- This topic is empty.
When the national trust gets nasty
-
Here’s an interesting read. It seems that the national trust are getting a bit heavy handed with photographers.
http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-picture-yourself-competition
I will be interested to see who’s first to get a nasty email from the NT demanding photos be removed from their webpages or flickr pages. Alternatively, who will be the first to have photos stolen from their webpages by the NT who consider them as rightfully theirs.
It will happen soon I’m sure.
It appears that somebody has set up a new protest website to put pressure on the NT. This might just be the start of some kind of test situation to force the NT to relax their position. I for one don’t like the idea of being labelled a criminal for exhibiting photographs of natural wonders like the Giant’s Causeway.
http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/
Doesn’t it make you want to goad them? If I could be bothered I’d
travel the country taking pictures of NT property from just outside.Pete, perhaps we need to organise a group protest down at the Causeway.
“What do we want, snaps, when do we want to them, snappy!!”
This part is very interesting.
It appears that NT Picture Library is part of NT Enterprises Ltd, a subsidiary commercial company that undertakes profitable activities such as merchandising, catering, car park operation, holiday lets and book publishing that are not legally permitted within the terms of the NT’s charitable status. In 2008 NTE Ltd posted a profit of £52m.
According to the 2008 annual report, the NT has 50 employees on salaries of over £60,000p.a. including 6 over £100,000p.a., £918m assets invested (75% with JP Morgan), property notionally worth £6Bn, a pensions black hole and a green energy deal with those celebrated friends of photography and the environment, npower. Profit derived from licensing of other people’s photography is not identified, we didn’t even get a byline.
Magic just bloody, Magic. So a “charity” sets up a company to make profit for it. Nice!!
I’ve foolish submitted a few shots to the NT photo competition, “Picture Yourself” and Andy has now informed me that by submitting and entering the NT pretty much own these photo’s and can use them for whatever means they see fit.
Before I send a polite but strongly worded email to them I thought I’d check with you guys, is there anyway I can get my photo’s back. If I notify them that I no longer wish to be considered for this competition will I get my photo’s back and they can’t use them.I presume that this would mean that the Northern Ireland Tourism Board, which would heavily promote the Giants Causeway, could only source it’s images from National Trust approved agencies. A bit odd then, that the Tourism agency would have to pay the National Trust (as well as the approved agent) to promote the National Trust. Could, then, the Tourism body be held accountable for attracting people to visit and take photographs knowing full well that a large amount will end up on the web or published in photo book type albums. Will Joe Cornish have to remove his images from his galleries and books if he doesn’t pay the required fee and will he allow unfettered access to his relevant images by the National Trust to use as they please. I doubt it.
I notice that the author of the alternate website is David Kilpatrick, is he same person who is author of various photography techniques and portfolio books?Exactly darkroom,
And the only images of the Causeway allowed on Alamy will be those supplied by the National Trust, many of which will be sourced through their so called “competitions”. Disgraceful isn’t it?
Do they not realise that photos taken by amateurs and semi pros and posted on flickr and on their own websites are actually free promotion for National Trust sites.
Yes, David Kilpatrick is a well known and respected photographer.
Aye I totally agree. NT don’t own the Giants Causeway but thinking, they do own the right of way, the road. They have built that access road. I know you don’t have to pay to see the GC but as it’s their road……
I wonder if a case ended up in court, how the court would view it.
It’s nothing but Bully Boy tactics in an effort to make money on a National Treasure.
Brian,
The National Trust would be a laughing stock if they ever tried to stop someone publishing images of natural, undeveloped coastline. I don’t think a case like this has ever gone to court. Instead they just bully photographers and agencies into removing images and set up competitions to get free stock.
Gardens and interiors are a different kettle of fish it has to be said. That’s when things get a little more difficult.
This is quite a shame. Some of the places are amazing; I was in Lincolnshire last year and took photos openly in front of the staff at Belton house who were only more than happy to point out some nicer areas of the gardens and house I could visit for shots. Interesting to see if this policy actually filters down to ground level or not.
Yes, but let me clarify. The issue here is not the right to photograph, only the right to publish those photographs. This includes online publishing in the form of image sharing. In theory, photographs of NT property (even wild coastline) should only be viewed privately, behind locked doors under torchlight.
Most artists (writers, painters, poets) are allowed work freely on NT property. they are free to publish and even make money from their their artistic work. Like most photographers, they require no special access or special arrangements and they pay their entry fees when requested. Photographers on the other hand are restricted from enjoying their craft and sharing it with others either online, exhibitions, stock submissions or sale of prints. All of which contribute to the popularity of national trust sites.
For all the good it will do, I sent this email on to the NTPL.
If you feel strongly on this matter then I would urge you to make your voice heard.
Dear Sir / Madam,You must be aware of the growing amount of negative national press that the NT picture library is receiving regarding their photographic policy. Serious concerns are being raised nationally over issues of artistic publication, competition small print and the apparent heavy handed approach currently being adopted by the NT in an attempt to monopolise the landscape photography marketplace.
Just a few examples
http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-picture-yourself-competition
http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/
https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=28719
http://www.ephotozine.com/topic/t-61864
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=852812
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/national_trust_accused_of_photography_rights_grab_news_253515.htmlJust to give you my background. I am a photographer from Northern Ireland with a fascination for natural coastline. Much of my work is focused around the National Trust owned land around the Giant’s Causeway. I have exhibited my work in three major exhibitions in Northern Ireland (including one at the Grand Opera House in Belfast) and I have spoken about my work on BBC radio several times. I am currently working on a project to photograph Antrim’s hidden sea caves, some of which have never been photographed before. The exhibition will show at the University of Ulster this year
As a landscape photographer, I don’t require special access requirements and I pay my entry fees where requested. Please explain to me why other low impact artists (painters, writers and poets) are free to make public their work based upon NT property, while photographers are restricted. I personally consider wild coastline to be fair game. After all, there are some things which only god holds copyright.
I would urge your organisation to reconsider its policy regarding publication of images taken on NT owned land, particularly those taken on wild coastline. My webpage currently receives 7000 unique visitors a month, many of whom are making holiday arrangements to visit NT coastline in Northern Ireland. You should embrace all photographers (be that amateur, semi professional or fully professional) as a free and independent form of marketing rather than restrict their rights to publication. You are making a great number of photographers very angry, and I know of many who are making the difficult decision to cancel their NT membership. These are not only serious photographers but also snappers who just want to be free to share their images in the public domain, such as on Flickr. I understand that there are several photography action groups beginning to form on this including one here in Northern Ireland where the majority of NT land is natural coastland.
I also understand that there are particular concerns regarding the NTPL which is seen as a commercial arm which appears to have been created to avoid tarnishing the NTs charitable status. There is also a feeling of asymmetry where well known photographers such as Joe Cornish and Chris Hill are free to operate their own commercial galleries, exhibitions and webpages outside of the NT while the general public is restricted from even publishing into the public domain.
This debate is no-doubt going to rage and rage. I personally don’t think this debate will help the cause of the NT or NTPL who are going to struggle with the complexity of the legalities. For instance the ‘Hawking’ bylaw is out of date and has no relevance to this internet age of photography. The law was designed to stop on- location portrait shooters touting for business on NT land. This law is currently being quoted out of context by the NT. It will also struggle morally where there is the imbalance demonstrated by the commercial independence enjoyed by a chosen few photographers.
I will watch the news reported from Amateur Photographer magazine very carefully over the coming months. My final message to you is to consider the huge numbers of people visiting NT land who are holding cameras. Now consider their perception of their right to share their artistic work with the public through the exhibition space of the internet. How do you control that?
Regards
Andy McInroy
http://www.andymcinroy.comIsnt the National Trust just that a Trust set up to protect Public Land,
if so Public land belongs to the people?? Am I wrong?I understood that in the UK, land up to 15 feet from the high water level belonged to the crown — the queen. If so, then the National Trust only owns some of the Giant’s Causeway, and you could take pix from below the high water mark of their Causeway, and not be in breach of their rules. Don’t know what her majesty says, though.
Glad to see that Amateur Photographer magazine are in the thick of this story today.
The story appears to be gaining momentum.
I have emailed the magazine again today to see if they will seek clarification from the NT over this part of the policy,
The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use OR FOR REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM. Images taken at NT properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies OR ON-LINE PROVIDERS or provided directly to image buyers.
Where are all the members of the Ulster Landscaping Federation (ULF) hiding? Do none of you feel a bit militant about this?
Get your pen to paper right now.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
