Today I learnt that.... - DPChallenge Forums

02/04/2008 02:03:49 PM · #1

Today I telephoned the Property Manager of a National Trust property. Out of courtesy I asked if a couple of amateur photographers would be ok using tripods in the grounds. He said he could see no reason why not then started asking the who, why, what, where questions.

He was quite friendly and we spoke for about 15 minutes. So, what did I learn? The National Trust is private property and as such all images taken without NT permission can only be used for personal use - ok, that bit I understand, however, personal use does not include 'publishing' to the internet where members of the public have access to view it - this it would seem means any image of a building (taken on/from private property) and submitted here (or anywhere else) should have the owners/managers written permission. Now, the guy did say this was almost impossible to police and he cited one example of an image of the property he manages appearing in a Cola advert in the USA.

The main reason for this, he went on to say is that the National Trust has many sponsors etc and if a photograph of said building appeared in (say) an advert about smoking they could well lose millions of pounds.

Right? Wrong? discuss......

02/04/2008 02:22:26 PM · #2

I understand their point and consider it very valid. Since it IS considered private property, and they have a certain "image" they want to maintain, having that image linked to a negative message wouldn't be proper. To carry it one step further, what if someone really liked the way your house looked so they filmed it from the roadway and then used that footage in a movie of questionable taste (implying that was the location of the movie production). Wouldn't you consider legal action?

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 14:23:33.

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/04/2008 02:24:22 PM · #3

Could also be to do with the fact that the National Trust maintain their own Stock Agency which I suspect may be quite a lucrative earner of funds. That said, there is a Flickr group devoted purely to National Trust properties.

02/04/2008 02:26:20 PM · #4

Originally posted by SaraR:

That's probably more likely... Guess I was being too naive in my analogy.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/04/2008 02:41:19 PM · #5

txs SC fr fixing the title mistook

Am sure we'd all do what we can to protect our property and am happy to tell him where the image would be posted and do no more with it. At least if we are stopped by officials we won't get any hassle. The NT have 2 contracts, one for the likes of me just shooting for fun and uploading to the web (about a side of A4) and the second is for people shooting for profit, that contract is about 9 sides of A4.

desertoddity

Nikon D300s

02/04/2008 02:45:38 PM · #6

Originally posted by DowseDesigns:

then i might have to admit that i watched the movie :D

icu1965

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

02/04/2008 02:58:25 PM · #7

I totally see their point. Put yourself in their shoes. What if someone took a picture of your house and put it on the front page of the paper and titled it Crack house, or whore house. I'm sure it wouldn't be an issue if everyone were trustworthy. Just kind of makes it a pain for those who are!

02/04/2008 03:08:16 PM · #8

Originally posted by desertoddity:

then i might have to admit that i watched the movie :D

A friend told me about it ... yeah... that's it... a friend saw it.

;)

Quasimojo

02/04/2008 03:09:56 PM · #9

It sounds a little heavy if you ask me. They're lovely old buildings and the cynic in me thinks that the NT just wants to cash in on the images.

I had a similar hassle at London Zoo for the Birds challenge. If you've got 'professional equipment' you are meant to report into the Press Office to get an okay first. I tried hard but no-one I could find knew what I was talking about - so I just carried on. There were other tripods and fancy glass out and I don't think they were pros either.

Shoot first, worry about it later... ;)

N

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/04/2008 04:37:39 PM · #10

What is a "National Trust" property? I googled it and found it was something in the UK. Is that it? If so, I have no clue about copyright in the UK.

If it's the US, yes, anything taken from private property need some sort of permission. If you're outside in public place and not looking in a bathroom window, you're fine.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/04/2008 04:40:04 PM · #11

I think it would be similar to US National Park property -- owned by the national government in trust for the people, and with the ability to restrict commercial use of images.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

02/04/2008 04:45:05 PM · #12

Actually it's a charity, bit about it's history here.

National Trust history

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/04/2008 04:49:33 PM · #13

The National trust is a charitable organisation that does indeed keep land in trust for the people. It can, simplisticly, be broken into two sections, land of scientific importance and/or outstanding natural beauty, and historical properties for which a charge is made for entry. There are no restrictions on photography on open access land, but for the historical properties restrictions for commercial photography are in place. The National Trust has saved many properties rom ruin, and I have annual membership (along, I am sure, with many others of the English DPC members), so don't really resent them having this extra means of raising revenue.

Edit - beaten to it!

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 16:49:56.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

02/04/2008 04:51:27 PM · #14

Andi,

I had a similar experience a couple of weeks ago. I used to work at Ascot Racecourse, about 12 years ago. I called in to the main office to see if it was okay to walk around the roadway by the course, and perhaps take photos by some of the fences. It is National Hunt season, so not too busy on the course. And, as an ex-employee I am fully aware of responsible behaviour etc.

I was informed by the 'PR' boss, that I would not be permitted to go near any fences without a photographers pass. But, only accredited photogs can get these! Also, any photos I took on the grounds of the racecourse would be for personnal use only, not for publication...even here!

Ex-employees also used to get free tickets, not now. So, I was expected to pay for a ticket to not be allowed to follow my hobby. I do appreciate that it is not right to have a bunch of wackos standing by fences, using flash as horses come past. But, is it a good PR exercise to blanket ban everyone, when with good photos and responsible actions they could get some good press and possibly increased visitors??

I am baffled, but will look to the second nearest racecourse Windsor, for the chance to capture some racing action.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

02/04/2008 04:52:49 PM · #15

Originally posted by SaraR:

.... so don't really resent them having this extra means of raising revenue.

Me neither!

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 16:53:29.

02/04/2008 04:54:20 PM · #16

Thanks to all that have commented thus far, my point is really this...

With the advances in cameras and the fact thats its so easy to upload images to the web it is almost impossible to police their rules. I rang to enquire about taking shots for my use and upload as I might get questioned with a 1DMKIIn/L glass and a big old tripod whereas a smart 'pro' could wander up with a prosumer in his pocket and take images for resale.

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

02/04/2008 04:55:04 PM · #17

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Actually it's a charity, bit about it's history here.

National Trust history

Fixy Linky

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 16:56:05.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

02/04/2008 05:00:09 PM · #18

SaraR mentioned about the flickr group for the NT. There is a very interesting discussion thread - not 100% relevant to your original post,

Ecce Signum, but interesting nonetheless.

National Trust Flickr discussion

ETA. Not sure if you can open the page, I couldn't in Safari, but could in Firefox :(

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 17:04:04.

02/04/2008 05:13:42 PM · #19

Originally posted by salmiakki:

SaraR mentioned about the flickr group for the NT. There is a very interesting discussion thread - not 100% relevant to your original post, Ecce Signum, but interesting nonetheless.

National Trust Flickr discussion

ETA. Not sure if you can open the page, I couldn't in Safari, but could in Firefox :(

Thanks for the link. This however poses more questions, have all these group members signed the contract the National Trust require before uploading images to the web? Do all National Trust properties have the same 'rules'? The post by the NT web editor said they are just linking to the group flickr group images and this is common practice is it not?

paddles

Pentax K10D

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

02/05/2008 06:30:29 AM · #20

Last time I was shooting at a National Trust of Australia property, I asked about use of photos. They said that for amateurs like me, they don't mind tripods etc. as long as we're careful - and publishing photos on the Net is fine as long as there is a comment that it was at an NTA property (to encourage visitors!). If I was making money from them, then they'd want a cut which is fair enough.

The point is... wherever you are, it's worth asking - especially in some places round here where the security guards' operating definition of "professional photographer" is "anyone that uses a tripod". A polite question more often than not is met with a friendly and encouraging answer, in my experience. Our rights/privileges as photographers will be better served by amateurs behaving professionally than professionals behaving amateurishly.

Quasimojo