A new photolibrary, National Trust Pictures has been set up by photographer David Kilpatrick as a response to the National Trust insistence that photos of NT properties be deleted from Alamy.
The new library's name is uncomfortably adjacent to the NT's own commercial National Trust Picture Library.
Kilpatrick says at the new site "The title, however, does not refer to the UK National Trust only. There are many such named organisations worldwide and this site does not purport to represent any of them or pass itself off. Links will be provided to the photographic resources of all such trusts, including the UK... Even so, it’s also here to put some mild pressure on the UK National Trust to revise policy towards freelances releasing editorial and stock photography of the kind which requires no tripods, lighting, prior arrangements, models, products on site, or special access. At present this is ‘outlawed’ or a hefty permit fee, far exceeding the likely value of any fees accruing within a generation or so, payable. What is needed is a photography permit at a reasonable annual cost (not into three figures) carrying with it a set of responsibilities and conditions."
Photographers have been angered both by the NT's restriction of their business and the manner in which Alamy complied with NT demands. According to Kilpatrick "Alamy searched for keywords mentioning known properties. This caught in the net tens of thousands of images taken of other nearby properties at the same places, unconnected with NT. It also caught pictures legitimately taken from public highways, public footpaths, and viewpoints outwith the boundaries of NT properties. Such pictures can not be controlled by the Trust and can be exhibited, sold or published without constraint."
The 'About' page is essential reading, especially by anyone who thinks the new site is an act of hubris by embittered pro photographers deprived of income. As Kilpatrick eloquently explains, National Trust policy on photography runs counter to its own origins and aims.
Nevertheless, what exactly National Trust Pictures will eventually do with its collected works remains to be seen. It has been rumoured that, should the National Trust not adopt more live-and-let-live policies regarding photography, the new library may simply distribute its photographers' work for free in direct competition to the NT Picture Library's fee-licensable stock. Since the photographers' ex-Alamy work could no longer be sold this wouldn't represent any further loss of income. It would also be non-commercial and comply with the restrictions National Trust insists upon, so it is hard to see what they could do about it.
If as we believe NT proceeds with a strategic policy of harvesting amateur images through competitions and selling through NTPL, this would produce the bizarre situation where pro's are giving away their life's work to undercut rights-grabbed amateur photos being sold at commercial rates. That is a fight NTPL is unlikely to win on quality or price, but they will have put pro photographers in a position where they have nothing to lose. Web 2.0 aggregation, beancounter greed and contempt for photography as a cultural medium have a lot to answer for.
In UK law buildings don't have copyright at all, only the plans and design documents do. Photographers are not 'copying' anything illicitly. Although we have seen NT claims that they 'own' IP of everything on their land, including grass, rocks and trees.
NT does have landowner's rights to impose conditions of access to private land, the same as anyone else. At pay-for sites they can make this a contractual term of admission, and do, even though you may never be made aware of the restriction. On open land they must notify the prohibition for photography to become a civil trespass, but do not, claiming instead that their byelaw 17 makes commercial photography a criminal offence - a claim that appears bogus for reasons discussed here.
Whether restricting photography is a wise, fair or sensible policy is another matter, given that the whole purpose of NT's charitable mission is to hold properties in perpetuity for the benefit of the nation, not enable a commercial monopoly of images of sites like the White Cliffs of Dover.
The release issue should have no relevance to most photography. A property release is only required at all where endorsement is implied by usage of a photo. For example if a fertiliser manufacturer were to devise an advertisement showing pics of NT gardens, there would be an implied endorsement of the product by NT. A release - basically a contractual agreement - would be required to consent to that endorsement. Releases in the sense that NT mean it are simply permission to take photos for a specific purpose, and are just a means to restrict what may be done with the photos. Some NT releases permit photos to be taken and used by, say, a named magazine, but prevent further use and stipulate that copyright 'reverts' to NTPL (even though they never owned it). Nobody should ever sign such a rights grab.
The fundamental problem is that NTPL's commercial activities as a profit-making company are being allowed to write photographic policy for NT in ways that conflict with its charitable aims and status. Expect to hear more soon about this.
©A admin
I can't actually see how the NT have rights to such demands. Copyright for buildings can only exist for 75 years (or thereabouts) after the death of the original designer/architect and is not transferable. Seeing as most of the buildings 'protected' by the NT are hundreds of years old, surely no copyright exists and the properties themselves are therefore held in the public domain. In this case, no release is necessary for the commercial distribution of any photographic reproduction of that property, regardless of whether you need a permit to shoot or not.
Simon
More Mussolini tendencies in our beloved National Trust keep coming to light. Any Alamy photographers who've paid fees to NT in the belief that they own their own photographs may wish to know the following:
"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."
Underlining added so you don't miss it.
Extract from an alleged NT email posted by user Sez_D in the NT Flickr group discussion at http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/discuss/72157603813072167/
©A admin
David, thanks for the clarification.
Looking again at NT T&C's for photography, it seems that they may not be satisfied with driving work off Alamy or other commercial outlets
What does NT mean by the red bits I have capitalised? It seems as if they have expanded the 'no commercial photography' rule to include ANY publishing, eg through social networking sites like Flickr or Facebook, and even where nobody is charging for repro rights or not permitting repro at all. Even Google Image thumbnails will contravene this policy.
©A admin
It's not a photolibrary as such - just a site for providing links to other photolibraries or collections (Alamy lightbox or whatever). Thanks for writing the site up! I am also adding some blog pages about this type of photography generally, and invite similar contributions.
I have added a permanent link to this site.
David
Post new comment