- This topic is empty.
The "official line" from the National Trust
-
Hi guys,
I wanted to tell you a story of my experience up at Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge which is owned by the National Trust. As I was about to cross the bridge I was approached by an attendant and asked whether my photographs were only for my own use. From his tone it was very clear that any sort of commercial photography was forbidden. This is the first time that I have ever been cautioned about photographing wild coastline.
I, of course, was quite annoyed at this confrontation and contacted the NT directly, hoping for clarification. I received a 2nd hand response, from Chris Lacey, Library Manager of the NT in an email which came from Ken Robinson, Visitor Reception manager at Carrick a Rede.
With regards to your email of 27 June 2006. We have been in touch with Chris Lacey, Library Manager of the National Trust Photographic Library and his response is as follows: if the land on which the photographer is standing whilst taking images is owned by the NT, and this land/ attraction is a pay-on-entry property where the photographer has to pay to enter, then unauthorised photography access is forbidden to help protect the intellectaul property rights of the NT as a charity. Prior written permission is required, and a contract signed susequent to the negotiation of fees and conditions. If no ticket has been purchased, and images are taken, then the same conditions of contract are required. In this instance, a donation from the photographer to the NT is always welcome, and is put towards the upkeep of the property.
Clear? Not exactly.
In practical terms, I wonder what happens in the situation where I take a picture, of say the Giant’s Causeway, and then sell that image through my website. Do I need permission from the NT to essentially help them to promote a beautiful area? What if I shoot it from the main path which is a public right of way? Who owns the copyright to the causeway, the NT or god? I’d love to see something like this go to court. I just hope that it’s not me in the dock.
Andy
Bizarre to say the least. Is every beautiful landscape owned by somebody? Is it safe to take a picture of anything anymore?
This is pretty common, particularly with these type of historical/natural interest sites. The guys are on a limited budget and are trying to protect one of their few sources of income.
Dakey,
Perhaps they might get a few more paying visitors if they were to encourage the public to help promote these beautiful areas for free? A bit shortsighted of them perhaps?
They should be delighted that semi pro photograhers are helping them out, especially if they are paying their entrance fees like the rest of the public. I’ve always resisted the temptation of my website resembling the “Irish Tourist Board” but I would like to think that my photography inspires visitors to come from many a far-flung region.
Andy
As far as I know they will let you take photos for commercial use if you pay a small fee, and usually there are other conditions about use of tripods etc.
amcinroy wrote:
Dakey,
Perhaps they might get a few more paying visitors if they were to encourage the public to help promote these beautiful areas for free? A bit shortsighted of them perhaps?
They should be delighted that semi pro photograhers are helping them out, especially if they are paying their entrance fees like the rest of the public.
Andy
You’d imagine so Andy. It’s more than a little shortsighted, it’s downright foolish. I had a similar experience at Newgrange recently, naively imagining I could photograph whatever I pleased. There you don’t have permission to photograph even for your own personal pleasure. As you already said, it would be interesting to see one of these type of cases come up in court.
Regarding coastlines, you could always claim that all your images are actually of the sea, or that fraction of water you’ve managed to include. Not really your fault if the Causeway or some other coastal gem just happens to be in the way of a clear shot :wink:
Rob,
I’m not an expert in law but it appears that there are two considerations.
1. Copyright – I can’t take a picture of someone elses art or architechture and sell the photograph if the value of that photograph is contained within the art. If I do then the copyright holder (not necessaily the artist or architect) will take me to court for infringement of their copyright. This seems fair enough to me, although what does that mean for photos of something like Eiffel tower? The Giant’s Causeway should be OK though. God can sue me later.
2. Land access – i.e Where you take the photo from rather than what the photo is of. I am perfectly entitled to take pictures of anything from a public right of way (with the exception of military bases, airports etc). But technically if I take a photograph of scenery, I need the permission of the landowner of the actual place that I am stood. I would imagine that this aspect is overridden by the land access legislation which unfortunately is still very much in the landowners favour in Northern Ireland. Things are changing however.
Andy
The same sort of condition seems to apply to the Eiffel Tower, this is the message you get in Devart when uploading to the architecture gallery :
Gallery: Architecture
Indoor or outdoor photography featuring buildings, monuments, statues and architectural structures erected by mankind.
ATT: EIFFEL TOWER PHOTOS: There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SNTE. Reference : http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html
Odd.. I was up in Carrick a Rede only a few months ago and took loads of photos. Even got the NT people up there manning the bridge to close it for me for a minute or so while I took some shots. Nothing was ever said to me by anyone up there; apart from some friendly chat with the employees
My incident was 6 months ago.
They’ve maybe been warned about being nice to photographers after I wrote them a stinker of an email.
Its the same story in American national parks, funny about Newgrange…I was at Knowth(which is a lot better)and tourists were given time to take photos…..The mind boggles :wink:
weird.. I wonder does the same apply in australia .. I took a lot of photo’s during a trip along the great ocean road earlier this year..
I certainly hope that I won’t have any trouble if I decide to try and sell some of them sometime in the future !This sort of crap does piss me right off actually. OK, if it’s people then one should observe the proprieties, but inanimate objects? Give me a break. Makes me feel like saying “See this lens? You know how much it weighs? Does your head want to find out?”
I’m going to compile a new course, “Anger management for photographers” :) You think that is bad, you want to try photographing in London!
The London Council has decided that they own all the land and you need their permission to photograph. Leicester Square, Covent Garden etc etc. Of course, you ignore it but will find yourself approached by “Officials” regularly. The annoying thing is that if you have a big black camera you must be a pro, but if you have a small silver one (that can take quite respectable and publishable pictures), that’s ok.
I had a similar thing on a beach on the south coast of England. The “Dunes” (read sand) are protected by the county council and a fee must be paid etc.. I walked down to the bit between high and low tide and shot again. (I think this is public land).
Isn’t the council managing the land for its citizens?
Si
Yeah, I guess a copy of one of the many “Photographer’s Rights” pamphlets may be more diplomatic than extreme force ;)
Of course should the officious jobsworth in question come the “Aren’t we the smartarse then!” line, force could remain an option. Seriously, photographers need to know their rights, and be prepared to stand their ground and say “Listen, twat, I am 100% entitled to take a photo here, you are categorically not entitled or empowered to stop me or confiscate my equipment, and if you try it I’ll be having your name and number (because you are just a number) and you’ll be hearing from my solicitor”.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
