Is it illegal to sell images of landmarks under the national trust

[Elastoman]

I got married in a NT property. Does this mean the photgrapher we hired was acting illegally when he sold us our wedding photos?

I can't remember but there may well have been some clause in the contract to say who owns what. In terms of the photo rights I mean - I know full well who owns what in the marriage... her of course!

 

[purpleclouds]

I got married in a NT property. Does this mean the photgrapher we hired was acting illegally when he sold us our wedding photos?

I can't remember but there may well have been some clause in the contract to say who owns what. In terms of the photo rights I mean - I know full well who owns what in the marriage... her of course!

Well, I should imagine that you paid the NT for the privelege...so they got their cut

 

[swanseamale47]

I would guess a public footpath is a public place, therefore legal for taking photos from. As for the coast below high water mark is Crown property in the UK, so you wouldn't be on the private land your taking pics of. Wayne

 

[jerry12953]

The following is what is stated on my County website with information on Public Rights of Way (includes Footpaths / Bridleways etc).

OK ... bit of a grey area then, a tripod.....

 

[Tazmaniandevil]

I have been a NTS member for many years, and don't really see what the fuss is about. Many of our stately homes and other 'national treasures' would not be here in the condition they are in if not for the work of the trust. As for too much money.... that'll be why lots of staff contracts are not being renewed this year, and many sites are now on reduced opening hours.
Perhaps Mr/Mrs/Ms (delete as necessary) Tbabe can clarify further, but is it not the case that if you gain permission first and pay the appropriate fee you can take photos for commercial gain. That seems furry muff to me.
On the other hand, the staff member mentioned in the OP did sound a bit snotty and jobsworth. There are better ways of dealing with the public without causing discomfort.

 

[Johnny1982]

the issue is. I haven't sold one print of mow cop castle yet.
I just want to know what the deal is.

if I made 10k from that picture then I'd happily donate if I had to. Its more artwork than a snap shot so alot of effort has gone into the shot on my behalf.


as far as I care. Its a historic building and if someone comes n takes an image of it in an different manner and makes a profit off it then it should be ok. If they wanted cash inflow for keeping it looked after then they should charge an entry fee or donation box. I'd always be happy to pay but as they don't I feel greatly offended by being approched like that.

You know that if things carry on the way they do (esp in cities) you aren't going to be able to photograph anything anymore.

I remember seeing mow cop as a location in a photo magazine to visit to photograph. Encouraging people to go to take photos. Surely at least one comerical photographer is going to turn up.

 

[POAH]

It's a bit like saying you don't have the copyright to your face that statement. You won't mind me taking a photo of you and trying to flog it then will you. It's not about the copyright of the building it's about it being their private property and them setting the rules for your entry to it. By buying a ticket you agree to those rules and if you break them then there may be consequences.

you don't hold copyright to your face, for one thing you never made it

 

[Kev M]

You know that if things carry on the way they do (esp in cities) you aren't going to be able to photograph anything anymore.

I remember seeing mow cop as a location in a photo magazine to visit to photograph. Encouraging people to go to take photos. Surely at least one comerical photographer is going to turn up.

They're not saying you can't photograph it they're saying you can't make money from photographing it (form inside their boundaries). What's so wrong with that? Why do you need to make money from it, why can't you take photos for your own pleasure without feeling the need to make money from it?:shrug:

If you want to make money from it, pay them the appropriate fee. If you want to run a business out of it then you should understand that they're trying to runa business too.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The National Trust are long overdue for being taken down a peg or two with regards to images of 'their' property in the same way the Ordnance Survey get all snippy when the tax payer asks for access to the maps we all paid for.

Would the NT threaten you for trying to sell a few sub commercial quality pics on the web ? Probably. Would their case get to court ? No, it wouldn't even get past the 1st line legal. The negative publicity such an action would take would be highly damaging to the NT and it could be demonstrated (no offence) that no serious commercial pic buyer would use your pics in a meaningful commercial manner.

contravene the National Trust's policy of no commercial photography of it's properties

It's just a policy, it's not statute, as far as you are concerned, they can jam their 'policy' up their fundament.

 

[HoppyUK]

It's only about money, and protecting their image. When you buy a ticket, it's not so much about them enforcing their legal rights, which are pretty slender, it is more about getting you to relinquish yours.

That way they make sure that any money goes through them, and it also stops nosey visitors from poking their lenses at leaky gutters and crumbling brickwork.

Seems quite reasonable to me. But that irritating jobsworth needs a lesson in PR.

 

[goldenlight]

They're not saying you can't photograph it they're saying you can't make money from photographing it (form inside their boundaries). What's so wrong with that? Why do you need to make money from it, why can't you take photos for your own pleasure without feeling the need to make money from it?:shrug:

If you want to make money from it, pay them the appropriate fee. If you want to run a business out of it then you should understand that they're trying to runa business too.

Kev, I think you miss the point. If I was a full time pro on a commission with a guaranteed sale (provided I delivered the pictures) then I'd happily buy a commercial permit in advance for NT properties. However, like many aspiring wannabes I make the occasional low value sale that barely covers my cost of visiting the location.

It's not so much the money, it's the experience of getting published that counts. Having to buy what is no doubt an expensive permit in advance when it is by no means certain that I will find a market from speculative submissions is just not on. I pay £80 pa familly membership to the NT by direct debit and have done so for many years. You'd think they might cut photographers like me a little slack, wouldn't you? Even Joe Cornish had to start somewhere!

And surely publishing a beautiful picture of a Trust property actually gives them free publicity and encourages yet more visitors? If they really are that hung up about an amateur making just a few quid on an occasional basis, why don't they issue an annual permit for such photography at a reasonable cost with a clause that upon publication 20% of any fee received must be paid to the Trust. At least it would give us a chance!

It seems somewhat ironic that at Lacock Abbey the Trust make a big thing about Fox Talbot and how he was one of the pioneers of photography. If the current predjudice and ambivulance towards photographers that seems to be endemic throughout society today was prevalent in the days of Fox Talbot, he may have come to the conclusion that all the hassle was not worth it and gone off to invent something else instead!

Incidentally, I've found that images taken on NT properties are generally quite difficult to sell, simply because they've been done so many times before. Far better to take some pictures, in the right light, at an unknown and unloved location far from the madding crowds that infest Trust properties!

 

[Impspeed]

Easily sorted...I'll come round to your houses with a camera, model maybe some lighting and take photos all over it as a make shift studio - give you a couple of quid to get in and then sell oll the photos to line my own pocket.

It is clearly stated that you are not to sell photos taken on NT property (I think we need clarification as to whether this is paid to enter or free) and I think it is quite reasonable.

You are aware of their terms so simply live with it ...sorry for being so blunt but it just riles me.

DB

 

[Kev M]

The national trust is a business though and each business has the right to protect themselves. I've not looked at your work and you might be a great photographer but for every one of you who wants to sell an image of an NT property there will be a dozen or so mediocre-poor photrographers with the same ambition. And they might be willing to sell their images even cheaper than you. Does the NT want 2nd rate images of it's business being used on the cheap? I'd say not.

Paying the subscription is your choice and shouldn't give you or any other members photography priveliges over someone who pays for admission on the day as far as I'm concerned. If getting published is more important than the being paid for you photograph then I can't see the NT being able to stop you submitting your images to magazines because you're not using them commercially. Perhaps by having to purchase a permit the NT are helping to protect the income stream of professional photographers too. As an aspiring pro you should appreciate that.

I still don't get what it is that makes people who choose photography as a hobby want it to pay for itself. There are so few hobbies I can think of with the same mentality and so many hobbies where you accept that the cost is something to accept in order for you to enjoy that hobby.

 

[Richard King]

There are a number of factors: The NT may well be protecting thier own income stream, and also they have to consider that some of thier artworks may have thier own copyright that applies. We would all be peeved if somone photographed one of our photographs and sold it, as would the artists / sculptures (or rights holders) of the work displayed etc. they are probrably applyinga "1 brush" covers all eventualities policy

 

[jerry12953]

It's only about money, and protecting their image. When you buy a ticket, it's not so much about them enforcing their legal rights, which are pretty slender, it is more about getting you to relinquish yours.

That way they make sure that any money goes through them, and it also stops nosey visitors from poking their lenses at leaky gutters and crumbling brickwork.

Seems quite reasonable to me. But that irritating jobsworth needs a lesson in PR.

They have a big image library of their sites and land; presumably they want to keep making sales through that. They don't want any joe soap coming along and creating competition.

 

[Slipper-one]

There is a moral question anyway.....why would anyone want to benefit off a charity? To actually go out to take photographs of something that is lovingly cared for, with the purpose of selling them on, without any come back for the NT seems bit immoral to me.

If I ever made a profit from a photo from the NT I'd be inclinded to donate it to the cause

OT but check out some of the salaries paid at the higher levels to see 'why would anyone want to benefit off a charity' they do.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

Erm, seeing as they say you can shoot from public land but not from private maybe the T&C of entering say that they own the copyright to any photo taken - this would be how they can stop you as they own the image

 

[Dom]

Reply from my e-mail to the NT.

Dear Mr @#&%

Thankyou for your email enquiry.

I can confirmt it is down to the property wether they will allow professional phtography.
So you would need to contact a certain property to obtain permission.

Many Thanks
Aaron
Membership Department.

---- Original Message ----
To who it may concern.

What is the national trust standing on professional photography on
National Trust land?

Your sincerely
Dom @#&%​

So that is absolutely no help at all.

 

[Johnny1982]

I was unaware that Mow Cop castle was a national trust location though..

there is no fee to enter the grounds. its as easily accessable as a public park?


If I am not paying to enter the grounds, or being warned of ANY sign stating agaisnt the sale of photography..What am I doing wrong?

I have read through all feedback and appreciate everything being said. I am learning very much from you all.

 

[neo2810]

Reply from my e-mail to the NT.

Dear Mr @#&%

Thankyou for your email enquiry.

I can confirmt it is down to the property wether they will allow professional phtography.
So you would need to contact a certain property to obtain permission.

Many Thanks
Aaron
Membership Department.​

Based on that grammer and spelling, I'd take anything Aaron says with a pinch of salt.... :nono:​

 

[Dom]

Based on that grammer and spelling, I'd take anything Aaron says with a pinch of salt.... :nono:

Yes I agree.
Unfortunately it seem bad spelling / grammar is acceptable almost encouraged in the young of today to show just how busy they are.

I've also fired of a properly formatted and spell checked e-mail to my local NT property to see if I can get a response from the fascists.

 

[chris321]

Unfortunately it seems bad spelling / grammar is acceptable almost encouraged in the young of today to show just how busy they are.

I've also fired off a properly formatted and spell checked e-mail to my local NT property to see if I can get a response from the fascists.

It's very easy to do by accident as well remember!

 

[Byker28i]

Worcester Cathedral ask that you purchase a photography permit from the gift shop fior a few pounds. I think Gloucester cathedral does the same.

 

[Dom]

Worcester Cathedral ask that you purchase a photography permit from the gift shop fior a few pounds. I think Gloucester cathedral does the same.

Does it act as a property release as well?

 

[matt007]

T-BABE,,,JOBS WORTH

 

[Tbabe]

T-BABE,,,JOBS WORTH

errm Matt007 Try reading my post - it WAS A QUOTE !!!!

I am one of the hundreds of wanna b's that would like to be able to take pics and try and sell them.
I refused to renew my nt membership years ago, when they bought in the no photography inside rule (it used to be no Flash photography) so as not to expose pictures etc to extreme light.
:bang:

 

[it's alive]

Reply from my e-mail to the NT.

Dear Mr @#&%

Thankyou for your email enquiry.

I can confirmt it is down to the property wether they will allow professional phtography.
So you would need to contact a certain property to obtain permission.

Many Thanks
Aaron
Membership Department.

---- Original Message ----
To who it may concern.

What is the national trust standing on professional photography on
National Trust land?

Your sincerely
Dom @#&%​

So that is absolutely no help at all.

Actually that is helpful.. It suggests that a) you need to enquire of the location that you wish to visit to find out their stance (you didn't do that did you? Just gave up in the face of having to write that second email.- EDIT: just noticed your other post at the top of this page, so I retract this bit, somewhat sheepishly) and b) it is possible that the response will differ by location.

This may mean that some locations are very relaxed about what you do with the images (then again it may not ).

Amusingly, all the NT are doing here is what togs do when they see images used without permission. Their stance is clear, not uncommon and really simple to understand. I fail to see the problem.

As someone who does not take pictures with commerce in mind I would never seek permission in advance. If approached for the use of an image, once I had stopped laughing, I would have to ask the NT for their view if it were taken on their land (with paid entry, I am not sure whether the car parking terms also enforce the photography restriction on their land - will look next time). To do this I'd just mail them with the detail of the approach I had received. Who knows what the response would be? I expect (with no real justification) that it would depend on the sum involved. Whether permission is granted or not I would still haev been approached and still be a happy chap.

Where is the problem here?

With respect to footpaths I only wish to add that it is important to be clear that the path may be a legal "right of way" but that does not mean it is not still owned by the NT. It may just mean that the NT can not refuse the use of the path. Also permissive paths are a grey area here too, you can use it but you don't get rights of ownership.

It seems that folk here are just looking for something to be upset about. This has been the same for years, longer than I've been alive. Where is the surprise?

 

[it's alive]

errm Matt007 Try reading my post - it WAS A QUOTE !!!!

I am one of the hundreds of wanna b's that would like to be able to take pics and try and sell them.
I refused to renew my nt membership years ago, when they bought in the no photography inside rule (it used to be no Flash photography) so as not to expose pictures etc to extreme light.
:bang:

Maybe you ought to edit your post and make it a quote?

 

[goldenlight]

Easily sorted...I'll come round to your houses with a camera, model maybe some lighting and take photos all over it as a make shift studio - give you a couple of quid to get in and then sell oll the photos to line my own pocket.

It is clearly stated that you are not to sell photos taken on NT property (I think we need clarification as to whether this is paid to enter or free) and I think it is quite reasonable.

You are aware of their terms so simply live with it and shut up...sorry for being so blunt but it just riles me.

DB

If you are willing to pay NT admission prices you can come round my house with a model anytime. I'll even lay on a cream tea and a souvenir guide - at NT prices, of course. If you'd like to bring a dozen other togs with you, so much the better. It would be a nice little earner for me.

And no I'm not aware of the terms. Where the hell do we stand if we take a photograph in one of the thousands of acres of open land in mountainous areas owned by the trust?

BTW I like riling people like you. :razz:

 

[goldenlight]

The national trust is a business though and each business has the right to protect themselves. I've not looked at your work and you might be a great photographer but for every one of you who wants to sell an image of an NT property there will be a dozen or so mediocre-poor photrographers with the same ambition. And they might be willing to sell their images even cheaper than you. Does the NT want 2nd rate images of it's business being used on the cheap? I'd say not.

Paying the subscription is your choice and shouldn't give you or any other members photography priveliges over someone who pays for admission on the day as far as I'm concerned. If getting published is more important than the being paid for you photograph then I can't see the NT being able to stop you submitting your images to magazines because you're not using them commercially. Perhaps by having to purchase a permit the NT are helping to protect the income stream of professional photographers too. As an aspiring pro you should appreciate that.

I still don't get what it is that makes people who choose photography as a hobby want it to pay for itself. There are so few hobbies I can think of with the same mentality and so many hobbies where you accept that the cost is something to accept in order for you to enjoy that hobby.

As I said, it's not just about the money. But then, if you've never had a picture published I guess you wouldn't know.

As to whether my images are second rate, I'm hardly in a position to make an objective judgement. If others want to decide that, they can visit my web site.

 

[dod]

Where the hell do we stand if we take a photograph in one of the thousands of acres of open land in mountainous areas owned by the trust?

Outside? The rules are here

BTW I like riling people like you. :razz:

On some sites that would be considered trolling.

I enjoy getting riled by people who enjoy riling others.

 

[dalex_257]

Many of our stately homes and other 'national treasures' would not be here in the condition they are in if not for the work of the trust.
...
but is it not the case that if you gain permission first and pay the appropriate fee you can take photos for commercial gain.

I find this whole logic wrong that you have to pay for the privilege to sell your photos and your work (including postprocessing etc) just because NT is doing lots of good things. After all we do pay for entry tickets, memberships, buying their guides and books. And what makes NT so special why then does the case with the totally private owner which may be very rich and not caring be any different?

Its a historic building and if someone comes n takes an image of it in an different manner and makes a profit off it then it should be ok.

I totally agree with that, property owner has no work invested in the photo production so they should not be claiming part from that. It's all over the patent-like charges logic again - produce something once get income for life, and this is just wrong.

[rant]
In the not so distant old days, no photographer was scared to stop in the middle of the field and take a photo of the castle being afraid that he then got chased by armed cops or gang of lawers/silly officials demanding compenastions/money from his potential future sales. It seems that with this increasing tendency we will soon arrive to the future where we will not be allowed to remember what we saw in our heads after the paid visit is over since it breaches NT (or others) IP, copyright or right to sell us more stuff/brochures we don't need. "You are permitted to look at the NT owned property at the time of your visist but not retain mental imagery after the visit is over" type of thing is coming...

[rant is over]

 

[goldenlight]

Outside? The rules are here


On some sites that would be considered trolling.

I enjoy getting riled by people who enjoy riling others.

Thanks for posting those rules, but they do not answer my question. The only reference is to welcoming "amateur photography outdoors." That implies that pictures taken outdoors still cannot be sold or even taken for possible sale without first purchasing a permit. But that opens up a whole new can of worms. Let me give you an example.

Say I'm standing on the summit of Castle Head, a rocky outcrop near Keswick that is wholly owned by the National Trust. Spread before me is a wonderful view of Derwent Water and the surrounding mountains, some of which is also owned by the Trust and some of which isn't. I'm planning to take a photograph of this view with the intention of selling it and although I'm standing on Trust property none of this particular property is actually in my composition. However, some of the neighbouring Trust properties are part of my picture! Try to make some sense out of the Trust's policy in this scenario!

And as for my comment about riling being "trolling," I suppose bluntly telling me to "shut up" isn't?

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

FFS - if you are on private property, which most NT places are, then they can dictate the rules.

How often do people on here claim that they were stopped in a public place? This is the other side of the same coin

 

[Kev M]

What is it that some of you don't understand about

A)It's private property, they don't have to let you in even if you're happy to pay, they're entitled to refuse entry.

B)They're trying to run a business

I've been published once before, didn't mean a thing to me. I do photography for myself not because I need some feeling of re-assurance that someone else likes my stuff enough to publish it or hundreds of people are going to see it.

 

[dod]

Thanks for posting those rules, but they do not answer my question. The only reference is to welcoming "amateur photography outdoors." That implies that pictures taken outdoors still cannot be sold or even taken for possible sale without first purchasing a permit. But that opens up a whole new can of worms. Let me give you an example.

Say I'm standing on the summit of Castle Head, a rocky outcrop near Keswick that is wholly owned by the National Trust. Spread before me is a wonderful view of Derwent Water and the surrounding mountains, some of which is also owned by the Trust and some of which isn't. I'm planning to take a photograph of this view with the intention of selling it and although I'm standing on Trust property none of this particular property is actually in my composition. However, some of the neighbouring Trust properties are part of my picture! Try to make some sense out of the Trust's policy in this scenario!

And as for my comment about riling being "trolling," I suppose bluntly telling me to "shut up" isn't?

It also refers to

All commercial photography and fliming requests must be channelled through the Broadcast and Media Liaison Officer. Telephone 01793 817400.

To me that looks pretty black and white. :shrug:

Looking at your example if the NT don't own any of the property you're taking a shot of I can't see why they'd be worried in the slightest over what you do with the image. It's unlikely they'd track you down and make an issue over an image in which they have no interest. However, by making use of their property to actually get that image they arguably do have the right to benefit. There's only one way to find out, phone them.

Didn't notice you being told to shut up, just going to check (checked and fixed). Two wrongs don't make a right though.

 

[it's alive]

as far as I care. Its a historic building and if someone comes n takes an image of it in an different manner and makes a profit off it then it should be ok. If they wanted cash inflow for keeping it looked after then they should charge an entry fee or donation box. I'd always be happy to pay but as they don't I feel greatly offended by being approched like that.

They do charge an entry fee in some places and many people complain about it

It is a historic building, but the NT pays for the upkeep. Surely it's therefore reasonable that they take some of the proceeds of that effort? I have not seen any evidence yet that the NT ask for unreasonable costs. If you bought a listed building and had all the attendent costs and some (many/loads?) of togs took pictures that they subsequently sold for profit wouldn't you expect a cut? After all, it is your building. You do pay for all the wear and tear (especially if some is incurred by the trampling of all those togs).

What difference does it make whether it is an individual or an organisation?

If someone does have actual experience of dealing with the NT and selling images I'd love to see something posted.

 

[Kev M]

Why don't one of you tight gits ask the NT how much a permit would be, what it grants you, how long it lasts?

 

[it's alive]

Why don't one of you tight gits ask the NT how much a permit would be, what it grants you, how long it lasts?

Bob on

 

[Dom]

Why don't one of you tight gits ask the NT how much a permit would be, what it grants you, how long it lasts?

If you had read my post you will see that I have asked the NT. You will also see that I have asked my local NT property to find out more details.