1. M_Livesey

    M_Livesey

    Messages:
    10
    Name:
    Matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi

    I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the National Trust Photographers Permit Scheme here? I emailed National Trust Images enquiring about it and they replied with the relevant document. Apparently the licence is £75 a year and you receive 50% of income from photos sold through their image library, whilst retaining your right to sell directly for editorial use, although no commercial use.
     
  2. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Not heard of this or the details you outline.

    Having said that just how many sales via their image library & the editorial usage would you have to sell to cover the yearly license and then make some money.

    Also, in the terms they sent you how do they qualify "commercial use".................are they for example restricting you selling prints or online downloads??? Or is just selling to non editorial usage in printed magazines and books?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  3. M_Livesey

    M_Livesey

    Messages:
    10
    Name:
    Matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi, thanks for your reply

    Commercial use is indeed defined to include directly selling prints to buyers, which is why I'm not 100% sure on this scheme. I'm not sure how many sales you would need to make up the difference as the usages such as consumer prints or images sold through the image library vary. The weird thing is as a wildlife photographer, I'm only interested in photographing the wildlife on the land of NT estates (some of which are very good for wildlife) and am trust trying to find a way that I can still take images there and still make some return from them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  4. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    299
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This is actually rather interesting, and I wondered of you could answer a couple of questions

    1. Have they specified third party liability insurance being required? Something every professional photographer will have anyway, but I just wondered if this was something they raised and if they wanted a particular level of cover.
    2. are they happy for you to set up tripods
    3. Are they assuming you will only have access during normal opening hours. Some grounds, even though they have official hours, still seem to allow out of hours access e.g. locals still walk their dogs out of hours.

    Thanks

    It will be interesting to see if the NT for Scotland offer something similar !
     
  5. M_Livesey

    M_Livesey

    Messages:
    10
    Name:
    Matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Hi

    The document says "Photographers must have a minimum of £2 million public liability insurance"

    The scheme refers to out of doors photography (not the interior of properties), so I assume tripods are acceptable as they make no mention of them?

    The document says you have to book in with staff every time you go, but the grounds of the properties I shoot on are open access and I sometimes take my photos during these hours (e..g very early in the morning) so I'm not are how that would work, presumably just let them know in advance or after you've taken the photos?

    Thanks
     
  6. myotis

    myotis

    Messages:
    299
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks, useful to know, I imagine the ideal would be to develop a good relationship with the properties you regularly visit. It actually sounds not too bad a deal.
     
  7. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,700
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No

    So you are aware there is no legal distinction between commercial and editorial use
     
  8. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Any chance of a link to this scheme? So much wild land where I photograph belongs to the NT.
     
  9. M_Livesey

    M_Livesey

    Messages:
    10
    Name:
    Matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  10. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,725
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Surely as soon as one sells an image, that is commercial use?
    Presumably, their interpretation is that it's OK to sell an image for use in a magazine, newspaper or TV report, but not OK for the photographer to directly or indirectly sell prints or downloads to Joe Public or be published on calendars and the like.

    If you can't sell prints of your images to your customers, I don't actually see the point of the scheme. Just looks like a way of screwing another £75 out of folks to me, whilst adding to their own library of images at little cost to themselves..
     
  11. M_Livesey

    M_Livesey

    Messages:
    10
    Name:
    Matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hi

    "commercial use" is sale of the image for a purpose that will be used to make money - as selling directly to a client for private use in their home is not a purpose to make money, this wouldn't come under commercial use (I believe).
     
  12. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,725
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You may well be right.
     
  13. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    2,298
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hypothetical question: There's a local beauty spot of open access land where photographers have gone for many years to take landscape photos from the top of a prominent point, then the NT subsequently acquires this land as one of its estates.

    Are we to understand that any landscape photographs taken from this stage onwards from the traditional vantage point now cannot be sold by the photographer who took them?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  14. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I see the scheme refers ONLY to "pay-on-entry" properties which (Thank God) excludes most of the NT properties that I would want to visit.

    I'm no fan of the NT at all. There was a concern last year that they were going to take to task a couple of pro landscape photographers who took images on NT land in North Wales. I'm not sure what happened about that. From the first paragraph in the piece you linked to it seemed that they were able to distinguish between "Commercial Photography" and the selling of images taken on NT owned wild land. However the second paragraph suggests they can't - or won't -

    "The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form without the consent of National Trust Images. Images taken at National Trust properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies or on-line providers or provided directly to image buyers. Requests for access for commercial photography or filming should be directed to the Head of Filming and Locations, +44 020 78247128, in the first instance."
     
  15. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,725
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's that second paragraph that would give me a significant problem with handing over £75 for a professional photographer permit.
     
  16. taxboy

    taxboy

    Messages:
    1,048
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Although you may not be a fan, I guess it's ultimately a case of their ball, their rules........
     
  17. Peter123

    Peter123

    Messages:
    914
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  18. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Indeed. They own huge swathes of Wales as well, inland and coastal, and it's no surprise that they own most of the most photogenic bits - most of yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) for example. Does that permit them to forbid the sale of any image of Snowdon taken from any other part of it? That would be taking the rights of the landowner way beyond what is acceptable. And if the NT started doing it, other landowners would have carte blanche to start doing the same thing. Where would it end?
     
    jonoooo125, Mr Badger and sphexx like this.
  19. swanseamale47

    swanseamale47

    Messages:
    7,931
    Name:
    wayne clarke
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    They may own the land but a public right of way is still public.
     
    madmackem likes this.
  20. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,329
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    A public right of way confers no other right other than that of passage.
     
  21. Mr Badger

    Mr Badger

    Messages:
    2,298
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And all you have the right to do on a public footpath is to 'pass and re-pass'. Stop and set up a tripod and you could be moved on as you'd be causing an obstruction. Does anyone know if the law permits photography from a public footpath as opposed to a public highway or area?

    Don't confuse this with open access land under the CROW Act, as I think that may be different and you are not allowed to take photographs (not sure if this is just restricted to those for commercial purposes?): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  22. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No

    What you are not allowed to do on access Land includes......

    ......run commercial activities on the land such as:

    • trade or sell
    • charge other visitors for things they do on your land
    • film, photograph or make maps...........
    Same problem of defining "commercial" that the National Trust has, it seems
     
  23. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hmmmm! I surmise with all the NT land holdings there and will be many photos taken on their land without the photographer knowing they are on nt land!

    The first paragraph refers to pay on entry sites and editorial use only permitted with the permit.

    But in the second paragraph it is ambiguous where ref is made to land in general and specifically pay on entry sites plus mentions 'image buyers'.........could that be interpreted as print sales to individuals???

    Where there is ambiguity there is opportunity for misunderstandings :(
     
  24. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,035
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    There is if defined in their TOU... and it's pretty clear that what is not allowed (w/o approval) is "sale/publication." It's also clear that the definition of "publication" is in accordance with copyright laws... i.e. display/communication to the public is ok, distributing copies (allowing downloads/distribution) is not.

    http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/photographic-access
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  25. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,700
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No

    No there isn’t (atleast in the England) and theirs term of use aren’t English law. Maybe you’d point to a legal source (ie an actual law) that says other wise
     
  26. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,035
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's not a specific law/definition... it's a contract you enter into when accepting the TOU as a condition of access/entry. And the meaning of the terms as applicable can be defined w/in the TOU. I.e. a "legal distinction" that would have validity/weight if it were to go to court.
     
  27. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,329
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Retail to the general public is absolutely commercial use. You said so yourself in post #3
     
  28. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,700
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No

    So you agree with me there is no legal definition in England?
     
  29. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    And in post #3 he mentioned wildlife imagery.

    Not all wildlife photography shows identifiable background, if NT 'claim' rights over all imagery I can see no benefit to landscape and wildlife photographers paying the permit fee......as editorial use is surely unlikely to pay sufficiently! :(
     
    Peter Drought likes this.
  30. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,329
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    I agree, especially as you aren't allowed to place the images with an editorial agency - which is frankly bonkers.
     
    Peter Drought likes this.
  31. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    So NT have created their own version of a "classic catch 22" :(
     
  32. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,329
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Nope, they've set out to achieve exactly what they want - which is that no one should have a library of images of NT properties apart from the NT itself.
    Which means they can fix their prices how they want.
     
  33. regen

    regen

    Messages:
    137
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Nope- They have 1000s on Alamy and Alamy fix the prices there!

    Regen
     
  34. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This MAY be acceptable in their pay-for-entry properties but over their wider countryside estate, which is very extensive, it is totally and completely unreasonable, and a misuse of their special status as a landowner.
     
  35. Box Brownie

    Box Brownie

    Messages:
    5,522
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Agreed, that is why I said the (pithy?) terms on that link above are ambiguous. NT need to be more explicit or get it tested in court. Though (scratches head?) have there been such issues with pictures of Durdle Door.........or is that a membership card shown/pay on entry 'countryside' property???
     
  36. flavio

    flavio

    Messages:
    799
    Name:
    Tony
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Seems fair enough to me me, in fact 50% is pretty good, compared to some outlets it's generous!
     
  37. jerry12953

    jerry12953

    Messages:
    8,191
    Name:
    Jeremy Moore
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I agree that they are ambiguous, in fact that is what I said in post no 14! It may be that they are deliberately ambiguous so that they can be used in certain situations but ignored otherwise.

    IIRC there is a public right of way through the caravan site to DD, but you have to pay to park your car there (which is fair enough) . Access to the coast is FoC even though it does belong to the NT.
     
  38. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,035
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Your original comment which I disagreed with was "no legal distinction."
     
  39. Peter Drought

    Peter Drought

    Messages:
    166
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It is just a moneymaking scheme to get £75 a year of people as far as I can see. The actual sales value for editorial use is going to be pretty limited indeed. When did you last see a landscape in a newspaper? It is behaviour like this that over the years has given the NT the generally bad reputation that it has among photographers.

    As a matter of interest, its director general took home a "Base salary" of £191,318 in 2016 according to p15 of their annual report. Its operating margin was £101.1million (see page 16).
    https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/documents/annual-report-201617.pdf
     
    jerry12953 and GeeJay57 like this.
  40. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,035
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't see how it's ambiguous. This is the final line that kind of sums it all up, and if you read all of the access rules it's quite clear.
    "As with outdoor photography, any photographs taken are strictly for private use, and enquiries about selling or publishing photographs should be directed to images@nationaltrust.org.uk."

    You can take and display the images as you want. But if money is going to be made they want a piece of it, and IMO that's not necessarily unreasonable. After all, there are a lot of expenses that go into owning/maintaining properties that they are allowing you to enjoy.
     
    flavio likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice