National Trust Photography Restrictions

CabanSail

There is a controversy emerging about the new Photography Policy by the National Trust.

"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."

From reading some others sites it seems that you are now not allowed to even post your images on Photo Sharing Sites, such as Flickr & may not even be allowed to enter these images into Competitions or Exhibitions.

It will be an interesting issue to keep an eye on. I remember when to be a rebel you needed a Motorbike or a Leather Jacket, seems these days it's a DSLR that has that stigma in the UK.

Paulw

The UK, again, going too far on photography issues.

I've a few photos of National Trust sites (such as the Giants Causeway), and have these on my FlickR and website. I've no plan removing such images.

CabanSail

Paulw wrote: »

I've a few photos of National Trust sites (such as the Giants Causeway), and have these on my FlickR and website. I've no plan removing such images.

You Outlaw! You will have to look over your shoulder wherever you go & will not be able to trust anyone, always keeping one step in front of the NT Police. :pac:

Anouilh

Que c'est ennuyeux!

http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=114453

Entrance to National Trust properties in England is relatively expensive, so the people who have decided on this change may think again.

I enjoyed posting to this group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/pool/

From now on, gardens run by the RHS may have an edge when it comes to organising a family outing:

[IMG][/img][URL="[IMG]http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2553528684/sizes/o/[/IMG]"][/url]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2553528684_1723ff2a6f_o.jpg



I doubt if anybody will bother to return to the National Trust group in order to remove photos.

It would be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent taking more flower photos.

amcinroy

Good to see this issue discussed here.

I started that thread on the RPS forum which is now 10 pages deep. It is full of information and debate on the current situation and might be an eye opener to some of you. I would recommend you all read it to make yourselves aware of what the NT are doing, in particular how they are misquoting their byelaws to protect their commercial interests. This will definitely affect landscape photographers in Northern Ireland.

The news today is that the EPUK have reported that one of the NT's most high profile photographers, Simon Norwich, has quit in disgust at their recent policies.

National Trust lose high profile photographer in competition rights row.
http://www.epuk.org/News/928/simon-norfolk-national-trust

Just a quick summary of the current situation

Some of you may be aware of the current furore centering around recent changes made to the National Trust's photographic policy.

The wording in the policy has been carefully updated to restrict publishing of images shot on NT land by both amateurs and professionals alike. This includes images shot on wide open spaces on public access land such as The Giant's Causeway, The White Cliffs of Dover, The Farne Islands, Borrowdale and The Lizard for example. The policy attempts to assert that any such publishing constitutes a criminal act as set out in their own bylaws. The validity of the bylaws for this purpose are currently being contested by legal experts.

An email posted to the forums of the Royal Photographic Society outlines the NTs stance on this. This email was received from Chris Rowlin, The NTPL's rights manager.

"This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based. Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research but the Trust does not permit photography for profit or publication without permission. ....The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. "

Note the careful and deliberate use of the word OR.

The official policy of the NT's website also uses this catch-all which appears to include submission to image libraries such as flickr or online publishing on personal websites (even if non-commercial). This policy as written will also restrict amateur entry to photographic competitions not endorsed or run by the NT. This is already being enforced by the NT.

"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."
See http://www.ntpl.org.uk/index2.pgi

This issue no longer just a concern of professional photographers. Please join me in writing to the National Trust to voice your concerns over this change in policy. This is just another example of the erosion of photographers rights in the UK.

photo.library@nationaltrust.org.uk

Fenster

1. Effective enforcement of this rule is impossible, and the National Trust had to be aware of this when they drafted it.

2. It will not, and will never generate positive press.

3. The amount of alienation and ill-feeling generates may cause far more of a loss of revenue than selling "authorized" prints and granting waivers for commercial photography might generate.

So, why?

amcinroy

Probably because the NTPL don't see the bigger picture.

All they see is the dwindling income from their own commercial stock library and well paid managers at NTPL are running around like headless chickens trying to work out how to claw money back. They don't understand how the free imagery out on the web will actually increase their membership and visitor numbers. It may be that the NTPL needs to be written off in order for the NT to flourish.

As a supporter of the NT it worries me that the commercial arm of the NTPL are allowed to dictate policy on this matter. That should not be allowed. As you say, the NT is likely to lose a significant number of members because of this and the bad publicity already generated is massive. Just do a google search for "national trust photography" and it is very clear that this is a terrible situation for the NT.

It may well be that the the NT will be reported to the charities commission over this.

Anouilh

The situation may not be as bad as it first seemed.

One is allowed to take photos... uploading to public sites needs permission:

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2009/04/09/4756.aspx

I have just convinced a friend not to visit NT gardens in Northern Ireland, as photography is now a problem. Perhaps checking the protocol in various gardens before setting out would be sensible.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-visits-overseas_visitors.htm

A nice detail... the NT has an allottment scheme which should be helpful with all the cutbacks at the moment.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-news/w-latest_news/w-news-growing_spaces.htm


My own reaction to the new policy in relation to photography is that it is much easier to walk along an Irish sea coast, take the air and photograph the wild life in peace. Also it it free...

City-Exile

I have no intention of requestion permission from the NT, before I post pics of their sites on pix.ie, or flickr.

I have been inspired to visit many of their sites, after looking at some wonderful images taken by amateur photographers, which have been posted online.



I think we should all go on an expedition around NI, finishing in the Crown Bar in Belfast, filling flickr with images from our trip.

charybdis

Clearly the solution is for The National Trust to watermark their properties, and maybe at a tasteful black border and a copyright notice in a cursive font.

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

mikeanywhere

In reality how many people here are going to be selling images from shots taken at these locations. It wont make that much difference to joe public!!

Anouilh

Well, I suppose it's a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"...

For years I was afraid to go to Northern Ireland.

It's strange to think that the NT has replaced the Troubles as a deterrent.

It's all to be taken lightly, I think.
There is an entertaining series of lectures planned by the NT in London, notably one on the theme that "Happiness lies in making do with less".

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-events/w-visits-quality_of_life_debates.htm#further

I think it's very funny.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The NT doesn't have notices up saying you can't photography. There are no notices (at the sites I have visited) saying that you can take photos but can't display them online.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

Yeah I completely fail to get what you're at here. Are you suggesting that it's actually OK for the NT to slap a blanket ban on people displaying images from (say) the Giants Causeway ??!? As though they OWN the place ? There's a clue in the name of the organisation, the national TRUST. They're meant to administer and maintain the sites in trust for the people. So long as they're making enough money from donations and government grants and admission fees to do that then a rights grab is a bit out of order.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The NT doesn't have notices up saying you can't photography. There are no notices (at the sites I have visited) saying that you can take photos but can't display them online.

My point is that so many people clearly recognise the futility and aimlessness of The National Trust's policy regarding photography (one that they are legally entitled to have, I hasted to add) and flaunt their current or intended contravention of it yet aren't frowned upon or chastised for their abuse of intellectual property by a group of people that seem to try and aggressively protect and control the use of their works in the face of even the most menial of infringements.

trishw78

There's an interesting articale in the British journal of Photography

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah I completely fail to get what you're at here. Are you suggesting that it's actually OK for the NT to slap a blanket ban on people displaying images from (say) the Giants Causeway ??!? As though they OWN the place ? There's a clue in the name of the organisation, the national TRUST. They're meant to administer and maintain the sites in trust for the people. So long as they're making enough money from donations and government grants and admission fees to do that then a rights grab is a bit out of order.

Do you think everything produced by the BBC or RTE should be placed in the public domain, or at least give a very permissive license? Should all materials produced with government funding be unencumbered by intellectual property claims?

I think so.

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.

This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

CabanSail

I am also curious as to the meaning of the Double Standard post above.

My feeling is that this policy of the NT is so ludicrous as to be almost a joke. Now I do not have any legal qualifications, but I cannot see how something like this would actually have any validity if tested in court. It would seem to me that this is an issue that has escalated & that somebody in the NT has lost sight of the big picture (pun intended) The problem with some beurocrats in large organisations is that they think that they have unlimited power (it is ussually the case of being a large fish in a small bowl) they get used to writing policy & having it adhered to in thier organisation & forget there is a real world out there.

The way I see it they can either ban all Photography on the sites they manage. There are precedents for this, but it would definitely have a huge impact on their visitor numbers & hence a loss of revenue. It would also be a PITA to enforce. The other option would be to back down and admit the issue has got out of hand. The problem with this is that if a senior beurocrat does that they immediately melt, like the witch in the Wizard of Oz. The fact that this is a very rare occurence show that they do not back down often. I guess the other possibilities are that they find a Junior Employee & make them the scapegoat, dismiss them & then pay out a large sum for wrongful dissmissal.

Of course I could be completely wrong too.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

Do you think everything produced by the BBC or RTE should be placed in the public domain, or at least give a very permissive license? Should all materials produced with government funding be unencumbered by intellectual property claims? I think so.

I'd agree.

charybdis wrote: »

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.
This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

I see where you're coming from here. However, as long as people have been people they have protested against what are viewed as unjust or draconian laws. There is an obvious moral difference between the right of a photographer to own and administer his or her own works, and the efforts of a commercial entity, however legal it seems, to strip photographers of those rights. So yes, it is people cherry picking what they view as appropriate usage of IP law versus what is viewed as inappropriate usage, and that might seem a little hypocritical.


-edit-
Incidentally trishw, is this the story you meant ? URL was a bit mangled.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=857809

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

The NT is a trust. They don't OWN the land, they simply are there to maintain and administer it. The land belongs to the state.

IF the NT made it clear (very clear) about their rules on photography before you entered, then I could very much see your point. However, they don't. There are no signs nor notices. They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

Anouilh

Anouilh wrote: »

Que c'est ennuyeux!

http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=114453

Entrance to National Trust properties in England is relatively expensive, so the people who have decided on this change may think again.

I enjoyed posting to this group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/pool/




I doubt if anybody will bother to return to the National Trust group in order to remove photos.

It would be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent taking more flower photos.

I have noticed that Flickr members continue to post happily to the thread above.

Perhaps the NT organisers will see how beautiful their work is and come to an amicable acceptance that people actually enjoy sharing photos without having to get involved at every turn with commercial issues.

On the other hand, this may be a bit too optimistic...

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

T...

They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

You raise two very important issues. Why an institution that seems to need to make cutbacks like the rest of us at the moment should get involved in trivial control of millions of amateur photographers would give an interesing day in court. However, the time and energy could be better spent in a more creative activitiy like gardening or taking more photos.

The retrospective nature of the new policy is what is most peculiar.
I am delighted to see that I uploaded less photos than I had thought taken on NT properties, but I don't see myself running round the various internet sites to remove them. That would be a case of classic paranoia and there is enough of that about.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

The NT is a trust. They don't OWN the land, they simply are there to maintain and administer it. The land belongs to the state.

IF the NT made it clear (very clear) about their rules on photography before you entered, then I could very much see your point. However, they don't. There are no signs nor notices. They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

I see that.

The National Trust maintains and administrates their properties much as a museum does its exhibits. There are numerous long-standing examples of national state-funded museums having specific and prohibitive photography policies that, while easy to evade, would be difficult to challenge on legal grounds. That said, I can't imagine their policy would stand up to legal scrutiny. However, it is their avowed policy and despite your displeasure at its intent, it is currently within their remit to do so.

My point is that intellectually property law is broken and people here seem to recognise that, and yet they are outwardly militant in using it as a defence against any potential (however unlikely) infringement.

I'm not agreeing with The National Trust's policy, I'm making an observation about people's attitude toward it.

Paulw

Most museums and such have clear/visible signs about photography.

The NT has no such notices up. There are no indications of their new rule on photography at their parks/sites/entrances.

They can make a rule (and enforce it), once the public is informed of such a rule at the point of entry.

They cannot make a rule retrospective and hope to enforce it. That is certainly not legally binding.

It is not the NT (it seems) that are making the rule about photography. It's NTPL which is a company (not a trust). I would wonder about the legal rights NTPL has to make a rule on NT land, since they are separate legal entities. There is no clear statement on the NT website about their rules on photography. You must go to the NTPL website to see about this rule.

The whole thing is a farce.

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

I see that.

The National Trust maintains and administrates their properties much as a museum does its exhibits. There are numerous long-standing examples of national state-funded museums having specific and prohibitive photography policies that, while easy to evade, would be difficult to challenge on legal grounds. That said, I can't imagine their policy would stand up to legal scrutiny. However, it is their avowed policy and despite your displeasure at its intent, it is currently within their remit to do so.

My point is that intellectually property law is broken and people here seem to recognise that, and yet they are outwardly militant in using it as a defence against any potential (however unlikely) infringement.

I'm not agreeing with The National Trust's policy, I'm making an observation about people's attitude toward it.

There was a time when visiting public places simply required that one behave in a civilized manner and not damage property.

The new technologies have required that everybody should scrutinize society anew and live within very different frameworks.

The clear manner in which you present your ideas is helpful to coming to a more balanced understanding of IP laws and how people respond to them.

A year ago I was smartly reprimanded for mentioning that the Treaty of Lisbon would change laws in relation to copyright and intellectual property. For many people, institutions and legal bodies, including the EU, are vague, distant creations of other peoples' fantasies.

The reality is that institutions control us all in very subtle ways.

The more one understands how society works, the more easily one will find areas of freedom and self-expression within all the laws and protocols.

You may find the comments on this post interesting:

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2008/11/better-safe-than-sorry.html#links

How people react is a question of personality and temperament.
However, if a law is there, it is a law, and therefore how one reacts is not particularly relevant.

I wonder if the NT is trying to become more elitist, with those who are able to afford entrance fees wandering happily within their properties, while ordinary photogs gather on footpaths outside the pale, photographing the sylvan settings within.

In fact, I realise that this is quite a sad situation overall, as what I most loved photographing on NT sites were the trees.

Already, this is, seemingly a past pleasure.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

Most museums and such have clear/visible signs about photography.

The NT has no such notices up. There are no indications of their new rule on photography at their parks/sites/entrances.

They can make a rule (and enforce it), once the public is informed of such a rule at the point of entry.

They cannot make a rule retrospective and hope to enforce it. That is certainly not legally binding.

It is not the NT (it seems) that are making the rule about photography. It's NTPL which is a company (not a trust). I would wonder about the legal rights NTPL has to make a rule on NT land, since they are separate legal entities. There is no clear statement on the NT website about their rules on photography. You must go to the NTPL website to see about this rule.

The whole thing is a farce.

charybdis wrote: »

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.

We are in agreement in this regard. It's not what I was talking about though.

I was making a point about the disparity between people's attitudes towards their claimed legal right to assess control over their intellectual property, however impractical, and an institution's attempts to do so.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

I was making a point about the disparity between people's attitudes towards their claimed legal right to assess control over their intellectual property, however impractical, and an institution's attempts to do so.

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforcable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforcable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

From another article on the BJP, when they contacted alamy first to get takedowns on content that they deemed infringed on their usage criteria, there were some rumblings from aggrieved photographers that they would just make everything available for free, thus de-valueing the NTP's own commercial image libraries. Up until that point there doesn't seem to have been a blanket ban on sharing or making available on sites like flickr. I wonder if that particular aspect of it was shoehorned in afterward. This is all speculation though ...

nilhg

While I think that the NT's attitude towards amateur photographers and flickr and other sharing sites is bonkers and totally counter productive, I can see where they are coming from with regards to commercial use if images from their properties. They do own them (according to Wikipedia anyway) and have a legal responsibility to maintain them in good condition, which must cost a fortune so every penny counts.

If professional photographers responded to a request to take down images from Alamy because they have no image rights by threatening to release them for free on flickr and the like, and the NT responded by banning any sharing even by amateurs, then neither side has come out with any credit.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're rejecting the concept of property but not that of copyright. The areas under control of The National Trust are effectively private property. They can grant specific license for use of photographs taken there.

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

Posting images to sites like flickr could be considered commercial use in that flickr is a commercial entity and the presence of those photographs adds value to their service.

Paulw wrote: »

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforceable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

Preaching to the choir on this one.

Paulw wrote: »

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I am acutely aware that a huge number of people regularly break intellectual property law, usually in ignorance of the laws surrounding what they are doing. For example: if you possess any digital music files (such as mp3s) that were not purchased from a licensed digital music retailer (such as the iTunes Store) you are breaking intellectual property law; even if you own the CD and have ripped them yourself for personal non-commercial use.

It's still considered illegal, and people are still prosecuted for it.

Paulw wrote: »

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

They're not trying to affect anyone in the past (such a feat is largely considered impossible), they're asserting their legal right to decide how their intellectual property is used.

Paulw wrote: »

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

Doublethink.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're rejecting the concept of property but not that of copyright. The areas under control of The National Trust are effectively private property. They can grant specific license for use of photographs taken there.

No, of course they can set restrictions and licenses. But, they need to make it clear that they are doing so, before you enter the facility/site. They are not doing that at all. They cannot grant entry and then months later decide that you cannot share/sell images taken then. That is certainly not enforcable by law.

charybdis wrote: »

Posting images to sites like flickr could be considered commercial use in that flickr is a commercial entity and the presence of those photographs adds value to their service.

Incorrect. Flickr is a photo sharing site (for display). It is not commercial because you have no direct ability to sell through it.

charybdis wrote: »

I am acutely aware that a huge number of people regularly break intellectual property law, usually in ignorance of the laws surrounding what they are doing. For example: if you possess any digital music files (such as mp3s) that were not purchased from a licensed digital music retailer (such as the iTunes Store) you are breaking intellectual property law; even if you own the CD and have ripped them yourself for personal non-commercial use.

This is not due to IP law, but copyright law. You're in breach of copyright if you download/share songs which you do not have a license for.

Making a copy for personal use is generally permitted, but this will vary from country to country.

There are also a large number of advertising campaigns which inform people that file sharing/downloading is illegal due to breach of copyright.