- This topic is empty.
The "official line" from the National Trust
-
There’s an interesting feature on this very issue in this months Professional Photographer magazine in which the National Trust state their case. The biggest eye-opener for me was that in spite of the “National” in the name National Trust, it’s a private organisation and as such any land or property they own is in private ownership!
Any chance of quick summary of their stance Thorsten? , I don’t have the magazine handy.
Any particular reference to landcsape photography?
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
Any chance of quick summary of their stance Thorsten? , I don’t have the magazine handy.
Any particular reference to landcsape photography?
Andy
I’ll try and summarize some of the key points later tonight as I don’t have my copy to hand at the moment. I’ve really only scanned through that piece myself so will have to do a proper read through of it before I give a proper response to your Q.
There is another side to the National Trust story?
Many heritage conservation and environmental groups are charities. I am a member of several of these ? the National Trust, RSPB, Sustrans and the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland. I am most active on the last of these, sitting on a committee that is trying to get the Ulster Canal reopened. I am primarily responsible for the organisation of workdays to clean up parts of the Ulster Canal. I?ve also recently put my name down as a volunteer for National Trust workdays.
These charities receive no annual funding from the government and, with the possible exception of Sustrans, are increasingly cash strapped. They are dependent on memberships, donations, events, lease of properties, occasional grants and lots and lots of voluntary labour to survive. (Possibly the ?jobsworth? mentioned earlier was volunteer, who in his enthusiasm for seeing these properties survive, donates several days of his year to help at that property.)
Most members and supporters will acknowledge too that it is only right that genuine humanitarian charities are funded ahead of such heritage charities. That is fair enough, but it doesn?t make the survival of such estates, buildings and structures any easier.
Returning to the National Trust in particular – they have been offered many further buildings and estates, but haven?t the resources to maintain them and have had to decline the offers. Many estates are offered to the National Trust to rescue them. This often means that the main buildings on those estates are badly in need of repair and the estimates to carry out those repairs have been horrendously high.
The National Trust, in an effort to ?earn? their funding and donations has developed some very interesting living history events and other events in recent years. The murder mystery evenings, medieval shows, classical concerts, kids events, craft fairs, secondhand bookshops, etc, are a great source of entertainment. Please visit the National Trust website diary of events and try some of these for yourself.
One particularly useful source of funding is in the field of photography. Many costume dramas, such as Jayne Eyre, are shot at National Trust properties. The earnings from staging such films is a great help to the property. The National Trust has, understandably, formulated a policy on this source of revenue. Basically the casual family snapper can freely shoot away to his heart?s content. But any potentially commercial photography should not be freely available. I?m an avid photographer, but I totally agree with this policy. In order to photograph the properties, arrangements can be made and a fee paid. This fee is likely to be quite high, however ? even prohibitive. But there is another way worth trying. Anyone who becomes an active volunteer and helps out at a number of events or workdays is unlikely to be refused permission by the head warden to photograph the property, maybe even getting access to parts of the property that the casual visitor would never be given.
I?m not particularly upset by this thread, and certainly don?t wish to upset anyone else who has commented in this thread, but I do feel saddened when I hear of genuine charities and their volunteers getting roasted.
PS. I haven’t seen the magazine article but will be buying a copy of Professional Photographer asap to read it.
Best Regards
BertieBertie,
A lot of interesting comments there.
You didn’t really give much indication of your opinion about landscape photography on national trust land. As this thread was primarily aimed at this issue, I would be interested in your thoughts, especially since you are a active within the NT.
Do you not think that semi-commercial landscape photographers are actually doing the NT a favour by helping with their marketing? I like to think that my landsape photography is contributing to this charitable effort and helping to ensure that these beautiful areas remain free of building development.
Andy
Just a quick point of view and since we have in the forum someone that is actually involved with the NT, and he might be in the position to submit this option to them, i think it could be an idea to request authorization to the NT or any similar charities authorization to shoot based on a contract of sharing or even donating all possible “profit” made from those photographs. I don’t know if this is possible or not, but as a way of getting to shoot the subject you want and not having to pay upfront those “quite hight – even prohibitive” fees. This would enable the charity to benefit from higher exposure of those sites and also increase revenue from sources that otherwise would be refrained from shooting.
I think any photographer would be happy to help this regarded charities and this would be a case of an happy ending to everyone involved.
Just a thought!
Hi Andy
Apologies if I generalised too much in my earlier reply.
I think that much of the National Trust policy is difficult to implement. Yes, they can control the photographing of interiors and the exteriors of major buildings. Remote parts of estates and gardens become more difficult. Then some properties like Portstewart Strand and the Strangford Lough shoreline are vast expanses with little or no warden activity. Commercial Photography done from these areas is virtually impossible to monitor.
Having stated their policy the National Trust are now within their rights to retrospectively challenge anyone who commercially uses images of their properties without their permission, even they didn?t catch them at the time the photo was taken. A couple of prominent test cases would deter many other photographers. I hope that this never happens. I think – and it is only my opinion – that the National Trust would like their policy to result in photographers making some, fair contributions to the charity, and that they don?t want to appear to be policing and enforcing it. They are, after all, a friendly, family-oriented charity ? honestly!
It answer to your question on the promotional effect that these photos have on behalf of the National Trust, I?d have to say that the answer is yes and no. Yes, your photos are a positive advertisement for the property. But on the other hand, no, the net effect of allowing all the semi-commercial photographers to photograph the properties will seldom result in all that much extra visits and gains for the National Trust, and they?d be better off to charge the photographers a fee. National Trust properties are extensively photographed within their own official circles, and the properties are widely marketed. (Their website, for instance, is one of the most popular tourist/entertainment sites in the UK). Basically they have so much photography and marketing in place as it is that any further photography and indirect marketing will have little further benefit. Speaking as a photographer rather than a conservationist I?d say that we photographers need the National Trust more than the National Trust needs us.
Basically I feel that any photographer who makes any gain from National Trust properties should make some contribution. This can be in the form of the photography fee, or payment in kind by volunteering, or whatever else is deemed fair. But I don?t agree with free commercial photography on National Trust properties. (Government buildings like Stormont and the City Hall are different. We?re taxpayers and the government has got their pound of flesh out of us many times over, so we should be allowed to photograph those buildings freely.)
I?d like to emphasise that a lot of this is my opinion and I am not an authorative representative on the National Trust or its policies.
Bertie, lets get away from the “property” aspect. This is not what the thread was about. I’m talking about wild landscape.
Rodcunha
I’m paying my visitor fees, I’m helping to market NT landscapes worldwide for free, I’m increasing public awareness of these beautiuful areas.
And now you are telling me I should be giving any profit from the odd sale to the NT as well.
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
Rodcunha,
I’m paying my visitor fees, I’m helping to market NT landscapes worldwide for free, I’m increasing public awareness of these beautiuful areas.
And now you are telling me I should be giving any profit from the odd sale to the NT as well.
Andy
I’m saying that this is a charity and afaik it’s not state financed, so needs to get it’s profits from somewhere, i would not consider this option regarding a profitable or comercial organization, but as to charity, i would be happy enough to share some of the potential profit with them, or even donating in full. This is only my personal view and it’s different from people to people, but in my opinion it would be a better solution than paying a large sum of money upfront mostly so if you are a semi-pro or amateur photographer. Also if you donate to charities you get your fair share of benefits taxwise so you end up getting some of the money back anyway.
As i said… just a thought…
Maybe the high commercial prices put off photographers who want to pay in some way. “I want to pay, but I can’t pay THAT!!” How about a small annual fee for hobby photographers who want to sell images taken on NT property eg. ?100. If a photographer was challenged they could produce their membership card and snap away happily.
SteveD wrote:
Maybe the high commercial prices put off photographers who want to pay in some way. “I want to pay, but I can’t pay THAT!!” How about a small annual fee for hobby photographers who want to sell images taken on NT property eg. ?100. If a photographer was challenged they could produce there membership card and snap away happily.
Now that to me seems a very sensible suggestion that should keep all parties sweet. A membership card or yearly subscription definitely would be something worth investing in for photographers/hobbyists who visit these places.
Rob.
Hi Andy
Apologies again. As the thread started off referring to the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge and the Giant?s Causeway, I missed the point about it being about wild landscapes.
Again this is merely my opinion – if you are standing on National Trust land photographing wild landscapes I can?t see many people from the National Trust ever challenging you about it. If anything arises they?ll probably wave the official documentation around, stating that even that is disallowed. But basically I don?t think that they want to antagonise people unnecessarily ? they just want contributions for their properties.
However, I don?t think that ?wild landscapes? can include the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge or the Giant?s Causeway in this context.
Hi Rodcunha
I have often thought of approaching the National Trust to ask if they could accommodate a few photography events/shoots for a reasonable fee. I?m very interested in retro photography and a costume shoot inside some of the National Trust properties for a group of 3-4 photographers could be great fun. I was reminded of this again by an article in the Sept 16th issue of Amateur Photographer where an English photographer shot some fantastic images of Tudor events in the style of the old Dutch masters.
If there was enough interest maybe the forum here should put forward a proposal/suggestion to the National Trust.
BertieWooster wrote:
Hi Andy
if you are standing on National Trust land photographing wild landscapes I can?t see many people from the National Trust ever challenging you about it.Bertie, thats the whole point of this thread, I was challenged !!
I was taking photographs of the “wild coastline” (as I described in the original post) and I was cautioned by an attendant.
Andy
Sorry Andy, I’ve done that mistake myself, thought you were actually shooting NT lands. My bad for not reading properly.
Now as we come to this the situation might be more complicated than it seems, according to UK law while you are on private property and to obtain shoots of that property you need permission from the landowner, even if it is a landscape. Now here and from what i understood you weren’t shooting NT property but public property, being that the wild coastline. if that coastline belongs to NT, according to the law, they have the right to restrict photography for comercial purposes or any form of photography even if they want it (same aplies to several museums and other monuments, a flagrant case is the Eiffel Tower that you can only shoot during the day, if you shoot the light effects at night you need special authorization for comercial use of those stills), now and if i understand right you were just obtaining a view of public property from within their own lands. For as much as i tried i couldn’t find anything on this, and you should be intitled to shoot public property from within private property as long as those photos don’t have as main subject the NT owned land or property, provided that you paid the entrance fee (that you said already you did) to access that site.
I know it’s a bit messy and i probably couldn’t explain well what the law actually states, but hey i tried…
I have a nice PDF file, that if you want i can e-mail to you, witch covers the issues of photography on private property and the photographers and landowner’s rights in the UK.
Anyways hope i helped at least a small bit, that was the intention and not at any time taking either your or the NT side over this issue.
Regards,
Rod
Hi Andy
I’m afraid I did the same as Rod and glanced over the thread too hastily. I assumed from the comments about your photography promoting National Trust properties that you were intending to take photos of the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge itself at some stage, rather than simply shoot adjacent public landscape using the Carrick-a-Rede island as a vantage point. Being challenged for that was probably bad luck.
But some understanding for the National Trust assistant may also be in order. Most assistants in that position seeing a guy with some serious looking camera/photography kit is more than likely to assume that the guy is intending to shoot the bridge at some point.
It is not surprising that they are somewhat protective of the Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge. It probably carries the highest public liability insurance fee of any property/estate that the Trust owns and the cost and effort to erect the bridge each spring and draw it in again each autumn are quite considerable.
One thing I do blame the Trust for though is their lack of consistency. If you go to another property next week you may find that you can shoot away without being challenged.
I suppose that the bottom line is that we should not assume that we can shoot on National Trust properties at all, regarding them as private property.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
