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

[goldenlight]

It also refers to



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.

O.K., if I know in advance that I will be taking a picture to sell from a particular property I can phone them. But I'm out for a day's hillwalking and happen to have a camera with me. I don't know in advance that I will encounter a glorious scene in perfect light that would undoubtably sell and it's surely impractical to phone for permission every time I stop to take a photo.

Historic houses and gardens I can understand, but the Trust appears to want control over photography, and the uses deriving from it, undertaken on vast tracks of open countryside, including coast, moorland and mountain. In my opinion this is not on. O.K., the Trust do a lot of good and that is why I've consistantly supported them financially for many, many years. But if they want this sort of control over open land then I think they are acting against the very principles of why the Trust was established in the first place.

Sorry, I will refrain in future from becoming involved in personal remarks, I'm probably better at intellectual debate anyway.

 

[goldenlight]

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.

They are running it like a business but it is not a business, it's a trust. And the beneficiaries of that trust are...me and you, in fact, all of us.

Here is an extract fron the Trust's own mission statement:-

The National Trust was founded in 1895 to promote and look after places of historic beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation across England, Wales and Northern Island. Our core purpose is to look after special places for ever, for everyone

So, if my particular enjoyment of that land which is held in trust for me involves photography which might eventually result in me selling a picture why on earth should the trustees, who are supposed to be acting on my behalf, have any complaints?

 

[dod]

Sorry, I will refrain in future from becoming involved in personal remarks, I'm probably better at intellectual debate anyway.

Actually, my apologies to you too. There's been an increase in general rudeness on here lately but it's not a trait of your previous posts, you were actually responding to provocation and so you probably didn't deserve such a cutting response.

As far as the NT is concerned why don't you phone them and see if you can get a "season permit"?

 

[it's alive]

O.K., if I know in advance that I will be taking a picture to sell from a particular property I can phone them. But I'm out for a day's hillwalking and happen to have a camera with me. I don't know in advance that I will encounter a glorious scene in perfect light that would undoubtably sell and it's surely impractical to phone for permission every time I stop to take a photo.

But that's not a problem either. You can still ask for a permit regarding that as far as I can tell. Though if you were to do this repeatedly I suspect that they'd 'suggest' that you get a permit.

Historic houses and gardens I can understand, but the Trust appears to want control over photography, and the uses deriving from it, undertaken on vast tracks of open countryside, including coast, moorland and mountain. In my opinion this is not on. O.K., the Trust do a lot of good and that is why I've consistantly supported them financially for many, many years. But if they want this sort of control over open land then I think they are acting against the very principles of why the Trust was established in the first place.

Have you any idea of the costs that they are asking? Surely that's a critical factor in whether it's exploitation.

So, if my particular enjoyment of that land which is held in trust for me involves photography which might eventually result in me selling a picture why on earth should the trustees, who are supposed to be acting on my behalf, have any complaints?

Because the NT incurs cost in maintaining all that it holds in trust. Surely it is in the interest of the majority for the Trust to take a cut of the proceeds of earnings derived from its holdings? The photographer is able to sell the images, under license and the trust takes a fee which will then ultimately reduce the requirement for income from other sources.

Your posts appear to be formed from the premise that you can't sell the images that you take. I don't see that to be the case, merely that permission is required. As yet, we have no idea what the cost of that permission is . . .

 

[Kev M]

They are running it like a business but it is not a business, it's a trust. And the beneficiaries of that trust are...me and you, in fact, all of us.

So, if my particular enjoyment of that land which is held in trust for me involves photography which might eventually result in me selling a picture why on earth should the trustees, who are supposed to be acting on my behalf, have any complaints?

Because by you profiting from their work, and not paying them for doing so then you are removing a revenue stream, a revenue stream which is there to ensure that people like you and me will be able to enjoy NT properties in years to come.

There's no point in trusting people to make a donation from proceeds of sales in the event they happen to sell a photo because the donations won't come. Nobody runs a business on good will. This is why they ask you to get a permit up front.

 

[Johnny1982]

due to all the posts this is getting I am trying to save myself from looking a twit here.

I am not angry that its private and I cant sell images of it. I just plain didn't know.
If I require a permit to sell my artistic photographs of the castle then I will obtain one.

Fact still remains. My image that I am selling was taken from a road. Not a public footpath, a road.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

due to all the posts this is getting I am trying to save myself from looking a twit here.

I am not angry that its private and I cant sell images of it. I just plain didn't know.
If I require a permit to sell my artistic photographs of the castle then I will obtain one.

Fact still remains. My image that I am selling was taken from a road. Not a public footpath, a road.

Just to be a pedant could it be a private road?

 

[Johnny1982]

Just to be a pedant could it be a private road?

not a chance. It bridges both peaks of the hill together. There are houses all along it.

 

[Marcel]

Could still be a private road though ......with dispensation and permit to travel along it to access the houses or the trust property.

The thing with photography nowadays, the key thing is 'private land' in most scenarios...and without knowing who owns the land on which we stand, it's hard to know what rights we have.

Just walk round the middle of London and see how many times you walk on private land that seems 'public'.

 

[Marcel]

T-BABE,,,JOBS WORTH

Is there any need for such a response?

Admittedly (as pointed out) you were incorrect in your assumption that Tbabe was from the NT and posting directly, which is understandable given the lack of quote tags around the post.

However, even if she *was* from the NT, there is no need to be so rude. Please refrain from being so insulting towards other members.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Does any one know of any one who has been sued by the NT for using or selling a photograph they have taken of NT property: either whilst on the said property or from public ground.

It does not seem to be a right they defend after the event, even if they do try to prevent people taking photographs in the first place.

 

[Richard King]

Does any one know of any one who has been sued by the NT for using or selling a photograph they have taken of NT property: either whilst on the said property or from public ground.

It does not seem to be a right they defend after the event, even if they do try to prevent people taking photographs in the first place.

To be fair to the NT, some of the places are huge, wide open and milling with people. I would hope the staff had better things to do than worry about all the potential photographers in the thousands of acres of land they manage

As I mentioned previously, sometimes, copyright management has more to do with contracts the NT (or anyone else) has with artists and exhibitors> Sometimes the details of these are so complex it is easier to slap a blanket bann to prevent a breach of contract

I mentioned in another thread.. In all situations, on private land, write to the people, explain honestly waht you are doing, do exactly what you say you will, turn up in a sharp suit and act in a buisiness like way - you will get your shoot, and they will call you when they want a shoot. Works for me, worked with the NT

 

[goldenlight]

Because by you profiting from their work, and not paying them for doing so then you are removing a revenue stream, a revenue stream which is there to ensure that people like you and me will be able to enjoy NT properties in years to come.

There's no point in trusting people to make a donation from proceeds of sales in the event they happen to sell a photo because the donations won't come. Nobody runs a business on good will. This is why they ask you to get a permit up front.

Well, Kev, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I just hope you don't get fed up with being challenged by officials suspicious of your motives whilst taking your purely for pleasure pictures.

Just for the record, I derive much of my pleasure from writing as well as photography and to put together a package of words and pictures that is eventually published is part of the satisfaction of my hobby.

I don't travel to the Lake District much these days due to a combination of poor health and financial constraints. But many years ago I produced a series of 4 or 5 page articles for an outdoor magazine with different themes on the area. These included "Leisurely in the Lake District," "Camping by Lakeland Tarns," "In Search of Lakeland Views," "The Eighth Wonder of Wainwright," and "Looking Through Wainwright's Eyes."

Each of these projects involved numerous round trips of 600 miles a time. The cost of this plus additional expenses of campsite fees and film and processing meant that I was considerably out of pocket after receiving the grand payment of £80 a time (1990's rates). That didn't bother me, because it was a labour of love, but much of my work was on National Trust land and it seems that had they have known they would have wanted payment too, or at least they would these days.

Maybe my articles that centered around Wainwright should have also generated a payment to his estate. Then there's the Met Office that helped me plan my trips according to the weather forecast (yes, once or twice they got it right), surely they should have been due a cut too. Had the campsite owners have known I was based there for commercial reasons rather than purely for pleasure, no doubt they would have charged a higher rate. And let's not forget the amateur lab that processed my film; had they been aware that I was really a "pro" presumably they would have charged me pro rates. Finally, I must acknowledge the Almighty. Without Him and his bounteous wonders of creation none of my work would have been possible, so surely I should have made a sizeable donation to the Church!

O.K., these days I tend to work locally and don't do much photography on NT property. However, I've been surprisingly successful with pictures taken from footpaths in unknown and uncelebrated Essex fields. I just hope the farmer's don't find out, or they too may want a cut!

 

[it's alive]

I mentioned in another thread.. In all situations, on private land, write to the people, explain honestly waht you are doing, do exactly what you say you will, turn up in a sharp suit and act in a buisiness like way - you will get your shoot, and they will call you when they want a shoot. Works for me, worked with the NT

The voice of reason, thanks Richard

It's nice to see someone writing from experience.

 

[jerry12953]

Just to recall something that was established early on in this thread, the NT do not place any restrictions on any kind of photography in its "countryside" properties.

Yet.

And, goldenlight, your logic is reasonable. It may be only a matter of time before they all want a cut.

 

[robbiewos]

NT should be glad to see anyone promoting their properties, but I see your concerns

 

[it's alive]

And, goldenlight, your logic is reasonable. It may be only a matter of time before they all want a cut.

Whilst I agree that the logic is reasonable it is still unknown what the NT would actually want in exchange for permission. I wouldn't want someone to read this thread and conclude that photography at an NT site is a non-starter as that is far from the truth.

To this point the only reference to informed comment on the NTs actual position is from Richard King (Edited from Richard the Sane - got my Richards confused, apologies for any offense). He has operated with permission. Presumably this meant that the conditions/costs were not prohibitive?

 

[jerry12953]

Whilst I agree that the logic is reasonable it is still unknown what the NT would actually want in exchange for permission. I wouldn't want someone to read this thread and conclude that photography at an NT site is a non-starter as that is far from the truth.

To this point the only reference to informed comment on the NTs actual position is from RichardtheSane. He has operated with permission. Presumably this meant that the conditions/costs were not prohibitive?

Richard?

 

[seriousrikk]

News to me!

I have spent a couple of days on Inner Farne which is NT property. My time was spent photographing puffins and other wildlife. While I was there the island was regularly descended on by photographers with the same intentions as me - capture shots of the wildlife.

NT representitives were present all around the island and no mention was made to anyone about the photography. The types of shot available were very commericially viable (But not for me) and my ticket to the island was purely an entry fee. I seem to recall checking about photography when I landed on the island and it was permitted in all areas that were publically accessible.

I do wonder what their stance on people selling images taken there would be.

 

[it's alive]

News to me!

Oops :bonk: mixed up my Richards, sorry about that.

 

[Movilla]

Last year I had a very interesting telephone conversation with the assistant manager of the photographic department at the National Trust head office. She kindly explained the exact procedure for commercial photography and why it exists.

The National Trust is a charity with its own VERY large commercial photographic library covering all of its properties and land. The NT has a considerable revenue stream from selling the images within its library. All images are of a high standard and the NT has complete control over this standard.

If they allowed others to take photos and commercially sell them the NT would not make money from its own stock library.

You can take photos for commercial use on NT land, but you have to fill out an application form, sign a contract, pay a hefty hourly rate to be on their land and then give them a % of your sales revenue from the photos taken.

However there is a way round it, you can take as many photos from the air as you like, sell them by the 1000s and the NT cannot stop you, because you were not on their land when the photo was taken.

Basically you are a guest on their land and you have to abide by their rules, the same as any other landowner.

The thing is I am not sure if the NT has actually managed to claim damages against anybody who has sold photographs of NI property/land commercially who didn't get permission.

I expect that the NT faces a problem now, as it is very easy for amateurs to set up websites selling photos and there will be a lot of people innocently breaking NT rules.

 

[DigitalRelish]

However there is a way round it, you can take as many photos from the air as you like, sell them by the 1000s and the NT cannot stop you, because you were not on their land when the photo was taken.

What if you merely jumped in the air when pressing the shutter release? That's a semi-serious question!

 

[Johnny1982]

What if you merely jumped in the air when pressing the shutter release? That's a semi-serious question!

hahahahaha
best reply I have ever read.

 

[jerry12953]

I think we should get away from this idea that the National Trust is a CHARITY!

Maybe it is on paper, but the way it runs its affairs, it seems like a business, and a very large and powerful one at that.

It may not restrict photography on its "countryside" properties - ie many of the most stunning landscapes in these islands - but you can bet your bottom dollar, if it could, it would....

 

[OneTen]

I think we should get away from this idea that the National Trust is a CHARITY!

I'm a National Trust countryside warden and if you knew anything about how the NT is run and funded you wouldn't even question it's charity status.

As for photography, we positively welcome people to our properties to enjoy them responsibly and that includes photography. However, photography on a commercial basis is different and that requires authorisation on ANY National Trust land as far as I'm aware.

 

[Marc]

I think we should get away from this idea that the National Trust is a CHARITY!

Maybe it is on paper, but the way it runs its affairs, it seems like a business, and a very large and powerful one at that.

It may not restrict photography on its "countryside" properties - ie many of the most stunning landscapes in these islands - but you can bet your bottom dollar, if it could, it would....

Yes it IS a charity. It is a very large charity and therefore HAS to be run like a business otherwise it wouldn't survive, its responsibilities are huge. If it wasn't for the NT you wouldn't have all those wonderful places to go and photograph.

I cannot believe the amount of whining in this thread about not being able to go onto private property and make money without permission.

 

[Dom]

I've got a reply to my e-mail to my local NT property.

Thank you for your enquiry

Where can I take photographs?
A. We welcome amateur photography out-of-doors at our properties. We regret that photography is not permitted indoors when houses are open to visitors. The use of mobile phones with built-in cameras is also not permitted indoors.

However, at most properties special arrangements can be made for interested amateurs (as well as volutary National Trust speakers, research students and academics) to take interior photographs by appointment outside normal opening hours.

Requests to arrange a mutually convenient appointment must be made in writing to the property concerned. Not all properties are able to offer this facility and those that do may make an admission charge (including Trust members).

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


I hope this answers your query​

I think this answers a lot of our questions. The NT are protecting there assets, I can't blame them for that. As I see it what they are doing is completely above board and legal but some of the staff are over zealous and will pounce on anyone with a SLR. A bit like your local PCSO.


P.s. Think my second e-mail to the NT and I've still not got a direct answer to the question about professions photography.

 

[HoppyUK]

I've got a reply to my e-mail to my local NT property.

Thank you for your enquiry

Where can I take photographs?
A. We welcome amateur photography out-of-doors at our properties. We regret that photography is not permitted indoors when houses are open to visitors. The use of mobile phones with built-in cameras is also not permitted indoors.

However, at most properties special arrangements can be made for interested amateurs (as well as volutary National Trust speakers, research students and academics) to take interior photographs by appointment outside normal opening hours.

Requests to arrange a mutually convenient appointment must be made in writing to the property concerned. Not all properties are able to offer this facility and those that do may make an admission charge (including Trust members).

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


I hope this answers your query​

I think this answers a lot of our questions. The NT are protecting there assets, I can't blame them for that. As I see it what they are doing is completely above board and legal but some of the staff are over zealous and will pounce on anyone with a SLR. A bit like your local PCSO.

I think the point is that they are OUR assets and over-zealous staff are pi55ing people off with a lot of hot air about private property and breaking the law or whatever. It's not private property in the true sense, it belongs to the nation.

On the other hand, I can well see why the NT wants to protect their income. They should just be a bit more sensitive to visitors' wishes, many of whom are only visiting NT properties in order to take pictures, and stop being so controlling.

 

[Marc]

I think the point is that they are OUR assets and over-zealous staff are pi55ing people off with a lot of hot air about private property and breaking the law or whatever. It's not private property in the true sense, it belongs to the nation.

On the other hand, I can well see why the NT wants to protect their income. They should just be a bit more sensitive to visitors' wishes, many of whom are only visiting NT properties in order to take pictures, and stop being so controlling.

But they are not OUR assets. They are privately owned and not funded by our taxes.

 

[HoppyUK]

But they are not OUR assets. They are privately owned and not funded by our taxes.

Technically, yes, they are private. But that's why I included the qualification "not in the true sense." They are national assets.

We have access to them, and I'm grateful for that, and I understand that they have to be maintained at no small cost. I just think the NT should lighten up a bit - nobody's trying to steal their income, not in any significant way.

 

[it's alive]

We have access to them, and I'm grateful for that, and I understand that they have to be maintained at no small cost. I just think the NT should lighten up a bit - nobody's trying to steal their income, not in any significant way.

But they're not being grim or heavy handed. From that post they appear to be prepared to bend over backwards to grant amateurs access.

It would be interesting to see how the Media Liaison Officer would deal with a snap, initially taken for fun, that subsequently became commercially interesting. Has anyone been in this situation and asked the question? I guess that they would take a cut of the proceeds (a larger cut than they would if prior permission were granted).

 

[Marc]

Technically, yes, they are private. But that's why I included the qualification "not in the true sense." They are national assets.

We have access to them, and I'm grateful for that, and I understand that they have to be maintained at no small cost. I just think the NT should lighten up a bit - nobody's trying to steal their income, not in any significant way.

From what I've seen of the official communications, The NT have been extremely welcoming. I believe it may be the officials on the ground who may be causing upset in which case it should be reported to the people who can communicate the rules back down the the relevant official, otherwise nothing will ever change.

 

[HoppyUK]

But they're not being grim or heavy handed. From that post they appear to be prepared to bend over backwards to grant amateurs access.

It would be interesting to see how the Media Liaison Officer would deal with a snap, initially taken for fun, that subsequently became commercially interesting. Has anyone been in this situation and asked the question? I guess that they would take a cut of the proceeds (a larger cut than they would if prior permission were granted).

Check the OP. The NT jobsworth there was threatening legal action, and he was being both heavy handed and officious. Not to mention the fact that he was talking bo11ox. He would make an excellent Traffic Warden.

Edit: Crossed post with fabs.

From what I've seen of the official communications, The NT have been extremely welcoming. I believe it may be the officials on the ground who may be causing upset in which case it should be reported to the people who can communicate the rules back down the the relevant official, otherwise nothing will ever change.

Quite. Good post!

 

[Byker28i]

I'm an NT member, never really had any issues with photography at places I've visited, so I'd guess it's just an ill informed helper. As with any organisation with volunteers, there's always a few who misuse their 'position of power'.

NT has the best tearooms and cakes IMHO

 

[Marc]

NT has the best tearooms and cakes IMHO

Too true. Best post of the thread!

 

[HoppyUK]

NT has the best tearooms and cakes IMHO

Best carrotcake yes Best prices, NO!

 

[Gonetae]

Yes it IS a charity. It is a very large charity and therefore HAS to be run like a business otherwise it wouldn't survive, its responsibilities are huge. If it wasn't for the NT you wouldn't have all those wonderful places to go and photograph.

I cannot believe the amount of whining in this thread about not being able to go onto private property and make money without permission.

Sums it up for me, if you want to go along and take photos for your own pleasure it's fine but the problem only arises when you are trying to profit from them and doing so possibly taking a sale away from them. Imagine it was a wedding and you turned up beside the pro and started taking pics and then trying to sell them to the happy couple... *scurries off to hide after mentioning the 'W' word*

Just my tuppenceworth.
Tommy

 

[incapete]

I think the point is that they are OUR assets and over-zealous staff are pi55ing people off with a lot of hot air about private property and breaking the law or whatever. It's not private property in the true sense, it belongs to the nation.

Technically, yes, they are private. But that's why I included the qualification "not in the true sense." They are national assets.

We have access to them, and I'm grateful for that, and I understand that they have to be maintained at no small cost. I just think the NT should lighten up a bit - nobody's trying to steal their income, not in any significant way.

Regardless of how the NT have acted on this matter, they're private in every sense; not just 'technically' and they're not national assets at all. The charity is privately run and has no government or state involvement or income - all of it's properites are privately owned so they really are 'private property in the real sense' and nothing 'belongs to the nation'. The fact that they choose to make those properties available to the public doesn't change that.

I think you're mixing them up with English Heritage which does have links to the state.

 

[HoppyUK]

Regardless of how the NT have acted on this matter, they're private in every sense; not just 'technically' and they're not national assets at all. The charity is privately run and has no government or state involvement or income - all of it's properites are privately owned so they really are 'private property in the real sense' and nothing 'belongs to the nation'. The fact that they choose to make those properties available to the public doesn't change that.

I think you're mixing them up with English Heritage which does have links to the state.

No I'm not. NT has been allowed by government, our government, to take over the running of these sites. This is so that we, the public, can have good access to them.

NT sites only exist because the public wants to visit them. Otherwise they would be left to crumble.

 

[Strolls]

Regardless of how the NT have acted on this matter, they're private in every sense; not just 'technically' and they're not national assets at all. The charity is privately run and has no government or state involvement ... - all of it's properites are privately owned so they really are 'private property in the real sense' and nothing 'belongs to the nation'.

The Trust ... was founded as a not-for-profit company in 1894 but was later re-incorporated by a private Act of Parliament, the National Trust Act 1907. Subsequent Acts of Parliament between 1919 and 1978 amended and extended the Trust's powers and remit. In 2005 the governance of the Trust was substantially changed under a Scheme made by the Charity Commission.
from wikipedia​

It is definitely the case that the NT is & has been granted a number of privileges by the government. For instance the Wikipedia article mentions the right to declare land "inalienable", which prevents the government passing a compulsory purchase order on the grounds of a historic house in order to build a motorway (it may grant them wider-reaching powers than this, I'm not sure).

I have to say that these no commercial photography rules does stick in my craw. I was really miffed when the local council sold off Devil's Dyke and offered it directly to the Trust without any public consultation and right under the noses of the local hang-gliding club, who had been saving money for years with a view to buying it.

However, in light of the fact that their properties do need funding, that no-one else is likely to preserve them any more efficiently than the NT, and they need the money from photo sales, I'm forced to reassess the rule as quite reasonable. It should be noted that other exceptional charities (the RSPCA, the lifeboat society??) have similarly been granted various powers by other acts of Parliament.

Stroller.