National Trust Photographers Permit Scheme

I guess you perhaps come from a town or city?

Sorry, you guess wrong! I'm well aware of the various issues in the countryside which might affect NT - owned land. as you say, if it's farmed land they will have tenant farmers, who pay rent. And if they are taking part in conservation management schemes there will be grants for that too. I agree that there will be costs of maintaining stiles and gates or public access but the NT has a massive annual income from memberships etc.

I can see that there may be an argument for controlling "commercial" activities around the NT's historic houses etc., but I'm strongly against bringing the same kind of controls into the wider countryside that the NT owns.

Paying for the view? No way.

And don't mention NT car parks.......
 
but you do sometimes get the feeling that those who get to decide things are somewhat removed from the 'average'

I fear this is perpetuated by the sort of folk who are accepted as volunteers, or at least as front of house or publicity volunteers. 2 stories:

1. I visited an NT site, was dressed for country walking. All over the entrance area were signs asking for volunteers and how much they really needed new people for all sorts of roles and please ask any staff for details. When paying to enter the formal gardens I asked about volunteering. The sales lady looked at me, dithered and said she had to get someone else. The someone else appeared, looked me up and down and then claimed none of the sales staff knew where any of the volunteering information was, in fact they did not have any, maybe I could go away and try the web site, no idea which bit of it but there may be something on there. I said well who does have these leaflets, given you have adverts all over the entrance asking for help and saying to ask staff? It then became obvious that they did not think I was 'the right sort' which is an awful term to use, but I dont know what else to call their tone and attitude. I can only presume from what I was wearing (for walking across their own trails through woods and fields) and from my regional accent (common!). If they had bothered to ask they would have found I actually worked for the local university and generally was not the rif raff they seemed to like to think I was. I was glad of their awfulness in the end as at least I did not waste any more of my time on working with such unpleasant people.

2. Some time after the above event, a friend who volunteers (ex senior manager of a prestigious institute) was complaining that NT volunteers usually only stay for a year or so, then they get bored of doing menial stuff like car parking management or digging flower beds as there is no where to progress to and it gets repetitive. It was clear such deserters were quite disappointing but their eventual boredom of hours stood in car parks was to some degree understandable.

On the same day said friend also mentioned there was a really interesting volunteering post available, writing small articles for the NT. It turned out said friend had already phoned one of her ex management colleagues and offered it directly to them with no application process. The person the job was offered to never having volunteered in any way for the NT before.

I asked if none of the existing site volunteers had been interested in applying, as I was surprised at a lack of interest. It turns out it was never offered in any form to any of the existing volunteers, the tone was that people who did general volunteering would not be bright enough to do a bit of writing so why waste time on opening up the application to them, just give it to someone 'suitable' straight off.

I hope this sort of thing was a local aberration. The NT really should stamp on these kinds of attitudes and prejudices, it is still 'them and us', the 'right' people get the benefits even in volunteer jobs.

Very sad, as the NT is a constructive idea.
 
I can see that there may be an argument for controlling "commercial" activities around the NT's historic houses etc., but I'm strongly against bringing the same kind of controls into the wider countryside that the NT owns.
I've had similar feelings in regards to our national parks, and that's because *I pay for them.* I can (kind of) understand your feelings if you are a significant donor of money/time/effort... otherwise, not so much.

Monies raised in one location will not necessarily go towards maintaining that location. I am sure there are properties they could never possibly hope to maintain with just monies raised there. I.e. you're not "paying for the view"... you're paying so that they can maintain what they have and prevent additional lands from disappearing (i.e. purchase more).
 
you're paying so that they can maintain what they have and prevent additional lands from disappearing (i.e. purchase more).

Which then "disappear" as accessible locations for landscape photographers who wish to sell their photographs as prints. There are some who see their work as art, requiring careful printing and attention to detail rather than stock fodder.

I still recall the blanket instruction that caused one stock library to remove 10,000 or so images of NT land as the (English) NT assumed that the photographer must have stood on their land to photograph it.

Although I live in the south of England, I'm a member of the Scottish National Trust as I disapprove strongly of the English version (and not just for their policy towards photographers).
 
NT has a massive annual income from memberships etc.

My housemate is a member of NT and I saw some of the annual figures. I was surprised, the gap between income and outgoings is actually pretty small. I guess austerity is hitting them too, as much of the population has less cash to spend on non essentials, unlike say 12 or 15 years ago. NT is a very expensive trip out unless you picnic on a common plus NT trips are an avoidable expense compared to food, rent and bills.

They must be loosing income by putting up charges though. I used to go to the local site for non paying walks, cafe, garden centre, gift shop. Since the £5 blanket charge for car parking came in (they could have at least charged seperatley for short and all day parking) I no longer visit it at all, so no purchasing or meeting friends at the cafe etc as the whole event is just too expensive now with the parking added on.
 
Last edited:
NT is one of the most elitist and horrible "charities" I've come across, only eclipsed by the likes of Soros foundations. It is completely ridiculous to claim that without NT and their footpath "management" places would be inaccessible. That is wrong. It would sure look less polished but who really cares. Car park charges, all sort of schemes are just designed to eventually claim all rural land for the lords to walk their dogs and stop anyone else going near. (I mention this as I had an encounter in a 100% confirmed public woods with snotnosed elitist walking their dogs and claiming they have their exclusive rights there)

National trust of Scotland is the polar opposite and in fact a great example how things should be.

In fact I see mainly greed and protectionism from NT side. They could easily have a win-win situation if they wanted. I would have no problem with their agency having exclusivity if it wasn't basically a badly marketed library of Joe Cornish (who is in fact great photographer). They could be actually more open to all established photographers for submissions. This would in fact get around the race to the bottom started by microstock and Alamy so everyone would get decent payouts at the end of the day. Sadly it is none of that right now.

I would say it is time to nationalise the "National" for-profit charity. It is the British land and it should be for the British to enjoy and benefit from. NT is the remnant of feudalism except the duke (the CEO) now lives in a secluded location.
 
Can they legally ban drones in the airspace above their land?
(see Graham's link above)

The simple answer is no, they have no jurisdiction over air space above their property. there is no difference if it's a drone at 120m or a jumbo jet at 10,000 metres. They like to pretend that they have bylaws to prevent aerial activity, but such powers don't exist. They do have the right, as does any landowner, to deny permission to take of and land on their land and the drone operator must comply with current regulations such as not flying over people not under their control, structures or in restricted airspace near airports, prisons or built up areas. At some point, an NT official is going to overstep the mark and obstruct an operator legally going about his or her pastime and be called to account. In a separate incident, a policeman arrested a journalist who was legally flying a drone to obtain footage of a large fire, the journalist having received permission to take off by the landowner. That resulted in a five figure compensation award against the police force concerned.

I'm not suggesting common sense goes out of the window and flying on regardless, but an organisation such as the NT really ought to ensure that they are not misrepresenting their actual powers to the general public and their own staff. There are at least two organisations which do have a good common sense approach on this matter, the Crown Estates in relation to coastal shorelines, and Lakeland National Park.
 
Which then "disappear" as accessible locations for landscape photographers who wish to sell their photographs as prints.
The other option is that pictures of some of those scenic locations eventually include buildings, roads, and other forms of development/infringement. Or they cease to exist at all...
 
The other option is that pictures of some of those scenic locations eventually include buildings, roads, and other forms of development/infringement. Or they cease to exist at all...

With various regulations in Britain about building, national parks restrictions etc. etc. this isn't any more likely if the NT don't own it as if they do. After all, they have car parks, tea rooms, souvenir shops and what have you.

Apart from that, I hate to say that I also photograph buildings, and don't find buildings (except architect designed ones from the 1960s) and roads particularly ugly. If Edward Weston (I think) was correct in saying (tongue in cheek, I suspect) that anything worth photographing was within 100 yards of a car park (he did use 10x8 :D) then without roads there would be less to photograph.

Many beautiful landscapes include man made structures (and in some cases, depend on them for their attractiveness).

I invariably shed a (virtual) tear when I hear of land passing into the hands of the NT. There's a lot that's wrong with the (English) NT but it's all beside the point of this thread.
 
Last edited:
what it boils down to is anyone with a half decent camera and a longer or more expensive looking lens and possibly a tripod .looks like a prime target for gimme, gimme,gimme .while people with the latest smart phones with really good possibly dslr quality cameras built in can take pics ad lib .laughable rip off Britain strikes again
 
Nt car park charges, the car parks are free if you're an NT member. It's the same reason they charge high prices to enter properties, to make the membership fee very attractive. It's easier to run a business if you've a guaranteed regular income.
 
I wouldn't necessarily have as much of a problem with a permit if the restrictions on it (editorial only and no agency sales) did not effectively render it useless. If they are going to take money, then that payment should convey some meaningful benefit to the person paying.
 
So in theory none of us should be selling prints of say Corfe Castle for fear of prosecution?
 
So in theory none of us should be selling prints of say Corfe Castle for fear of prosecution?

Not if taken ON National Trust land without a permit, no.
But since most of the views are from the surrounding hills, which are not owned by the NT, snap away :)

(until whoever does own the relevant land decides to try and cash in...)
 
Not if taken ON National Trust land without a permit, no.
But since most of the views are from the surrounding hills, which are not owned by the NT, snap away :)

(until whoever does own the relevant land decides to try and cash in...)


And that's it, isn't it. The NT is just cashing in. And them with an annual income of .....er....a mind-boggling amount of money.......
 
And that's it, isn't it. The NT is just cashing in. And them with an annual income of .....er....a mind-boggling amount of money.......
I think that they might want to look at the wording and clarify exactly what is covered. I wouldn't see the issue of asking an annual permit fee but then allowing the photographer to sell the prints. If it really means that sales are prohibited then it becomes difficult to see what benefits the payment confers. Perhaps this simple question should be put to the NT. The photographer is seeking to gain a profit from the sales so I can't see what why the NT should not use this as an additonal income source. That's just maximising revenue and whilst it is a charity it seems reasonable to charge for commercial use
 
I think you can reasonably compare the attitude of the NT with that of the RSPB. Both a very large and successful charities with huge memberships. Entry to RSPB and NT properties/reserves is free if you are a member.

If not you pay an entry fee to access reserves or properties of both organisations, and often an (extortionate) car parking fee to park at NT countryside properties. An RSPB reserve will usually have hides to view and photograph birds from. What do you get at NT countryside properties? Usually nothing but a stile or two and frequently unnecessarilyy built-up path surfaces which start to turn a piece of genuine countryside into a country park.

Has it EVER been suggested that the RSPB is thinking of taking legal measures against professional photographers working in their reserves? I think not. I'm not a huge supporter of everything the RSPB does but their attitudes to photographers and even ordinary visitors if far more acceptable than that of the NT.
 
More on the attitude of the National Trust - and the National Trust for Scotland - to 'commercial' photography:

Tim Parkin edits 'On Landscape', a digital magazine. Last August he put a series of detailed and specific questions to NT and NTS regarding what was and wasn't allowed on open access land (i.e. land owned by the NT / NTS but which is not subject to an entrance fee). He's written up and commented on the answers he received, here:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2018/01/national-trusts-commercial-photography/

(Short, simplified versions of the responses: NTS - "Sure, no problem." NT - "Cough up.")
 
More on the attitude of the National Trust - and the National Trust for Scotland - to 'commercial' photography:

Tim Parkin edits 'On Landscape', a digital magazine. Last August he put a series of detailed and specific questions to NT and NTS regarding what was and wasn't allowed on open access land (i.e. land owned by the NT / NTS but which is not subject to an entrance fee). He's written up and commented on the answers he received, here:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2018/01/national-trusts-commercial-photography/

(Short, simplified versions of the responses: NTS - "Sure, no problem." NT - "Cough up.")


Apart from the bit in brackets (short and to the point!), that is referred to in one of the above links.
 
From The Telegraph 24 Mar 2018: (sorry, not allowed to post links ...)
Nearly half of the executives who are on £100,000 a year worked at the National Trust, where the numbers increased from 11 to 21 over the three year period.
Analysis of the Trust’s annual report and accounts showed that it also spent the most on a single unnamed employee in a single year - £219,999 in 2012. The figure included a redundancy payment.
The Trust’s said that its former director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds who left in November 2012 saw her pay increase from £160,000 - £169,999 to £170,000 to £179,000 between 2011 and 2012

The NT should be encouraging photography as a way of interesting the public in their work, and celebrating the properties and landscapes they are 'saving'. Instead they are just trying to cash in.
 
Last edited:
You rock up with your DSLR and take a stonking landscape shot and the NT expect that to become part of their library and profit from any continuous sales, is that right?

Same place, this time you put oil to canvas and sell it in a gallery, would they expect the same cut?
 
You rock up with your DSLR and take a stonking landscape shot and the NT expect that to become part of their library and profit from any continuous sales, is that right?

Same place, this time you put oil to canvas and sell it in a gallery, would they expect the same cut?
In reality the painting is likely to be a single sale so the terms may not extend to those. I suspect that in drawing up the conditions a photo may have been considered "easier" to create and make multiple sales of.

It's a contentious area. I suspect the NT is taking the line that money has been expended in protecting the landscape so its only right in their view to receive income from those exploiting that landscape with a view to profit. I think its probably hit hardest the part time togs who sell a few prints who get bundled with advertising photographers shooting a campaign by way of example
 
In reality the painting is likely to be a single sale so the terms may not extend to those. I suspect that in drawing up the conditions a photo may have been considered "easier" to create and make multiple sales of.

It's a contentious area. I suspect the NT is taking the line that money has been expended in protecting the landscape so its only right in their view to receive income from those exploiting that landscape with a view to profit. I think its probably hit hardest the part time togs who sell a few prints who get bundled with advertising photographers shooting a campaign by way of example


Another way of putting it might be that photographers who use a landscape as a prop in an advertising shoot might be expected to pay a facilities fee. I can't really argue with that in the case of one of the NT's pay-to-enter properties. It gets more difficult to justify if the shoot is in an open landscape and I just cannot accept that anyone - pro or otherwise - should pay a fee to photograph a wild landscape which in effect is owned by the nation and was in all likelihood purchased by the NT as a result of an appeal to the general public.
 
Another way of putting it might be that photographers who use a landscape as a prop in an advertising shoot might be expected to pay a facilities fee. I can't really argue with that in the case of one of the NT's pay-to-enter properties. It gets more difficult to justify if the shoot is in an open landscape and I just cannot accept that anyone - pro or otherwise - should pay a fee to photograph a wild landscape which in effect is owned by the nation and was in all likelihood purchased by the NT as a result of an appeal to the general public.
As you say it does get difficult. If you wanted to be hard headed about it what is the difference between a property under the control and care of the NT and a piece of NT landscape ? Other than its possibly easier to identity the property in an image ?
 
[QUOTE="jerry12953, post: 8129226, member: 7092"..It gets more difficult to justify if the shoot is in an open landscape and I just cannot accept that anyone - pro or otherwise - should pay a fee to photograph a wild landscape which in effect is owned by the nation and was in all likelihood purchased by the NT as a result of an appeal to the general public.[/QUOTE]

Unless you take the view that by levying a charge against those that wish to profit from the landscape the NT are increasing the funds they have available to purchase additional land / properties as they become available - so reducing the dependence on the generosity of the public.

What the NT actually does with the money it receives, in terms of use for purchases, maintenance, restoration, staff pay, etc, is a different question.
 
If I recall correctly the terms of the license - how much profit will a photographer make after paying the £75 a year licence, bought public liability cover for £2,000,000 and placed his/her photos in the NT stock library - the only place that they can be sold? Even then, they only get 50% of them money. I assume that the photographer's time is free, since time must also be expended in making the arrangements in advance with NT people since photography has to be by prior arrangement.

Hopefully, I'm wrong in my recollection of the fine print contained in this thread, but if not, who in their right minds would pay for this package?
 
Well, I'm confused. When I started selling prints I emailed the NT and asked whether I needed permission to sell prints taken on NT land. The reply was that provided the land was freely accessible (eg a Lakeland fell or whatever) then no license was required to sell prints, but would be required for selling to advertisers etc. Any photos taken on land that you had to pay to access (eg a stately home) was a different matter and you'd need a license. Here, I've found their reply:

It is National Trust policy to regulate any commercial activity on our land, including the production of photographs intended for sale (rather than personal use).

However, a number of years ago, it was decided that in order to support the important work of wildlife photographers we would not enforce the full extent of our policy on our free open access coast and countryside. Therefore, we allow all visitors to open access countryside and coast to take stock photographs for sale in all contexts except for Advertising. We maintain control over our land being used in advertising in order to maintain the integrity of our brand and to avoid any unwanted associations (political, religious or commercial).
 
[QUOTE="jerry12953, post: 8129226, member: 7092"..It gets more difficult to justify if the shoot is in an open landscape and I just cannot accept that anyone - pro or otherwise - should pay a fee to photograph a wild landscape which in effect is owned by the nation and was in all likelihood purchased by the NT as a result of an appeal to the general public.

Unless you take the view that by levying a charge against those that wish to profit from the landscape the NT are increasing the funds they have available to purchase additional land / properties as they become available - so reducing the dependence on the generosity of the public.

What the NT actually does with the money it receives, in terms of use for purchases, maintenance, restoration, staff pay, etc, is a different question.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.
 
Well, I'm confused. When I started selling prints I emailed the NT and asked whether I needed permission to sell prints taken on NT land. The reply was that provided the land was freely accessible (eg a Lakeland fell or whatever) then no license was required to sell prints, but would be required for selling to advertisers etc. Any photos taken on land that you had to pay to access (eg a stately home) was a different matter and you'd need a license. Here, I've found their reply:


That's very interesting. What exactly "to maintain integrity of our brand" means I don't know but otherwise it seems fairly acceptable.

How long ago did they tell you that? Was it the National Trust for Scotland or the UK NT?
 
Well, I'm confused. When I started selling prints I emailed the NT and asked whether I needed permission to sell prints taken on NT land. The reply was that provided the land was freely accessible (eg a Lakeland fell or whatever) then no license was required to sell prints, but would be required for selling to advertisers etc. Any photos taken on land that you had to pay to access (eg a stately home) was a different matter and you'd need a license. Here, I've found their reply:

Was that an official response, or one particular individual in an office (who possibly misunderstood the policy)? The only reason I ask is because the NT have a habit of ploughing through stock libraries demanding removal of images. It has never happened to me personally, but I have heard of it on places like Alamy etc.
 
That's very interesting. What exactly "to maintain integrity of our brand" means I don't know but otherwise it seems fairly acceptable.

How long ago did they tell you that? Was it the National Trust for Scotland or the UK NT?

About 18 months ago. It was the UK National Trust.

Was that an official response, or one particular individual in an office (who possibly misunderstood the policy)? The only reason I ask is because the NT have a habit of ploughing through stock libraries demanding removal of images. It has never happened to me personally, but I have heard of it on places like Alamy etc.

It was the images department judging by the email address. I suspect that stock photography is something they disapprove of because it could be bought and used for advertising purposes.
 
I suspect that stock photography is something they disapprove of because it could be bought and used for advertising purposes.

They don't like stock photography because they have their own stock library and employ professional photographers to fill it (and no doubt get a load of freebies as well) . They are bound to feel that other stock libraries are "the competition".

I just don't get the idea that advertisers will somehow fail to "maintain the integrity of the brand" by using images of NT land. I used to get the same argument from the Wales Tourist Board when I worked for them. They used it to insist that their (freelance) photographers handed over every single image (film or digital) from a shoot to them (and insisted on retaining copyright).
 
I just don't get the idea that advertisers will somehow fail to "maintain the integrity of the brand" by using images of NT land. I used to get the same argument from the Wales Tourist Board when I worked for them. They used it to insist that their (freelance) photographers handed over every single image (film or digital) from a shoot to them (and insisted on retaining copyright).

I guess it's to prevent someone using a photo of, say, a stately home in conjunction with a message like "get a load of these f%$ing toffs!"
 
Hi guys - just an update, I was accepted onto the scheme when I applied a few months ago and offered a contract - however I rejected the offer as it seems as you pay £75 a year (plus the insurance) for very little. I'm not sure how many photos the National Trust picture library actually sells, but as a wildlife photographer you can imagine my displeasure when adding to this, I found that they just buy generic wildlife photos from other specialist nature stock libraries, meaning I would probably sell very few photos.
 
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..
I have been told that if I wish to sell my oil paintings online and limited edition prints/cards, I have to buy a licence. I can't find a policy online that says that professional artists need a permit. And yes, £75 for 50 prints is extortion. The licence only lasts one year.
 
Back
Top