Legal row over nude photos at 15th century castle

StewartR

StewartR

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
StewartR said:
The photographer says he had a "contract". I can't help feeling he'd be on firmer ground if he hadn't felt the need to use those inverted commas....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/national-trust-scotland-legal-row-nude-photos-15th-century-castle/
Click to expand...

TBF about his "contract" there are quite a lot of other words in the article using inverted commas. Like it being
a "fairytale" Scottish castle
Click to expand...


The whole nature of the case seems very odd though
 
Or it is the Telegraph using the double inverted commas to show what the photographer said.
 
TLR-330 said:
Yes. The paper has the story hoping some old blokes like me will go there hoping to see some nudes, and the wife will not mind as it is an article on legal matters.
Click to expand...
Completely OT but I’ve just been looking over a colleagues shoulder whilst he read ‘the Sun’ and it made me think ‘is this just for blokes too old to find free porn on the internet?’
 
Tsk tsk so much fuzz about a nude body, sigh. Well that's an inexpensive way to get publicity and attention to properties of NTS and maybe earn some money.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm teasing you, I think you meant fuss which is a display of unnecessary or excessive excitement, activity, or interest.

not FUZZ which is a frizzy mass of hair or fibre.

But obviously my jokes are not very good
Click to expand...
Ahhh he he Yes it was :D it was just the language barrier, fools on me, fuzz fuss dooh :)
 
It would be interesting (not very) to know if any NT properties have paintings of nude or semi naked ladies and gentlemen, not mention cherubim. Carvings and sculptures included.
 
I thought the NT has has a very formalised structure for location licensing.......surely never by informal verbal agreement.

If it is proven,here in the case of NTS that he was working with permission albeit verbal someone is going to get fried!
 
People have shot Nudes in all sorts of hired locations, castles among them since time immemorial.
It seems to me that the castle knew exactly what he was doing and even showed him around and kept an eye on him.
it seems rather late to shout foul now, when they could have done so either when he booked, or when he was preparing to shoot.
I am not sure why he is making his claim, as handled properly, he should have been able to turn the publicity to his advantage.
 
Sorry, but I can't see how the woman who complained has any legal right to do so. It was gifted to the NT by her father and therefore she doesn't own it anymore. Although she claims she's not a prude, the case smacks of her actually being one...why would she complain otherwise? I would imagine the NT have a right to a complaint if the place was used without their permission. As Box Brownie says though, it seems weird that there isn't a formal written contract. o_O
 
I would agree that if you are using a location for commercial purposes, nude or not, it would only be sensible to cover all possibilities as to use and copyright issues. If only with a covering letter with your booking fee. so that there would be no doubt what you were paying for. On the other hand it was also in the interest of the castle to attach any limitations to their prepayment invoice.

It seems very much a "he said I said" situation. with the only evidence being the de-facto shoot, and that some one was satisfied enough to let him in to do it.
 
Byker28i said:
Thats a different castle though.
Click to expand...
But I wrote “if any NT properties ... “ point being that NT Scotland is saying that having Nude photos even taken in rooms would harm children, eg "the Trust would never sanction photographs of this nature – especially at a location that is regularly visited by families with children" so how much more harming would be actual paintings in their properties? Obviously not at all but that’s their argument not mine.
 
sphexx said:
But I wrote “if any NT properties ... “ point being that NT Scotland is saying that having Nude photos even taken in rooms would harm children, eg "the Trust would never sanction photographs of this nature – especially at a location that is regularly visited by families with children" so how much more harming would be actual paintings in their properties? Obviously not at all but that’s their argument not mine.
Click to expand...

Harm children! The only thing about simple nudity and photographing such that harms children is when their parents freaks out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sphexx said:
But I wrote “if any NT properties ... “ point being that NT Scotland is saying that having Nude photos even taken in rooms would harm children, eg "the Trust would never sanction photographs of this nature – especially at a location that is regularly visited by families with children" so how much more harming would be actual paintings in their properties? Obviously not at all but that’s their argument not mine.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry, missed that, but you're right, I often have the same discussion with my wife about cherubs, women in art with boobs out etc. Apparently it's not the page 3 of its day.
 
The moral to any photographer ... a verbal contract is worth the paper it’s written on.

(Of course I know legally that verbal contract are just as binding as written contracts; though harder to prove when it gets down to “he said” vs “she said” situations).
 
Box Brownie said:
I thought the NT has has a very formalised structure for location licensing.......surely never by informal verbal agreement.

If it is proven,here in the case of NTS that he was working with permission albeit verbal someone is going to get fried!
Click to expand...

There isn't any particular reason to assume that the the practices followed the NT will be followed by the NTS. The NTS is an independent organisation with a different constitution and set up by a different Act of Parliament. And judging by the news stories over the years, the NTS has suffered from poor management and organisation.
 
Eloise said:
The moral to any photographer ... a verbal contract is worth the paper it’s written on.

(Of course I know legally that verbal contract are just as binding as written contracts; though harder to prove when it gets down to “he said” vs “she said” situations).
Click to expand...


Is or isn't?
 
Nod said:
OR isn't - both work! ;)
Click to expand...
Or isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on! However it should be is because it’s supposed to be a witty remark and that doesn’t really work with isn’t because there no seeming nonsensicality* about it.

* That is a perfectly cromulent word, before someone corrects me.
 
:fuji: and :nikon:. :canon:for their printers as well.

I need :help:...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top