into taking down your 'illegal' webpage. The NT rely on ignorant, misinformed and weak willed people to bow to their pressure. Alamy are a good example, backing down under the merest hint of litigation.

There has never been a test case and never will.

This is the nearest thing there has ever been. The NT lost this case in spectacular fashion with their bylaws being shown the door in favor of common law and historical rights.

Adair versus National Trust 1998 Northern Ireland
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/land-law-cases-52.php
 
I recall hearing about a similar case of a woman collecting mushrooms on NT land who was challenged by NT to stop. I don't recall how the case was resolved though.


Steve.
 
Oh yes, Forestry Commision, not NT.

I wonder what their bylaws/conditions of entry are with regard to photography but I'm afraid to ask!


Steve.
 
A rather expensive business it was for the forestry commission too

Her solicitor Clive Sutton said the law of common rights in relation to the issue went back to the 15th century and the settlement was achieved because Mrs Tee-Hillman could prove she had been picking fungi for many years.

"This is a victory for the common rights of the individual over those of the state," he said. The saga started in November 2002 when Mrs Tee-Hillman was arrested by police and £27-worth of brown chanterelles were confiscated after she was informed by the commission in September 2001 that picking fungi for commercial purposes was illegal.

The criminal charges were thrown out in May this year and a judge at Southampton Crown Court ordered the Forestry Commission to pay all costs, estimated to be in six figures.
 
skyandstone said:
Jerry,

They will not take out a test case.

They will just contact your ISP and bully them into taking down your 'illegal' webpage. The NT rely on ignorant, misinformed and weak willed people to bow to their pressure. Alamy are a good example, backing down under the merest hint of litigation.

There has never been a test case and never will.

This is the nearest thing there has ever been. The NT lost this case in spectacular fashion with their bylaws being shown the door in favor of common law and historical rights.

Adair versus National Trust 1998 Northern Ireland
http://www.law-essays-uk.com/land-law-cases-52.php
Click to expand...

It's not just the website. I earn a (modest) income from the publication of postcards and a calendar; many of the images I use are of/from National Trust land. In theory, perhaps, they could tell me to take them off the market....

I'm reassured by your post, but I wouldn't like to be the one that had to prove it in court.
 
What Simon Norfolk says paints it in an even worse light..

1. they (the NT) use Pro's to draw in Ameuters to take part in a competition
2. The images in the competition are then put in the commercial library
3. The images submitted to the competition are used commercially, and the photographer who shot them relinquishes any rights them
4. There isnt any sort of substantive prize or renumeration for the use of the images

In the same breath he NT are also saying

1. We dont want photographers shooting commercially on our land, making profits from images of our assets
2. Our staff will challenge people who look like professional photographers (even though they are running a competition encouraging photographers to do thier best)

This is a totally duplicitious stance "We use professionals, to hook ametuers - and then shun professionals, whilst simmultaneously commercially benefiting from the images entered into the competitions"

Advice: never give away your images, and relinquish your rights
 
Richard King said:
What Simon Norfolk says paints it in an even worse light..

1. they (the NT) use Pro's to draw in Ameuters to take part in a competition
2. The images in the competition are then put in the commercial library
3. The images submitted to the competition are used commercially, and the photographer who shot them relinquishes any rights them
4. There isnt any sort of substantive prize or renumeration for the use of the images

In the same breath he NT are also saying

1. We dont want photographers shooting commercially on our land, making profits from images of our assets
2. Our staff will challenge people who look like professional photographers (even though they are running a competition encouraging photographers to do thier best)

This is a totally duplicitious stance "We use professionals, to hook ametuers - and then shun professionals, whilst simmultaneously commercially benefiting from the images entered into the competitions"

Advice: never give away your images, and relinquish your rights
Click to expand...

....and don't renew your membership of the National Trust.....
 
Richard King said:
What Simon Norfolk says paints it in an even worse light..

1. they (the NT) use Pro's to draw in Ameuters to take part in a competition
2. The images in the competition are then put in the commercial library
3. The images submitted to the competition are used commercially, and the photographer who shot them relinquishes any rights them
4. There isnt any sort of substantive prize or renumeration for the use of the images

In the same breath he NT are also saying

1. We dont want photographers shooting commercially on our land, making profits from images of our assets
2. Our staff will challenge people who look like professional photographers (even though they are running a competition encouraging photographers to do thier best)

This is a totally duplicitious stance "We use professionals, to hook ametuers - and then shun professionals, whilst simmultaneously commercially benefiting from the images entered into the competitions"

Advice: never give away your images, and relinquish your rights
Click to expand...

I'm courious, if you shoot an image and send it in to a competition, they then sell it, thats commercial photography, they would be breaking their own rules and so would you in a funny sort of way.
 
jerry12953 said:
....and don't renew your membership of the National Trust.....
Click to expand...
Membership of the National Trust is the only way you can influence them. I wonder how many people turn up to the Annual General Meeting?

Of course if you proposed a resolution changing their photography policy then they'd put an editorial in the monthly magazine claiming they depended upon their stock library for fund-raising and soliciting proxies against the motion.

Envisioning this just makes me think the NT is run by a bunch of self-interested donkeys. I just don't see how they can justify £900 in the bank.

Stroller.
 
This is just another case of the NT looking after the interests of the gentry.. Have a look at who is ACTUALLY running the NT and you will see it is loaded with double barrelled names and little lord fauntleroys.... Despite its original good intentions it never wanted to hand over these properties to the government /people of britain and remains a Privately run charity. The ordinary members have very little say...as for instance during the calls for a hunting ban the NT commitee insisted it should be allowed on their land.... Most of the people running / patrolling properties are volunteers who give up thier time to save something the love. However, as is common with lots of such folks thier knowledge of the law is sketchy at best. I'll continue to take pictures wherever I can point my camera. While being as polite as possible to daft old duffers who don't know any better. My advice is stick to your guns use the pictures as you see fit and as long as you can walk away after the pictures are on your Mem card they are yours to so with what you want...
 
we11ingon said:
My advice is stick to your guns use the pictures as you see fit and as long as you can walk away after the pictures are on your Mem card they are yours to so with what you want...
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am going to do (except that my images will be on film). I will probably try to take even more pictures on NT land than I normally would now.


Steve.
 
I notice that the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition is now open to entries.

The T+Cs are worth studying in light of the NTs aggresive policy.
http://www.take-a-view.co.uk/termsandconditions.htm

By submitting images to Take a view, each entrant confirms and warrants that:
b) they own the copyright and any other intellectual property rights of each image;
e) they have received any necessary permissions from the owner(s) of buildings included in submitted images for the usage rights required by Take a view in #16 and will indemnify Take a view against any claims made by any third parties in respect of such infringement.

Note how the organisers indemnify themselves and pass the responsibility to the photographer to check that they have permission to submit their images.

Images are published in a national exhibition and the event is commercially endorsed by Light and Land, The Sunday Times, the National Theatre, the AA, Fujifilm, Calumet and Epson, along with many others.

Strangely, the NT is missing from the list of commercial beneficiaries / sponsors.
Also interesting is the fact that several National Parks are included as sponsors.
Do they over-rule the NT on this matter? After all, I would be suprised if an image taken in a national park could not be submitted to a competition sponsored by them.

It does seem strange that the National Trust would choose not to sponsor the biggest landscape photography competition in the UK, especially when National Parks are proactively involved. Once again, I suspect the reason why is because it conflicts with the interests of its commercial arm which will of course lose out from such a competition. Perhaps they would jump on board themselves but for the fact that the terms and conditions are so fair and balanced towards the photographers.

So, is the biggest landscape photography competition in the UK going to fall foul of NT policy?
Dare the NT flex their muscles on this one and put their policy into action?
Or is it really as worthless as I think? Will they let it go, thereby serving a difficult precedent for themselves in the future which might involve a court case for example?

I shall be examining the winning entries very carefully.

Also, notice the extremely fair T+Cs to this competition. This is how competitions should be run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top