Major National Trust Photography Rights Scandal

[Andy McInroy]

Originally Posted by bymasson

Out of interest, if I put images on my own website (which I'd class as personal use) how would a Google Images search be classed, as it is then not exactly domestic?

Yes it all gets a bit complex. For starters, if you are putting NT images on your webpage then they are no longer for your personal use as you are creating a public exhibition. Furthermore, your public exhibition is hosted on a commercial domain on which you hope to attract clients (www.bymasson.co.uk). You are therefore using those images in a commercial sense even if you are not selling them. They are an advert for your skill and you are therefore profiting from them through other business you will receive.

Are we concerned yet?

The NT might also argue that your free online exhibition is damaging their business because these images will pull google referrals away from their own site and drive their traffic down. This is the reason that the NT have extended their policy to include ALL publishing.

You must be concerned now, surely?

Regarding Google, that is also very tricky because they are making a lot of money from the content on the web. They would argue that they are just indexing what is already out there, but the thumbnails that appear in their image database have actually been downsized and stored on their servers. A German photographer actually took Google to court to remove thumbnails of his images from the index and won his case. I can't imagine why he would have wanted to do that though.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...right_case.php

Saying that, a similar case in the US found in favour of Google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Google_Inc

One could still argue that Google is contributing massively to modern culture. Just look at the project of Google Books for example and the new indexing that they have achieved there. I don't think the commercial world always needs to looked at in such disdain. If it wasn't for art and commerce working together as it always has, our culture would be much, much poorer. Actors, musicians, painters, sculptors all need to eat and support their families (as do photographers). Otherwise they would be doing something else.

Anyway, that discussion is not really relevant to this topic . However, it does illustrate how the world of the amateur photographer is linked to the world of commerce whether we like it or not and the NT is going to have a hard time untangling it all.

[Tony Sleep]

Well, that's the silly thing. Realistically they cannot hope to enforce either their T&C's or the byelaw - they'd be pursuing thousands of people for utterly insignificant transgressions that cause them no losses, and more often give NT positive exposure and encourage public interest and support. And that's just UK photographers; these restrictions become meaningless where overseas visitors to NT property are concerned. They can use their photos of NT property with impunity, pretty much, because litigation across borders is difficult and costly.

But that doesn't mean NT's restrictive instincts can be ignored. As has been seen at Alamy, YouTube and most other web services, merely a threat of legal problems is enough. Ever since Godfrey vs. Demon Internet, ISP's and other providers have understood that the way to avoid liability is to act immediately on receipt of threat. So they'll always remove material that may cause a problem at the first hint of trouble, and it's then down to the user to defend the legitimacy of their material.

That's why NT's expansive restrictions of any reproduction and submission to any online service cannot be ignored. They are a neutron bomb that can be dropped on Flickr or any website, with predictable results, and no need of litigation beyond a single lawyer's letter. I'm not saying NT will ever do this, but that they take the position at all is a bad sign. For years they ignored Alamy. 'Well, do you feel lucky, punk?'.

NT are also trying to shape the culture, by warning that criminal and civil offences are being committed by photographers. Most people have no wish to cause trouble and will comply without question, and they'll err on the side of caution, just in case. The same principle applies to street photography where police and security are having a chilling effect, making many people think twice about photographing despite their activities being harmless and within the law. Officially there is no intent to inhibit photography through the use of anti-terror legislation, yet photography is being inhibited. We've seen the same thing regarding the photography of children, which is now prima facie indication of perverse interest. Celebrities, harassed by paparazzi, are forcing through ever-expanding notions of privacy.

That's the problem : there are always good reasons for reducing freedoms. NT has good reasons, police have good reasons, parents have good reasons, celebrities have good reasons. Freedom is always on the back foot. Who can reasonably argue with these legitimate concerns? But meanwhile photography is having the ground stolen from beneath its feet, and in a few years the only legitimate photography in public spaces will be CCTV operated by landowners and authorities. Someone has to stand up to this erosion, and if it isn't photographers themselves, then it won't be anybody else.

[Andy McInroy]

More information, this time regarding the licenses issued by the NT.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationa...7603813072167/

This was an email response by the NT to a flickr user requesting info on licenses.

Photographers may obtain day licences to photograph at NT properties. These are granted only when a specific project is being undertaken, and must be arranged prior to photography, they cannot be granted retrospectively. So, if a publisher were to contact you with regard to you undertaking photography for an article, book or other publication, you could request a licence which is charged for by the day and also takes into consideration the end usage. Once the images have been used in the project, the copyright reverts to the NT.

So even if you pay for a license, you must give away total control of your copyright.

The email continues

Any use of images beyond your own private and personal use is considered commercial photography, so even if no fees are generated by the usage, reproduction or distribution of the images beyond your own private or domestic use is prohibited.

[Tony Sleep]

..and a big problem for author's copyright which is now acting as a template for UK government pressing libraries to digitise works and make them freely available to the public. But let's not do that here

EDIT: this refers to Google Books, nowt to do with the National Trust.

[Firepool]

I have been to an NT property which had notices prominently displayed in the entrance hall strongly discouraging any photography by visitors. (Needless to say I ignored them, as did evidently a couple of visitors who appeared to be using the surrounding parkland to make a film, but perhaps they had paid for a licence.)

Seems to me that the NT is acting like many commercial organisations, who have only, and exclusively, their own interests in mind and are prepared to issue rules, byelaws and legal threats in order to defend those rights, whether supposed or actual. The word "National" tends to lead us to expect that NT will act differently, with wider interests in mind. Sadly those expectations will not be met.

[Andy McInroy]

I have had an interesting conversation with another photographer today.

This photographer recently entered one of the current NT competitions in good faith without delving too deeply into the small print of the T+Cs. When he heard of the of the ongoing issues with the NT rights grabs he was horrified, particularly the part where it mentions transfer of copyright. After reviewing the small print for himself, he requested that his images be withdrawn from the competition. He has heard nothing for the NT for over two weeks and his images are still on the competition database.

It will be interesting to see if the NT take an honorable approach in this case. After all, the competition deadline has still not passed.

I'll let you all know when I hear more.

[Doctor Sam]

Originally Posted by Firepool

The word "National" tends to lead us to expect that NT will act differently, with wider interests in mind. Sadly those expectations will not be met.

Wise words, Firepool. 'Trust' also gives us those higher expectations too.

[Andy McInroy]

Another victory for common law rights on public access land.

This time concerning mushroom pickers on forestry commision land.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onal-park.html

Things are not looking very promising for the national trust if these test cases are anything to go by.

A rather expensive business it was for the forestry commission too

Her solicitor Clive Sutton said the law of common rights in relation to the issue went back to the 15th century and the settlement was achieved because Mrs Tee-Hillman could prove she had been picking fungi for many years.

"This is a victory for the common rights of the individual over those of the state," he said. The saga started in November 2002 when Mrs Tee-Hillman was arrested by police and £27-worth of brown chanterelles were confiscated after she was informed by the commission in September 2001 that picking fungi for commercial purposes was illegal.

The criminal charges were thrown out in May this year and a judge at Southampton Crown Court ordered the Forestry Commission to pay all costs, estimated to be in six figures.

[Andy McInroy]

EPUK reports today that the NT has lost one of its own commissioned photographers in protest at the ongoing fiasco.

It looks like Simon Norfolk has left and has painted a very worrying picture of the inner workings of the NTPL.

Report here
http://www.epuk.org/News/928/simon-n...national-trust

Originally Posted by Andy McInroy

It looks like Simon Norfolk has left and has painted a very worrying picture of the inner workings of the NTPL.

Well done Simon!
But the NT aren't the only ones to have 'rights-grabbing' competitions - if somebody doesn't mind that's up to them but for me, I'll give them a miss.
I'm pretty sure some comps run by the bbc may have such rules, so alwasy check them out would be my advice.

[Andy McInroy]

And now Martin Parr has joined the protest.

Renowned Photographers protest rights-grabbing competitions
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=857809

[BrianC]

Fair play to Simon for standing up to the might of The NT for us little people.

I have entered the NT photo comp over here in Northern Ireland, only to find out sometime after, about the small print and rights-grab, basically I see it that the NT are stealing the rights to your photo. I suppose it saves The NT having to commission top photographers and pay them for their services, and images.

I take my hat off and commend people like Simon Norfolk, Martin Parr and our very own Mr McInroy for raising this issue to the a lot of pple in the wider photographic community.

[Carol]

kandopearn, I am not a great National Trust visitor. People visit places like National Trust for a variety of reasons: avid gardners like to inspect and view the plantings, walkers like to stroll around in pleasant surroundings, painters like to sit and sketch. Photographers of all levels of ability like to practice their art too. Visiting a NT-owned venue is an expensive trip out. £9 a ticket to visit Emmetts and Quebec House. £9.50 for Scotney Castle. Only just a bit cheaper than Leeds Castle. By the time you've spent £20 on tea and a sandwich for 2, and the petrol there and back, that's a big hole in the budget. If the NT wish to increase their revenue, they should think of other, less controversial methods of doing so. I certainly shan't be spending my hard earned pennies in NT properties in the foreseeable future.

[Firepool]

It is not up to us to tell the NT how to raise money, but what we can legitimately do is tell them not to obtain others' IPR by what amounts to stealth, as is the the case with the afore-mentioned competitions. Whilst they may not have admitted in so many words to being in the wrong, their actions speak for themselves.

I have no objection to purchasing (as I did yesterday) an item from an NT shop which they have properly acquired through a regular agreement with a manufacturer or wholesaler, but I deprecate their methods (intimidation on one hand, stealth on the other) of dealing with photographers.

[Tony Sleep]

One small victory : NT have now revised the rights-grabbing terms of the NI-only Picture Yourself competition. Still not wonderful or up to Pro-Imaging Rights-On standard, but better than they were - see
http://copyrightaction.com/forum/nat...on#comment-228

I can't agree with Kandopearn at all. The implication of the NT's position is denial of much of UK countryside as subject matter, to any photographer who might sell his/her own work. I have absolutely no quarrel with NT's right to control commercial imagery, if commercial has its conventional meaning of advertising, merchandising etc. that makes use of NT IP and branding. But they are going far beyond that.

Charities have no legal right to trade for profit, they are explicitly prohibited from doing so to avoid the sort of conflict of interest we are seeing here. Were the NT formulating policy as a charity rather than as a for-profit business attempting monopoly, this issue would simply not arise. In fact they'd be glad of any exposure and publicity resulting from editorial and art publication that costs them nothing, instead of trying to suppress it.

Moreover it's just downright unhealthy for NT to have a vice-like grip on what images may be published. If they attempted similar control over what people may write about NT, we wouldn't even be able to have this published conversation.
--
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk