National Trust Photography Restrictions

CabanSail

There is a controversy emerging about the new Photography Policy by the National Trust.

"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."

From reading some others sites it seems that you are now not allowed to even post your images on Photo Sharing Sites, such as Flickr & may not even be allowed to enter these images into Competitions or Exhibitions.

It will be an interesting issue to keep an eye on. I remember when to be a rebel you needed a Motorbike or a Leather Jacket, seems these days it's a DSLR that has that stigma in the UK.

Paulw

The UK, again, going too far on photography issues.

I've a few photos of National Trust sites (such as the Giants Causeway), and have these on my FlickR and website. I've no plan removing such images.

CabanSail

Paulw wrote: »

I've a few photos of National Trust sites (such as the Giants Causeway), and have these on my FlickR and website. I've no plan removing such images.

You Outlaw! You will have to look over your shoulder wherever you go & will not be able to trust anyone, always keeping one step in front of the NT Police. :pac:

Anouilh

Que c'est ennuyeux!

http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=114453

Entrance to National Trust properties in England is relatively expensive, so the people who have decided on this change may think again.

I enjoyed posting to this group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/pool/

From now on, gardens run by the RHS may have an edge when it comes to organising a family outing:

[IMG][/img][URL="[IMG]http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2553528684/sizes/o/[/IMG]"][/url]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2553528684_1723ff2a6f_o.jpg



I doubt if anybody will bother to return to the National Trust group in order to remove photos.

It would be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent taking more flower photos.

amcinroy

Good to see this issue discussed here.

I started that thread on the RPS forum which is now 10 pages deep. It is full of information and debate on the current situation and might be an eye opener to some of you. I would recommend you all read it to make yourselves aware of what the NT are doing, in particular how they are misquoting their byelaws to protect their commercial interests. This will definitely affect landscape photographers in Northern Ireland.

The news today is that the EPUK have reported that one of the NT's most high profile photographers, Simon Norwich, has quit in disgust at their recent policies.

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

Just a quick summary of the current situation

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

Fenster

1. Effective enforcement of this rule is impossible, and the National Trust had to be aware of this when they drafted it.

2. It will not, and will never generate positive press.

3. The amount of alienation and ill-feeling generates may cause far more of a loss of revenue than selling "authorized" prints and granting waivers for commercial photography might generate.

So, why?

amcinroy

Probably because the NTPL don't see the bigger picture.

All they see is the dwindling income from their own commercial stock library and well paid managers at NTPL are running around like headless chickens trying to work out how to claw money back. They don't understand how the free imagery out on the web will actually increase their membership and visitor numbers. It may be that the NTPL needs to be written off in order for the NT to flourish.

As a supporter of the NT it worries me that the commercial arm of the NTPL are allowed to dictate policy on this matter. That should not be allowed. As you say, the NT is likely to lose a significant number of members because of this and the bad publicity already generated is massive. Just do a google search for "national trust photography" and it is very clear that this is a terrible situation for the NT.

It may well be that the the NT will be reported to the charities commission over this.

Anouilh

The situation may not be as bad as it first seemed.

One is allowed to take photos... uploading to public sites needs permission:

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2009/04/09/4756.aspx

I have just convinced a friend not to visit NT gardens in Northern Ireland, as photography is now a problem. Perhaps checking the protocol in various gardens before setting out would be sensible.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-visits-overseas_visitors.htm

A nice detail... the NT has an allottment scheme which should be helpful with all the cutbacks at the moment.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-news/w-latest_news/w-news-growing_spaces.htm


My own reaction to the new policy in relation to photography is that it is much easier to walk along an Irish sea coast, take the air and photograph the wild life in peace. Also it it free...

City-Exile

I have no intention of requestion permission from the NT, before I post pics of their sites on pix.ie, or flickr.

I have been inspired to visit many of their sites, after looking at some wonderful images taken by amateur photographers, which have been posted online.



I think we should all go on an expedition around NI, finishing in the Crown Bar in Belfast, filling flickr with images from our trip.

charybdis

Clearly the solution is for The National Trust to watermark their properties, and maybe at a tasteful black border and a copyright notice in a cursive font.

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

mikeanywhere

In reality how many people here are going to be selling images from shots taken at these locations. It wont make that much difference to joe public!!

Anouilh

Well, I suppose it's a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"...

For years I was afraid to go to Northern Ireland.

It's strange to think that the NT has replaced the Troubles as a deterrent.

It's all to be taken lightly, I think.
There is an entertaining series of lectures planned by the NT in London, notably one on the theme that "Happiness lies in making do with less".

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-events/w-visits-quality_of_life_debates.htm#further

I think it's very funny.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The NT doesn't have notices up saying you can't photography. There are no notices (at the sites I have visited) saying that you can take photos but can't display them online.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

The double-standards with regard to intellectual property among many photographers never ceases to amaze me.

Yeah I completely fail to get what you're at here. Are you suggesting that it's actually OK for the NT to slap a blanket ban on people displaying images from (say) the Giants Causeway ??!? As though they OWN the place ? There's a clue in the name of the organisation, the national TRUST. They're meant to administer and maintain the sites in trust for the people. So long as they're making enough money from donations and government grants and admission fees to do that then a rights grab is a bit out of order.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by this?

The NT doesn't have notices up saying you can't photography. There are no notices (at the sites I have visited) saying that you can take photos but can't display them online.

My point is that so many people clearly recognise the futility and aimlessness of The National Trust's policy regarding photography (one that they are legally entitled to have, I hasted to add) and flaunt their current or intended contravention of it yet aren't frowned upon or chastised for their abuse of intellectual property by a group of people that seem to try and aggressively protect and control the use of their works in the face of even the most menial of infringements.

trishw78

There's an interesting articale in the British journal of Photography

charybdis

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah I completely fail to get what you're at here. Are you suggesting that it's actually OK for the NT to slap a blanket ban on people displaying images from (say) the Giants Causeway ??!? As though they OWN the place ? There's a clue in the name of the organisation, the national TRUST. They're meant to administer and maintain the sites in trust for the people. So long as they're making enough money from donations and government grants and admission fees to do that then a rights grab is a bit out of order.

Do you think everything produced by the BBC or RTE should be placed in the public domain, or at least give a very permissive license? Should all materials produced with government funding be unencumbered by intellectual property claims?

I think so.

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.

This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

CabanSail

I am also curious as to the meaning of the Double Standard post above.

My feeling is that this policy of the NT is so ludicrous as to be almost a joke. Now I do not have any legal qualifications, but I cannot see how something like this would actually have any validity if tested in court. It would seem to me that this is an issue that has escalated & that somebody in the NT has lost sight of the big picture (pun intended) The problem with some beurocrats in large organisations is that they think that they have unlimited power (it is ussually the case of being a large fish in a small bowl) they get used to writing policy & having it adhered to in thier organisation & forget there is a real world out there.

The way I see it they can either ban all Photography on the sites they manage. There are precedents for this, but it would definitely have a huge impact on their visitor numbers & hence a loss of revenue. It would also be a PITA to enforce. The other option would be to back down and admit the issue has got out of hand. The problem with this is that if a senior beurocrat does that they immediately melt, like the witch in the Wizard of Oz. The fact that this is a very rare occurence show that they do not back down often. I guess the other possibilities are that they find a Junior Employee & make them the scapegoat, dismiss them & then pay out a large sum for wrongful dissmissal.

Of course I could be completely wrong too.

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

Do you think everything produced by the BBC or RTE should be placed in the public domain, or at least give a very permissive license? Should all materials produced with government funding be unencumbered by intellectual property claims? I think so.

I'd agree.

charybdis wrote: »

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.
This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

I see where you're coming from here. However, as long as people have been people they have protested against what are viewed as unjust or draconian laws. There is an obvious moral difference between the right of a photographer to own and administer his or her own works, and the efforts of a commercial entity, however legal it seems, to strip photographers of those rights. So yes, it is people cherry picking what they view as appropriate usage of IP law versus what is viewed as inappropriate usage, and that might seem a little hypocritical.


-edit-
Incidentally trishw, is this the story you meant ? URL was a bit mangled.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=857809

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

This isn't about ethics, it's about law. I was expressing my amazement at how so many photographers see copyright as-it-applies-to-their-work as ironclad and sacrosanct but clearly see the obvious deficits of intellectual property law elsewhere and treat them with (appropriate) disdain.

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

The NT is a trust. They don't OWN the land, they simply are there to maintain and administer it. The land belongs to the state.

IF the NT made it clear (very clear) about their rules on photography before you entered, then I could very much see your point. However, they don't. There are no signs nor notices. They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

Anouilh

Anouilh wrote: »

Que c'est ennuyeux!

http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?p=114453

Entrance to National Trust properties in England is relatively expensive, so the people who have decided on this change may think again.

I enjoyed posting to this group:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/pool/




I doubt if anybody will bother to return to the National Trust group in order to remove photos.

It would be a waste of time and energy that could be better spent taking more flower photos.

I have noticed that Flickr members continue to post happily to the thread above.

Perhaps the NT organisers will see how beautiful their work is and come to an amicable acceptance that people actually enjoy sharing photos without having to get involved at every turn with commercial issues.

On the other hand, this may be a bit too optimistic...

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

T...

They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

You raise two very important issues. Why an institution that seems to need to make cutbacks like the rest of us at the moment should get involved in trivial control of millions of amateur photographers would give an interesing day in court. However, the time and energy could be better spent in a more creative activitiy like gardening or taking more photos.

The retrospective nature of the new policy is what is most peculiar.
I am delighted to see that I uploaded less photos than I had thought taken on NT properties, but I don't see myself running round the various internet sites to remove them. That would be a case of classic paranoia and there is enough of that about.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

If it's about law, I would love to see the NT take a case before the courts. They would have a very hard case to prove before the courts.

The NT is a trust. They don't OWN the land, they simply are there to maintain and administer it. The land belongs to the state.

IF the NT made it clear (very clear) about their rules on photography before you entered, then I could very much see your point. However, they don't. There are no signs nor notices. They also can't make a rule (it is only a rule and not a law) and make it retrospective either.

Again, I fail to see your point.

I see that.

The National Trust maintains and administrates their properties much as a museum does its exhibits. There are numerous long-standing examples of national state-funded museums having specific and prohibitive photography policies that, while easy to evade, would be difficult to challenge on legal grounds. That said, I can't imagine their policy would stand up to legal scrutiny. However, it is their avowed policy and despite your displeasure at its intent, it is currently within their remit to do so.

My point is that intellectually property law is broken and people here seem to recognise that, and yet they are outwardly militant in using it as a defence against any potential (however unlikely) infringement.

I'm not agreeing with The National Trust's policy, I'm making an observation about people's attitude toward it.

Paulw

Most museums and such have clear/visible signs about photography.

The NT has no such notices up. There are no indications of their new rule on photography at their parks/sites/entrances.

They can make a rule (and enforce it), once the public is informed of such a rule at the point of entry.

They cannot make a rule retrospective and hope to enforce it. That is certainly not legally binding.

It is not the NT (it seems) that are making the rule about photography. It's NTPL which is a company (not a trust). I would wonder about the legal rights NTPL has to make a rule on NT land, since they are separate legal entities. There is no clear statement on the NT website about their rules on photography. You must go to the NTPL website to see about this rule.

The whole thing is a farce.

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

I see that.

The National Trust maintains and administrates their properties much as a museum does its exhibits. There are numerous long-standing examples of national state-funded museums having specific and prohibitive photography policies that, while easy to evade, would be difficult to challenge on legal grounds. That said, I can't imagine their policy would stand up to legal scrutiny. However, it is their avowed policy and despite your displeasure at its intent, it is currently within their remit to do so.

My point is that intellectually property law is broken and people here seem to recognise that, and yet they are outwardly militant in using it as a defence against any potential (however unlikely) infringement.

I'm not agreeing with The National Trust's policy, I'm making an observation about people's attitude toward it.

There was a time when visiting public places simply required that one behave in a civilized manner and not damage property.

The new technologies have required that everybody should scrutinize society anew and live within very different frameworks.

The clear manner in which you present your ideas is helpful to coming to a more balanced understanding of IP laws and how people respond to them.

A year ago I was smartly reprimanded for mentioning that the Treaty of Lisbon would change laws in relation to copyright and intellectual property. For many people, institutions and legal bodies, including the EU, are vague, distant creations of other peoples' fantasies.

The reality is that institutions control us all in very subtle ways.

The more one understands how society works, the more easily one will find areas of freedom and self-expression within all the laws and protocols.

You may find the comments on this post interesting:

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2008/11/better-safe-than-sorry.html#links

How people react is a question of personality and temperament.
However, if a law is there, it is a law, and therefore how one reacts is not particularly relevant.

I wonder if the NT is trying to become more elitist, with those who are able to afford entrance fees wandering happily within their properties, while ordinary photogs gather on footpaths outside the pale, photographing the sylvan settings within.

In fact, I realise that this is quite a sad situation overall, as what I most loved photographing on NT sites were the trees.

Already, this is, seemingly a past pleasure.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

Most museums and such have clear/visible signs about photography.

The NT has no such notices up. There are no indications of their new rule on photography at their parks/sites/entrances.

They can make a rule (and enforce it), once the public is informed of such a rule at the point of entry.

They cannot make a rule retrospective and hope to enforce it. That is certainly not legally binding.

It is not the NT (it seems) that are making the rule about photography. It's NTPL which is a company (not a trust). I would wonder about the legal rights NTPL has to make a rule on NT land, since they are separate legal entities. There is no clear statement on the NT website about their rules on photography. You must go to the NTPL website to see about this rule.

The whole thing is a farce.

charybdis wrote: »

I think The National Trust is being retarded in their policy decisions.

We are in agreement in this regard. It's not what I was talking about though.

I was making a point about the disparity between people's attitudes towards their claimed legal right to assess control over their intellectual property, however impractical, and an institution's attempts to do so.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

I was making a point about the disparity between people's attitudes towards their claimed legal right to assess control over their intellectual property, however impractical, and an institution's attempts to do so.

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforcable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforcable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

From another article on the BJP, when they contacted alamy first to get takedowns on content that they deemed infringed on their usage criteria, there were some rumblings from aggrieved photographers that they would just make everything available for free, thus de-valueing the NTP's own commercial image libraries. Up until that point there doesn't seem to have been a blanket ban on sharing or making available on sites like flickr. I wonder if that particular aspect of it was shoehorned in afterward. This is all speculation though ...

nilhg

While I think that the NT's attitude towards amateur photographers and flickr and other sharing sites is bonkers and totally counter productive, I can see where they are coming from with regards to commercial use if images from their properties. They do own them (according to Wikipedia anyway) and have a legal responsibility to maintain them in good condition, which must cost a fortune so every penny counts.

If professional photographers responded to a request to take down images from Alamy because they have no image rights by threatening to release them for free on flickr and the like, and the NT responded by banning any sharing even by amateurs, then neither side has come out with any credit.

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to claim rights over something they have no right to - they are claiming rights over someone else's work (God's work making the landscape, nature's work making the landscape (if you don't believe in a god), your work of taking the photo, etc). No matter what, the photographer will always retain copyright on the image.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're rejecting the concept of property but not that of copyright. The areas under control of The National Trust are effectively private property. They can grant specific license for use of photographs taken there.

Paulw wrote: »

They are trying to put in place a rule (which is not clearly visible to the public) limiting your ability to use the images you take, excluding the commercial usage part. I can understand commercial usage, and that would make sense, but image sharing???

Posting images to sites like flickr could be considered commercial use in that flickr is a commercial entity and the presence of those photographs adds value to their service.

Paulw wrote: »

IF, and I stress IF, they can make such rules and make them enforceable (which legally I doubt they can), then very few people will visit their lands.

Preaching to the choir on this one.

Paulw wrote: »

If a family take some family snaps on NT land, and then share it via a website (such as flickr, pix.ie, etc), then they are in breach of the rules. This would mean that thousands (or tens of thousands) of people are in breach of these rules daily, and I would say that over 99% of them don't even know the rule exisit, because it is not published as a rule.

I am acutely aware that a huge number of people regularly break intellectual property law, usually in ignorance of the laws surrounding what they are doing. For example: if you possess any digital music files (such as mp3s) that were not purchased from a licensed digital music retailer (such as the iTunes Store) you are breaking intellectual property law; even if you own the CD and have ripped them yourself for personal non-commercial use.

It's still considered illegal, and people are still prosecuted for it.

Paulw wrote: »

I have no problem with places having rules for entry, and people respecting those rules. But, you can't make a rule today and try to say it effects someone in the past.

They're not trying to affect anyone in the past (such a feat is largely considered impossible), they're asserting their legal right to decide how their intellectual property is used.

Paulw wrote: »

I can't see a disparity in what people are saying.

Doublethink.

Paulw

charybdis wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're rejecting the concept of property but not that of copyright. The areas under control of The National Trust are effectively private property. They can grant specific license for use of photographs taken there.

No, of course they can set restrictions and licenses. But, they need to make it clear that they are doing so, before you enter the facility/site. They are not doing that at all. They cannot grant entry and then months later decide that you cannot share/sell images taken then. That is certainly not enforcable by law.

charybdis wrote: »

Posting images to sites like flickr could be considered commercial use in that flickr is a commercial entity and the presence of those photographs adds value to their service.

Incorrect. Flickr is a photo sharing site (for display). It is not commercial because you have no direct ability to sell through it.

charybdis wrote: »

I am acutely aware that a huge number of people regularly break intellectual property law, usually in ignorance of the laws surrounding what they are doing. For example: if you possess any digital music files (such as mp3s) that were not purchased from a licensed digital music retailer (such as the iTunes Store) you are breaking intellectual property law; even if you own the CD and have ripped them yourself for personal non-commercial use.

This is not due to IP law, but copyright law. You're in breach of copyright if you download/share songs which you do not have a license for.

Making a copy for personal use is generally permitted, but this will vary from country to country.

There are also a large number of advertising campaigns which inform people that file sharing/downloading is illegal due to breach of copyright.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

No, of course they can set restrictions and licenses. But, they need to make it clear that they are doing so, before you enter the facility/site. They are not doing that at all. They cannot grant entry and then months later decide that you cannot share/sell images taken then. That is certainly not enforcable by law.

This actually doesn't seem to be the case.
Here's a BJP article on the original takedown requests on alamy that sparked all this furore...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=852812

Relevent bit bolded below...

"The National Trust flagged a series of images offered on Alamy, according to Capel. 'We contacted the photographers about it,' says Capel. 'We're not saying that these images necessarily breach the National Trust's policy, we just asked the photographers to check if they did. If for example, the picture was taken from a public footpath, if the picture was taken before the policy was put in place or if the land was not owned by the National Trust at the time the picture was taken, then we won’t ask the photographer to remove the image.'"

There's some contention however about whether or not Alamy was actually listening to photographers when they dismissed the takedowns on the basis that it was taken from public land or the photog actually had permission to shoot or whatever.

nilhg

Paulw wrote: »

Incorrect. Flickr is a photo sharing site (for display). It is not commercial because you have no direct ability to sell through it.

But you can also upload files with a creative commons (or other) licence, which allows unlimited use, it was the threat of photographers doing this because Alamy was taking them down, which seems to have caused the stupid overreaction from NT.

Anouilh

Having managed to understand that downloading files from the Internet is a criminal offense, I now find the next leap, that uploading one's own work could lead to prosecution, even if it is a macro of a flower is taking some time to sink in.

Having taken time out from this nonsense, I have found plenty of welcoming and reasonable sites to post photos:


http://www.flickr.com/groups/britishcountryside/

Looking at photos there could offer a nice guide to landscapes that may be freely recorded.

This group even allow you to download the smallest sizes from their Photo Pool for free:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

charybdis

Paulw wrote: »

No, of course they can set restrictions and licenses. But, they need to make it clear that they are doing so, before you enter the facility/site. They are not doing that at all. They cannot grant entry and then months later decide that you cannot share/sell images taken then. That is certainly not enforcable by law.

I am not aware of the legal specifics of displaying pre-emptive licenses and although what you're saying sounds like a sensible legal stance I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't that simple. As far as I am aware, they do not intend to apply or have any legal support for applying their lisences restrospectively.

Paulw wrote: »

Incorrect. Flickr is a photo sharing site (for display). It is not commercial because you have no direct ability to sell through it.

Just because you can't directly profit from the images through flickr doesn't mean it's non-commercial. flickr is a for-profit business. They generate revenue through advertising. If you give flickr material that gives them the opportunity to advertise to people looking at it, the material is being used commercially. Uploading photographs to flickr you do not control the rights to is explicitly prohibited by their terms of service.

Paulw wrote: »

This is not due to IP law, but copyright law. You're in breach of copyright if you download/share songs which you do not have a license for.

Making a copy for personal use is generally permitted, but this will vary from country to country.

There are also a large number of advertising campaigns which inform people that file sharing/downloading is illegal due to breach of copyright.

Copyright law is intellectual property law, or a subset of it. As far as I am aware, copying media such as CDs with a typical music industry license for personal use or otherwise is illegal in Ireland as it breaches the terms of the license and there is no legally enshrined concept of fair use.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

Incorrect. Flickr is a photo sharing site (for display). It is not commercial because you have no direct ability to sell through it.

nilhg wrote: »

But you can also upload files with a creative commons (or other) licence, which allows unlimited use, it was the threat of photographers doing this because Alamy was taking them down, which seems to have caused the stupid overreaction from NT.

The above is actually irrelevant. They don't care if its for commercial purposes or not. Read this quote by Andy above...

amcinroy wrote: »

"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.

they prohibit publication of any description without permission.

charybdis wrote: »

Copyright law is intellectual property law, or a subset of it. As far as I am aware, copying media such as CDs with a typical music industry license for personal use or otherwise is illegal in Ireland as it breaches the terms of the license and there is no legally enshrined concept of fair use.

Yes, this is the case. Few people seem to realise this.

Anouilh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yes, this is the case. Few people seem to realise this.

Most people understand copyright and IP laws.
They may not choose to comply with them.

At least the British sense of humour always shines through:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrustforhystericpreservationusa/

The situation with the National Trust may be the beginning of powerful institutions controlling IP with more stringency in the future.

Would photographers here continue to upload photos taken on the properties to Flickr, Photobucket and even directly here to Boards.ie?

If we did so, what would happen?

charybdis

Anouilh wrote: »

Most people understand copyright and IP laws.
They may not choose to comply with them.

At least the British sense of humour always shines through:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrustforhystericpreservationusa/

The situation with the National Trust may be the beginning of powerful institutions controlling IP with more stringency in the future.

Would photographers here continue to upload photos taken on the properties to Flickr, Photobucket and even directly here to Boards.ie?

If we did so, what would happen?

Do you understand intellectual property law?

It sounds like you are giving tacit approval for ignoring intellectual property law when circumstances suit. Would you be so glib if someone appropriated some of your photographs and used them for their own purposes without seeking approval or license from you?

This is precisely what I was referring to as double-standards earlier on.

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

Do you understand intellectual property law?

It sounds like you are giving tacit approval for ignoring intellectual property law when circumstances suit. Would you be so glib if someone appropriated some of your photographs and used them for their own purposes without seeks approval or license from you?

This is precisely what I was referring to as double-standards earlier on.

Of course I understand what I write. You seem to spend a lot of energy worrying about this.
There is no double standard in what any of us has written on the subject.
Up to now, the National Trust had one set of rules. Having changed them, we now all have to shift gear psychologically and, more importantly, legally. Also, my question was a conjecture, not an invitation to mass civil disobedience.

Every Irish child is introduced to the story of "every cow its calf and every book its copy". Since copyright is part of the national heritage here, it is often discussed.

My question remains. If I were to upload a photo of a rose taken on National Trust property here, what would be the consequences for Boards.ie. Who would be liable in this case?

Fionn

I thought they were bad in the US or even in Paris
but FFS - how can you copyright the Cliffs of Dover???????
i suppose one of these days if your caught looking at a landscape (without paying exorbitant prices) you'll be thrown in jail eh? well in GB at any rate.
Photography really IS A CRIME over there huh?

it's mad!!!!

:mad:

charybdis

Anouilh wrote: »

Of course I understand what I write. You seem to spend a lot of energy worrying about this.
There is no double standard in what any of us has written on the subject.
Up to now, the National Trust had one set of rules. Having changed them, we now all have to shift gear psychologically and, more importantly, legally. Also, my question was a conjecture, not an invitation to mass civil disobedience.

Every Irish child is introduced to the story of "every cow its calf and every book its copy". Since copyright is part of the national heritage here, it is often discussed.

My question remains. If I were to upload a photo of a rose taken on National Trust property here, what would be the consequences for Boards.ie. Who would be liable in this case?

It's not as if the stance adopted by The National Trust is some sort of Earth-shattering event. I highly suspect it will not affect me or a great many people in the slightest. To my knowledge, I have never been to any of The National Trust's properties and I have no immediate plans to go. Any psychological or legal "gear-shifting" you may undergo as a result of these actions is probably insignificant as the changes are well below the nominal threshold for change as a function of time passing and hardly constitute upheaval.

The phrase "my question was a conjecture" is nonsensical; I cannot infer meaning from it. It is possible you meant it was rhetorical, although it most certainly was not a rhetorical question.

My question also remains: would you be so glib if someone appropriated some of your photographs and used them for their own purposes without seeking approval or license from you? This kind of "mass civil disobedience" is currently happening on an unimaginable scale.

We're not lawyers, at least I'm not. No-one can tell you what the consequences would be if The National Trust filed suit against you or anyone else for breaching their intellectual property rights. They may well have grounds to do so if you were to post images in contravention of their license. I'm surprised that you, as someone who declaratively "understands intellectual property law", would fail to see the pointlessness of asking that question.

Furthermore, as someone who doesn't fully understand intellectual property law, I'm astonished to find myself in the minority in this regard. Based on what I've read in this thread I would've assumed I was actually significantly more knowledgeable than most in the field of intellectual property law and suspected any suggestion of the contrary to be evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Despite my recent status as an Irish child, I was unaware of the phrase "every cow its calf and every book its copy"; one search and parable later, I find that 6th century Christian missionaries were petulant morons. If I may offer a counter argument from my childhood education: the enlightenment and liberation made possible by Johannes Gutenberg is a far better example to set for children. Cows are not ideas. There are things more powerful than cows whose time has come.

Your assertions about how I spend my time amuse me greatly as you have posted just as many replies to this thread as I have, although posts are probably a very poor metric for effort. I think worrying about intellectual property law and people's attitudes towards it is worth spending a lot of energy worrying about. Larry Lessig is my homeboy.

Anouilh

Fionn wrote: »

I thought they were bad in the US or even in Paris
but FFS - how can you copyright the Cliffs of Dover???????
i suppose one of these days if your caught looking at a landscape (without paying exorbitant prices) you'll be thrown in jail eh? well in GB at any rate.
Photography really IS A CRIME over there huh?

it's mad!!!!

:mad:

Very well said, Fionn.

It's a case of "to every mountain its molehill".

(And yes, I do happen to have a photo of many molehills taken on NT property.)

DaireQuinlan

Fionn wrote: »

I thought they were bad in the US or even in Paris
but FFS - how can you copyright the Cliffs of Dover???????
i suppose one of these days if your caught looking at a landscape (without paying exorbitant prices) you'll be thrown in jail eh? well in GB at any rate.
Photography really IS A CRIME over there huh

This is just trivialising the discussion. No-one suggests that they're trying to "copyright the cliffs of dover" or that "photography is a crime" or anything similar. What they're doing is stating that, if you take pictures on NT land, then you cannot publish these pictures. It's a usage restriction. Read the entire discussion and make some effort to understand the terminology before contributing.

Anouilh

charybdis wrote: »

It's not as if the stance adopted by The National Trust is some sort of Earth-shattering event. I highly suspect it will not affect me or a great many people in the slightest. To my knowledge, I have never been to any of The National Trust's properties and I have no immediate plans to go. Any psychological or legal "gear-shifting" you may undergo as a result of these actions is probably insignificant as the changes are well below the nominal threshold for change as a function of time passing and hardly constitute upheaval.

The phrase "my question was a conjecture" is nonsensical; I cannot infer meaning from it. It is possible you meant it was rhetorical, although it most certainly was not a rhetorical question.

My question also remains: would you be so glib if someone appropriated some of your photographs and used them for their own purposes without seeking approval or license from you? This kind of "mass civil disobedience" is currently happening on an unimaginable scale.

We're not lawyers, at least I'm not. No-one can tell you what the consequences would be if The National Trust filed suit against you or anyone else for breaching their intellectual property rights. They may well have grounds to do so if you were to post images in contravention of their license. I'm surprised that you, as someone who declaratively "understands intellectual property law", would fail to see the pointlessness of asking that question.

Furthermore, as someone who doesn't fully understand intellectual property law, I'm astonished to find myself in the minority in this regard. Based on what I've read in this thread I would've assumed I was actually significantly more knowledgeable than most in the field of intellectual property law and suspected any suggestion of the contrary to be evidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Despite my recent status as an Irish child, I was unaware of the phrase "every cow its calf and every book its copy"; one search and parable later, I find that 6th century Christian missionaries were petulant morons. If I may offer a counter argument from my childhood education: the enlightenment and liberation made possible by Johannes Gutenberg is a far better example to set for children. Cows are not ideas. There are things more powerful than cows whose time has come.

Your assertions about how I spend my time amuse me greatly as you have posted just as many replies to this thread as I have, although posts are probably a very poor metric for effort. I think worrying about intellectual property law and people's attitudes towards it is worth spending a lot of energy worrying about. Larry Lessig is my homeboy.

Thank you for making me laugh.

The reference to time spent was to the worrying aspect of your posts, not to their number or time spent posting.

No argument here on any score, I hope.

The Irish invented copyright...

Just shows what people will get up to when confined too long indoors due to bad weather.

Fionn

hmmm.....

Well I feel suitably chastised now! :rolleyes:

don’t have time now I’ll reply later on tonight

Fionn

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

This is just trivialising the discussion.

pmsl
Oh! I didn’t realise that there was a trivialising/ trivialisation (or whatever you’d call it) adjudicator on here!
and thanks for the advice on reading the threads etc. yes I’ll try to make a better effort in the future to understand the teriomlogie :rolleyes:

and anyway - get over yourself! who appointed you to hand out reprimands??????? get down of yer high horse!!

Actually I did read all the thread – some of it almost bordering on pompous, self-importance, elitist drivel!!!

This is all about money, money money! money!

who makes it, who doesn’t, who gets the contracts etc.

it’s also about little people in little offices with huge egos building little empires and
the

……………..GOD DAMN PC Brigade…..




There’s a fairly good debate on The Royal Photographic Society Forum the guy at post count 116 makes a pretty valid argument

No-one suggests that they're trying to "copyright the cliffs of dover" or that "photography is a crime" or anything similar.

I'm not suggesting at all - it's there in a reply from them,
this is a quote taken from the body of text of the NTs response to a photographer enquiring about what’s allowed etc.
"The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes"
So in theory at least they have in effect copyrighted Mount Snowden the Cliffs of Dover etc. etc. they may not intend to enforce it but that does not detract from the fact that in essence that is what they are claiming to do!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

What they're doing is stating that, if you take pictures on NT land, then you cannot publish these pictures. It's a usage restriction. Read the entire discussion and make some effort to understand the terminology before contributing.

What they're doing is - dont take photographs on NT controlled areas, coz we'll punish ya! sue your ass - throw you in jail- buy our photographs instead - and stay out of trouble!!! easy huh?

and if anyone thinks photography isn't a crime in the UK take a look at the blogs and forums bemoaning the laws relating to public areas in parks, villages and urban centres across the UK and all the instances of photographers being harassed and chased away from all sorts of places - all under the guise of Terrorism and the PC Brigade!!
I’ll tell ya whip out a camera in certain parts of London these days and they’ll have ya bending over and singing Blue Moon pdq!!

Just in case anybody thinks photography is NOT under attack in the UK…

linky

linky

linky

linky

linky

linky

i just hope our idiots don't think they can get away with any of that crap here!!

Anouilh

I certainly thought your post to the point, Fionn.

Americans (given that they live in the Land of the Free) are up to high-doh over efforts to prevent photographers taking shots of places like the Brooklyn Bridge. Not so long ago there was a fearful fuss when officials in New York tried to control street photography and bring in fees for practising what is now as important an art form to that nation as jazz.

I blogged about the National Trust in its wider implications having read this thread yesterday:

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2009/05/freedom-to-roam.html#links

The National Trust is under extensive scrutiny by the British public at present, notably because of private financial deals where public money is being directed into what is perceived as the pockets of the Establishment. National Lottery funds are involved and the Telegraph, seemingly now the voice of fiscal rectitude for all, has documented this.

Ireland is a relatively more relaxed country for photography, so it is probable that the sort of class system that operates in Britain or France will never develop here.

trishw78

another development courtesy of Amateur Photographer seems like you can take as may pictures as you like as long as your not going to be making money from them, and you can shove them all up on Flickr to your hearts content.

I'm wondering is that boards amcinroy that's featured in the article.

Anouilh

This thread brings the whole question of comfort zones for photographers into discussion.

IP rights and tort law are areas that all of us could study a bit more.

I find that much work done by the National Trust is exceptionally good.

It is a pity that some officials do not see the value of having free advertising of their properties in the form of photos shared on sites like Flickr.

Perhaps if it were explained more clearly the situation could be resolved with mutual comfort zones restored all round?

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-chl/w-countryside_environment/w-land_country/w-land_country-landuse/w-farming-surveyors.htm

Anouilh

trishw78 wrote: »

another development courtesy of Amateur Photographer seems like you can take as may pictures as you like as long as your not going to be making money from them, and you can shove them all up on Flickr to your hearts content.

I'm wondering is that boards amcinroy that's featured in the article.

The article is very helpful, thank you.

There is a mention of officials considering changing the wording of the NT photography policy.

In the meantime, are we free to upload to Flickr or not?

charybdis

Fionn wrote: »

So in theory at least they have in effect copyrighted Mount Snowden the Cliffs of Dover etc. etc. they may not intend to enforce it but that does not detract from the fact that in essence that is what they are claiming to do!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anouilh wrote: »

Of course I understand what I write.

You certainly didn't here.

Fionn wrote: »

pmsl
Oh! I didn’t realise that there was a trivialising/ trivialisation (or whatever you’d call it) adjudicator on here!
and thanks for the advice on reading the threads etc. yes I’ll try to make a better effort in the future to understand the teriomlogie :rolleyes:

and anyway - get over yourself! who appointed you to hand out reprimands??????? get down of yer high horse!!

He's right. Either through malice or ignorance you are misrepresenting the situation and impeding the possibility of legitimate discussion of it.

Fionn wrote: »

This is all about money, money money! money!

who makes it, who doesn’t, who gets the contracts etc.

it’s also about little people in little offices with huge egos building little empires and
the

……………..GOD DAMN PC Brigade…..

Anouilh wrote: »

The National Trust is under extensive scrutiny by the British public at present, notably because of private financial deals where public money is being directed into what is perceived as the pockets of the Establishment. National Lottery funds are involved and the Telegraph, seemingly now the voice of fiscal rectitude for all, has documented this.

Ireland is a relatively more relaxed country for photography, so it is probable that the sort of class system that operates in Britain or France will never develop here.

Fionn wrote: »

What they're doing is - dont take photographs on NT controlled areas, coz we'll punish ya! sue your ass - throw you in jail- buy our photographs instead - and stay out of trouble!!! easy huh?

and if anyone thinks photography isn't a crime in the UK take a look at the blogs and forums bemoaning the laws relating to public areas in parks, villages and urban centres across the UK and all the instances of photographers being harassed and chased away from all sorts of places - all under the guise of Terrorism and the PC Brigade!!
I’ll tell ya whip out a camera in certain parts of London these days and they’ll have ya bending over and singing Blue Moon pdq!!

If you could both take a moment from trying to gangbang a straw man and look at the situation in a rational and informed manner without histrionics or ad hominem attacks I think you might see how absurd and counterproductive your argument is; this isn't the first time some of you have been guilty of this sort of thing.

Anouilh wrote: »

In the meantime, are we free to upload to Flickr or not?

Ask a lawyer or intellectual property expert or work it out for yourself.