The National Trust appears to have commenced an aggressive campaign to utilise photographers' work without payment. First, its 'Picture Yourself' competition features a full-on copyright grab:
If you submit any material to us, you agree to grant The National Trust a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive licence to use your contribution in all media. This includes the right to copy, edit, publish, grant sub-licences and exercise all other copyright and publicity rights over the material. If you do not want to grant these rights, please do not submit your contribution to us.
Meanwhile at Alamy
At the same time, the NT has been pressuring Alamy, the stock agency, to remove all images of NT properties from its collection except the 1800 or so belonging to NT Picture Library.
Yet the NT Picture Library, established in 2004, is very limited in scope and variety and as it stands is unable to fulfil many image buyers' needs. Many will prefer to buy from Alamy's far broader selection.
Last week Alamy rolled over, sending a letter to contributing photographers saying "Unfortunately one or more of your images in your Alamy account have been identified as contravening their (NT's) policy" and stating that the images will be deleted.
The NT, a registered charity, has become more restrictive in recent years regarding photographs of the properties it maintains for the taxpayer. Its current T&C's state "Photographs taken for private and personal use may not be used in any other context, submitted to any photo libraries or on-line agencies or sold directly to any image buyers."
Until the 1980's permissions were frequently informal, with clearance often provided by the local warden or by phone from the press office, and freelances were even commissioned and encouraged to place material to generate publicity for NT.
In many cases, Alamy photographers say they have sought, paid for and obtained permission from NT, or have photographed from public roads or footpaths where the NT has no authority to prevent photography. Neither NT or Alamy appear interested in such details.
Whilst it's easy to understand that the NT wishes to maximise its earnings, forcing Alamy to remove images the NT cannot supply seems arbitrary. Bob Croxford, whose Atmosphere Picture Library specialises in West Country scenics, is unimpressed : "Alamy today managed to sell one of my NT images within one hour of telling me they were to delete it. An image I paid £65 to obtain photo permission for."
Croxford also points out that unauthorised NT imagery is commercially available from iStockphoto. Indeed Google Images turns up hundreds of photos of any NT property you can think of, many available for licensing from libraries around the world or freely usable from Flickr. Says Croxford "In the meantime I can take and sell pictures of St Michael's Mount from Marazion, the town on the other side of the causeway, but I can't stand on St Michael's Mount and take and sell an image of a view which includes no NT land whatsoever."
The joy of giving
The other half of the NT strategy is rumoured to be a deliberate switch to 'user content' for the photolibrary, obtained free through competitions that deliberately strip photographers of their rights. It's understood we can expect an imminent national press promotion of NT to seduce punters into visiting NT properties and photographing them, with the intention of populating the commercial library. This promotion is believed to enlist a number of big-name photographers who may be less likely to want to maintain their association once NT's predatory intentions are made clear to them. We'll let you know how that plays out.
This all raises some awkward questions about the ethics of an alleged non-profit charity supposedly acting for the public good. On the one hand, the NT exists to sustain and provide access to historic sites, for all of us. Its motto is "for ever, for everyone". On the other, it seems to be setting out to deprive photographers of their intellectual property rights via predatory competition T&C's and attempting to create a commercial monopoly using the plundered material.
In general editorial images are good advertising rather than commercial or derogatory. Companies commission and supply images free of charge through their PR departments because of this recognised marketing benefit of editorial coverage. This is far cheaper and more trusted by the public than above-the-line advertising.
So you might expect the NT would be delighted to have professional photographers effectively doing their PR for them at no cost to the charity. Of course photographers benefit from the income, too; everybody gains.
That is the approach taken by NT Scotland, who "generally welcome the use of our properties for commercial photography and filming, and recognise the potential financial and promotional benefits of such activity as long as this is consistent with our conservation, access and security interests."
In contrast the NT seems to believe that image buyers will pay NT Picture Library repro fees if they have no choice, and regardless of whether the photos are any good.
It appears that NT Picture Library is part of NT Enterprises Ltd, a subsidiary commercial company that undertakes profitable activities such as merchandising, catering, car park operation, holiday lets and book publishing that are not legally permitted within the terms of the NT's charitable status. In 2008 NTE Ltd posted a profit of £52m.
According to the 2008 annual report, the NT has 50 employees on salaries of over £60,000p.a. including 6 over £100,000p.a., £918m assets invested (75% with JP Morgan), property notionally worth £6Bn, a pensions black hole and a green energy deal with those celebrated friends of photography and the environment, npower. Profit derived from licensing of other people's photography is not identified, we didn't even get a byline.
When I studied photography (about 12 or 13 years ago now) I had an architectural brief. I asked to photograph a NT property and showed a letter confirming that I was on a course and that the brief was a requirement. I was told that I could photograph in the grounds but not in the house.
They offered to SELL me images of the inside. Is that mean, stupid, greedy or all of those things? The NT seems to be as money-grabbing as ever.
Well, that was the good(-ish) news. The bad news is that the NT appears not to be sticking to its revised T&C even in the email it sent out to entrants advising them of the changes. See http://www.rpsforum.org/showpost.php?p=115948&postcount=167
©A admin
The NT have changed the T&C. According to the following email, received today by Copyright Action, the revised terms are retrospective and will be applied to all previously submitted works.
Dear Sir,
The National Trust in Northern Ireland has reviewed a number of its Terms and Conditions relating to the photographic competition on
www.nationaltrust.org.uk/pictureyourself
<http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/pictureyourself> following concerns raised recently. This revision has taken into account concerns about the scope of the licence granted to the National Trust under the terms of entry. All entrants and members of the site will be advised of the amendment to the Terms and Conditions. The purpose of this site is to generate engagement between visitors and the National Trust in Northern Ireland through photography. The competition is aimed at amateur< photographers and continues to have a very positive following and supporter base. Only images of National Trust properties in Northern Ireland are considered for this competition. For full Terms and Conditions log on to www.nationaltrust.org.uk/pictureyourself
<http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/pictureyourself>
Maurica Lavery
Communications & Marketing Manager
The National Trust
Northern Ireland
The amended terms read:
Whilst still granting the National Trust overly extensive reuse rights, this is a significant improvement over the original copyright grab which would have allowed unlimited ,indefinite re-use and resale. So well done everybody, and thankyou NT for listening.
©A admin
I'll risk some wrath by defending the Trust a bit here. I volunteered full time with them for a year and a half and I appreciate the problems of rules passed down from central office. We were sometimes exasperated by policies we had to adhere to for even the most minor events or activities we planned. In defence of Avebury, I think they've done tremendously well even to get this competition off of the ground, and I have no doubt that all the staff who work there and came up with the idea hate this bizarre policy as much as you do. I also imagine that the project has been planned and in the pipeline since before this announcement (you can't do anything quickly in the Trust), and I'd be surprised if they hadn't considered shelving it when this got heaped on them.
That said I do agree that this is a disgraceful policy that goes against the spirit of the Trust and charities in general. I should hope that the National Trust act gets debated in parliament over this one as it seems to me that the Trust have gone a step too far. It's a shame though that individual properties, often staffed by people who want little more than to share the places they love with people and are less concerned with profits, figures and statistics, have to answer to the corporate giant at Swindon HQ.
There are two types of people in the village of Avebury.
those that hate the national trust and those Really hate the national trust!
this is yet another example of why.
Hi
I'm one of the Alamy photographers who received a National Trust missive via Alamy.
It's fair to say that similar viewpoints are taken by the British Museum, London Zoo and Canterbury Cathedral along with many others.
Here in Bulgaria where I live, many Monasteries are starting a no photos of any kind ban.
Many museums and other places will allow photography for a fee but they don't say anything about commercial use.
It's all a minefield.
Here's my stance. I don't go to pay to enter places with these bans and no longer continue to be a "friend" or member of such places or organizations.
Specifically where the National Trust is concerned:
I haven't lived in England for a long time and I'm in my 60s.
I'm confident that most photos I took were long before any current legislation or rules were in force.
Can these rules by applied retrospectively?
I take the view that good photographs are good advertisements. I also believe that as a charities receive tax concessions they shouldn't be allowed to come up with policies all on their own.
Anyway, my advice is: Don't enter these competitions, don't publicize these places, don't sign the forms they give you to give them tax advantages of you do pay to enter and try to convince other photographers not to support or promote them.
On a further point it's clear to me that catch all clauses like these apply even to photos submitted to amateur magazines such as Practical Photography or Amateur Photographer which often run articles on how to photograph buildings, zoos and so on.
We really need some concerted action
Fascism has found a new disguise, it appears.
It has been pointed out that one of the judges of the NT Picture Yourself competition, photographer Chris Hill, operates his own picture library at http://www.scenicireland.com/ which contains 15,000 stock images of Ireland.
The Picture This judges page says of Hill:
Presumably also that you retain copyright, if you ever hope to run a stock library.
We have emailed Hill to draw his attention to this apparent assymetry.
Meanwhile, two other NT competitions have come to light wherein the NT not only grabs all economic rights and prohibits sale of any photos entered, but also forbids submission to any other competition of the same images unless it has been approved by them. They are The International Garden Photographer of the Year competition, and the National Trust Round in Circles competition.
[EDIT: IGPOTY is not run by NT but has a special rules section, section 12, which makes these stipulations regarding photography at NT sites]
©A admin
Another comp for you all to enter
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-avebur...
Have fun
[EDIT by admin : please see the National Trust Circles in Time thread]
@Bob, I don't think anyone is anti-NT, we all appreciate what they achieve and many photographers support their work either by membership or donation, or simply enjoying via our creative work a heritage landscape that would have been concreted over without NT endeavours. Whilst I understand your complaints are about Alamy, at least some of the blame for Alamy's policy originate with NT's attempts to promote its commercial interests.
Of course, on any private land the landowner can prohibit or restrict photography to suit themselves. NT are within their rights to do so, for sure. It's just that NT are quite happy about photography for personal use and interest, but draw the line at 'commercial' purposes. The problem is that the NT definition of 'commercial' photography is wilful and dangerous.
Generally, 'commercial' has been understood to mean advertising, marketing, merchandising - the sort of usage that requires a property release, not just permission of the landowner. (Anyone who doesn't understand the difference, please see the FAQ section of this site).
That does not include 'editorial', 'reportage', 'documentary' or 'art'. Just because at some point now or in the future a photographer may be paid for a reproduction in a magazine or a print does not make it 'commercial' in the traditional industry sense of the word.
This difference is crucial, but NT's policy lumps it all together and creates an horrid legal and practical mess. Libraries such as Alamy differentiate between images for editorial or commercial use. You can't sell to the commercial market unless you indicate you have a property release. If the NT charged for property releases, nobody would be surprised or complain. It's a simple and clear boundary. Permissions are not. They are often verbal, informal, not managed as formal written contracts. Legally, permission exists on private land unless and until prohibition is notified.
Alamy are clearly placed in a difficult position by an NT policy that is a mirror image of the legal reality. Alamy cannot know whether or not photographers had obtained permission, believed they had permission, shot from the public road etc. They only ask about property releases when accepting work. If they don't comply and continue to sell the images, they risk claims for damages from NT.
So the problem is being pushed back onto the photographers to prove, or at least warrant that they had permission. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but mostly they won't be able to prove it.
In fact any legal action would require NT to prove that they made the photographer aware of the prohibition, and NT would have to prove the photo wasn't taken from a public RoW. Privacy law, the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is not going to be a factor here, unless it's a photo of a warden in the bath.
So the risk of legal problems is probably slight, and you can fairly accuse Alamy of lack of testicular fortitude. Given Alamy's large and messy web 2.0 demographic of contributors, ranging from pro's who know and care about what they're doing, to pro's who don't, and amateurs who don't know the legalities at all but just want some beer money, their response is understandable if not admirable. But NT have put them in a difficult position, and for that, NT are responsible, and their motives appear pretty shabby. They want monopoly of a market, and via competition T&C's few people read they hope to acquire exclusive commercial rights over photos that they only allow to be taken for personal, private use. I don't care how noble the NT cause, that just stinks.
National Trust conduct is not what one would expect of a charity and contravenes Charity Commission guiding principles at least in spirit. Especially 'the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science'. NT may be doing great stuff for the heritage bit, but arts and culture will be impacted by this. It's all about money, with NT wanting fat up-front fees either for permissions or for repro fees sold exclusively through NTPL. Every corporate entity from pro football to Kylie Minogue seems to be doing the same. As we know, editorial publishing and professional photography is in crisis already. Nobody anywhere wants to pay or deal fairly with photographers when they can scrounge from the web. This is not sustainable, it's predatory and exploitative.
©A admin
Post new comment