UK: National Trust Photo Issues!!

[Kirk Gittings]

News to me. I had some minor issues with employees at NT properties a couple of years back when I was in Northern England, but this is outrageous. from a Andy McInroy over at Luminous Landscape!


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

More info here
http://copyrightaction.com/category/articles/news
http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=115562#post115562
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/...ews_281614.html
http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/

[EdWorkman]

A tree here [17 mile drive] an entire seacost there, pretty soon you're talking real landscape.

[cjbroadbent]

"The National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of Government. We rely for income on membership fees, donations and legacies, and revenue raised from our commercial operations."
So there!
I wonder if the rule is retroactive. That would keep them busy.
Total disregard of the rule on publishing, which is likely, knowing brit bloggers, will render that part difficult to enforce.
As far as we LFers are concerned, the "explicit welcome" is is sure to be extended to wooden tripods. I would suggest using a wooden camera too. After all, we are part of things that are worth conserving.

[Bruce Watson]

Flabbergasting. And outright scary. I wonder how long it will take the national parks and forests in the USA to follow Britain's lead. Better burn film while I can I guess.

[Allen in Montreal]

Create a business selling mages from state lands, ban all competition to said business creating a total monopoly!

What a great business plan. :mad:

[JonathanPerkins]

As an amateur photographer who enjoys photographing at the UK coast I'm struggling to find adequate words to describe how angry I am at this! :mad: The National Trust has a campaign to buy up sections of the UK coast - they currently own over 700 miles of some of the best coastline and are looking to acquire a lot more.

Anyone else find it ironic that the National Trust also owns Laycock Abbey (http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-lacockabbeyvillage), former home of Fox Talbot and in which they now have a "Fascinating museum dedicated to the 'Father of Modern Photography'". Speechless!

Looks like there's starting to be some fallout from their policies as Simon Norfolk pulls out of a NT Project (http://www.epuk.org/News/928/simon-norfolk-national-trust).

Its just a shame that lots of people have to waste their time fighting stupidity by an organisation such as the NT that is supposed to be looking after parts of our national heritage.

[cjbroadbent]

I followed Jonathan's link and went on to find this (http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist) which puts the paste back in the tube somewhat.

[MIke Sherck]

Flabbergasting. And outright scary. I wonder how long it will take the national parks and forests in the USA to follow Britain's lead. Better burn film while I can I guess.

I don't think it's the same issue: the National Trust is a private organization which desires to make a profit. In the US we'd call it a corporation, although a charitable one. The US National Parks are public (government) owned, which at least makes the rule-making process different and, theoretically at least, open to the influence of legislatures upon whom we have influence. Theoretically.

The administrators of US national parks have, in my opinion, acted reasonably with regard to photography in the parks. I hope and expect them to continue to do so, if not only because should they change their minds, it's going to be really, really difficult for them to prove that a photograph was taken after any restrictions were enacted.

[Joanna Carter]

I followed Jonathan's link and went on to find this (http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist) which puts the paste back in the tube somewhat.
Unfortunately, as Jonathan and I both know; having an accurate interpretation of Nt byelaws and actually trying to take a photograph on NT property are two diametrically opposed things.

Everythinbg seems to depend on the goodwill of the site manager, as to whether you can put up a tripod or not. I just got so fed up with that kind of hassle that I withdrew my membership about a year ago now and haven't visited a "paying" NT site since.

However, this prohibition of publishing pictures taken on NT-owned coastline must surely be a step too far. We go to France for some amazing photography and gather that access to the coastline is enshrined in law. Oh, if only someone in our government would stand up and stop this NT encroachment onto the rights of both citizens and visitors. Mind you, I wonder how the NT would go about chasing a non UK photographer??

How's about a bunch of you US photographers coming over and committing a mass photo-shoot on NT coastal property; then high-tailing it back to the States to sell your pictures??

[jb7]

I followed Jonathan's link and went on to find this (http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist) which puts the paste back in the tube somewhat.



Christopher, while it might seem to any rational person that that particular bye-law relates to a specific form of trading, now largely disappeared here,
to the National trust, it seems to have been twisted to include all types of photography for trade- or publication, as has been pointed out.

As the photographer hawker with a monkey has been supplanted by internet posters with a mouse, it could be argued that the rules of engagement have been changed.

I think this all stems from some confusion about what the National Trust actually is-
a grand idealistic name, with overtones of collective ownership,
but in reality, a major private landowner seeking to protect its property and maximize revenue from it.

It's a very sticky problem, and I can't help but think that it's going to be an uphill battle...

[Joanna Carter]

It's a very sticky problem, and I can't help but think that it's going to be an uphill battle...
Well, I, for one, as a coordinator of the UKLFPG, am thinking of raising public awareness of this matter and am ready for a fight.

[Andy McInroy]

Joanna,

Hi, I am the originator of the post on Luminous Landscape.

I have been raising the profile of this issue all over the web and would welcome your help and getting this information out to all photographers (snappers, amateurs, semi pros and professionals alike).

This policy affects us all now. It is no longer a legal "what if" exercise as the latest competition rights-grabs and Alamy image pull debacle have proven. Who's next? Flickr users? Personal Websites? The NTPL's rights manager, Chris Rowlin, has emailed a member of the RPS to make it clear that the NTs policy is backed up by the 1965 byelaw which appears to inconsistent with section 24 of the National Trusts Act. The byelaw was intended to prevent public nuisance and damage to property and could never be applied to a landscape photographer unless he or she were touting their prints in the car park.

Please join me in the effort. Photographers like Tony Sleep at Copyright Action, David Kilpatrick, Simon Norfolk are all working very hard to get the information out there. It is likely to be covered in great detail in Amateur Photographer magzine over the coming months.

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

[Patrick Dixon]

Isn't Joe Cornish a photographer for the National Trust? What's he doing about it?

[Joanna Carter]

Isn't Joe Cornish a photographer for the National Trust? What's he doing about it?
Well, he has had a strong relationship to the NT, to the point of gaining a spot on UK national news, as part of the NT publicity machine for UK tourism. The question would be whether he would be willing to bite one of the hands that feeds him.

[Patrick Dixon]

So I wonder if he doesn't own some of those photos that he's published? Perhaps I should send my copy of 'First Light' to the NT?

He might be in a good position to make the case from within ...

[Ash]

I'm not reading all the responses thus far as I'm in a bit of a rush, but as an English photographer, and somebody who has the National Trust offices in the same town, I could march up to the door and knock and knock and knock til they gave me some answers.

But all the answers are already out there. Something owned by someone is private property. On private property you must have permission to take a photograph. To sell that photograph you must have written permission labeling that you can do so.

As far as NT, they are well within their right to make sure that they profit from every image sold, or at least track who has taken photographs and for what purpose.

Recently working with English Heritage I have been fortunate to see how this process works. For example images taken for a publication on cathedrals, permission in advance is sought to photograph locations x, y, and z at St Paul's Cathedral in London. Most tourists ignore the 'no photo' rules and snap shots when guards aren't looking. With permission, and a time allocation, the photographer from EH signs in, is given access to the areas outside of business hours to take the photographs necessary for publication. He offers the venue access to the images in return for their hospitality.

Such images may then appear in the National Archives, which document Britain in its ever changing format.


At the National Museum in Cardiff, Wales, you must sign a form to say that any images you take are for personal/educational use and not for commercial outlets. It's standard.

[Joanna Carter]

Something owned by someone is private property. On private property you must have permission to take a photograph.
You won't find anyone disagreeing with the principle of respecting private property; the problem is that the NT is buying what used to be public land and, although you can still walk over that land without let or hindrance, you can no longer take photographs of anything on that land.

Take Durdle Door in Dorset, for example. even though land that lies between the high and low water marks cannot be owned by a private individual (I believe it is regarded as Crown property), the NT are trying to prohibit anyone from taking "unauthorised" pictures for publication of that famous landmark.

The NT already owns great swathes of our countryside and coastline and is planning on buying more, thus restricting even further those areas where people can take landscape pictures for publication.

Even if I were to take pictures, not for publication, and subsequently find that someone wants to publish it, I cannot allow that publication because the capture of the image has not been previously authorised by the NT.

What is even more annoying, the NT seems to take a "dog in the manger" to photographs not taken by their "authorised" photographers; they won't even consider such photographs as they say that they cannot even cope with archiving the images they already have.


As far as NT, they are well within their right to make sure that they profit from every image sold, or at least track who has taken photographs and for what purpose.
Fine, let them profit, but they won't even allow you to submit previously taken images to their library so that they can profit.


... Such images may then appear in the National Archives, which document Britain in its ever changing format.
That may be all well and good when it comes to documenting certain aspects of property but, it precludes the creation of images that are taken at times that nobody could plan for; times when that magical light or an interesting cloud formation enhances what could be an ordinary shot. Such "impulse" photography is being forbidden and we will all be the poorer for not being able to record such fleeting and transient moments in our history.

[Joanna Carter]

Just out of interest, has anyone else trying typing "National Trust" into Alamy recently? I just did and there still seems to be plenty of images there.

[Patrick Dixon]

Good points Joanna.

There are many public footpaths and RoW across NT land, and I assume that there is nothing to stop people taking photographs for whatever purpose from those?

I think the other aspect to consider is that the NT has a special position in the eyes of the British public. We consider that it is preserving our heritage for us and future generations to enjoy, and as such it receives a large amount of public funding through donations, bequests and lottery money. I think in return it has a duty and a responsibility back to the British public, which I fail to see that draconian photographic rules serve.

[Joanna Carter]

There are many public footpaths and RoW across NT land, and I assume that there is nothing to stop people taking photographs for whatever purpose from those?
That is something that I think may be part of the problem. "Public" footpaths and RoWs may be open to the public but, I think there may be something about that access being concessionary and therefore subject to the byelaws apertaining to the land over which they pass.


I think the other aspect to consider is that the NT has a special position in the eyes of the British public. We consider that it is preserving our heritage for us and future generations to enjoy, and as such it receives a large amount of public funding through donations, bequests and lottery money. I think in return it has a duty and a responsibility back to the British public, which I fail to see that draconian photographic rules serve.
That is my point exactly. They, supposedly, hold the land in trust for the nation; but what I see is that they are removing rights and privilges from those for whom they hold that trust.

Also, consider the point that they are imposing a monopoly on who can make money from, what is ostensibly, land held in trust for the nation.

[Pete Watkins]

I might as well chip in, if you don't like what I have to say it's from the heart and that's it. I don't go to any N.T. property where I'm expected to pay. There are two main reasons. It might be legal but the N.T. allow hunting with dogs on their lands, I personnally find this disgusting and immoral. I'm not prepared to debate this, it's my belief and that is that.
The other point is that we already have English Heritage, a superb organisation, with helpful and polite staff who in the recent and distant past have never questioned my using L.F. equipment (up to 11x14). I believe that all N.T. properties should be taken over by English (Welsh, Scottish and whatever they have in Northern Ireland) Heritage. These properties and sites are our heritage. What's the point in having two large organisations in the same little country doing, theoritically at least, the same job but with two lots of, probably overpaid, executives taking a fat wad out of these orginisations before anything is spent on preservation and restoration. If you want to dispute this figures have recently been released of the wages that the four "top" British Waterways executives award themselves while the canal system is being neglected on a massive scale.
Avebury is one site that is part managed by the N.T, I regard it as a sacred site and anybody who wants to stop me photographing sites that I regard as sacred can go to hell.
I really would question the N.T's right to stop anybody taking photographs from footpaths or bridleways that cross N.T. property.
Joanna would you consider writing to the N.T and publishing their reply (if they can be bothered to answer you) and publishing it here and on The UKLFG. I can't see the point in us all writing though, they'll just ignore it.
Best wishes,
Pete

[JonathanPerkins]

I agree completely with the points Joanna makes. The NT is a charitable organisation that was setup to protect our national heritage, it must be allowed to raise money through commercial activities to support that aim but if those commercial operations start prohibiting the reasonable enjoyment of that heritage you have to ask what are they preserving it for?

In the RPS forum thread about this there is an interesting quote by Andy from the late Fay Godwin's 1990 book Forbidden Land (http://205.214.76.22/showpost.php?p=114958&postcount=38).

On my own doorstep, the NT currently has a big public funding campaign to purchase a large area of farm land to create an area of fenland from Wicken Fen to Cambridge. Presumably that would be a big chunk of my local coutryside that I would no longer be allowed to photograph and post images on here!

[Patrick Dixon]

It might be legal but the N.T. allow hunting with dogs on their lands

AFAIK, hunting with hounds is illegal in the UK and therefore the NT cannot allow it.

[Andy McInroy]

It looks like Martin Parr has also joined the protest and has pulled out of NT commissions.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=857809

[Pete Watkins]

I did say that I would not debate this but you know and I know that hunts break the law (there have been prosecutions) and they have also found ways around it. Wild animals are hunted by packs of hounds followed by morons on horsback, if the hunted animal is lucky it is shot before the hounds get to rip it apart. My final words on this!
Try addressing the other problems with the N.T.
Pete.

[Michael Wynd]

If the land is held in trust for the public then it is still really public land. What photographers are doing, even if they are making a profit out of sales of photographs of the area, is providing free publicity for the National Trust and the properties they manage FOR THE PEOPLE. You would think that with free publicity would come even bigger income for the National Trust through increased patronage. Photographers are doing them a favour.
Mike

[Joanna Carter]

If the land is held in trust for the public then it is still really public land. What photographers are doing, even if they are making a profit out of sales of photographs of the area, is providing free publicity for the National Trust and the properties they manage FOR THE PEOPLE. You would think that with free publicity would come even bigger income for the National Trust through increased patronage. Photographers are doing them a favour.
I quite agree with your very reasonable assessment of the situation, Michael. Unfortunately, the NT doesn't seem to think in the same rational manner :mad: The NT seems to be run by people who have far too much power for their intellectual capability. They can't even realise that they are allowing artists to profit from paintings of their properties, whilst denying photographers that same right. Some artists will even "copy" a NTPL image to sell but get away with it because they claim that their painting is an "interpretation" rather than an outright copy.

Well, photographers are artists and, what's more, they interpret what they see; they use filters, exposure and different film and processing techniques to achieve a personal version of what they saw.

[Struan Gray]

You are dealing with a paternalist institution with powerful backup from all forms of the Establishment. Being rude about them here isn't going to get you anywhere.

1) Assemble a case.
2) Present it to the trustees, the council members and perhaps Prince Charles. Do so in measured tones, more in sorrow than in anger etc etc.
3) Present it to your local committee.
4) Find a way to raise the issue at the annual general meeting - you have until November to find delegates who are on your side.

The strongest case is that the restrictions on photography are against the founding spirit of the NT, as well as its stated aims today ("for ever, for everyone"). It is almost certainly against the intentions of many of those who have donated land, or money to buy land in the past, and will deter people from doing so in the future. There may be good arguments for retaining rights to houses and gardens (although the NT has always been a dog in the manger compared to other institutions or independent stately homes and castles), but those arguments are just so much waffling when it comes to wholesale chunks of the landscape.

Stress that threatening grannies who put pictures of their grandkids on Flickr after a fine day out at a NT reserve isn't exactly going to enhance the image of the NT as beneficial to the whole nation.


I'm saying 'you' here because I and my family have always joined and/or dealt with the National Trust for Scotland. I'm trying to find out what their policy is before bombarding them with all of the above.

[Patrick Dixon]

You would think that with free publicity would come even bigger income for the National Trust through increased patronage. Photographers are doing them a favour.

What's odd is that, IIRC, there was an NT representative making that very point, about Joe Cornish's photos attracting tourists to visit the UK countryside, on TV just the other day!