Comments on: Editorial Release Photography Permit http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/2009/04/editorial-release-photography-permit/ Source legitimate stock shots of heritage property Fri, 29 May 2009 17:16:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: admin http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/2009/04/editorial-release-photography-permit/comment-page-1/#comment-3 admin Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:46:39 +0000 http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/?p=22#comment-3 The idea of suggesting a clause that allow NT to use the images is to moderate the likely costs of an annual permit. NT, like many other orgs, seem to think that fees to use a camera for everyday stock photography should be based on what you would pay to turn up with models, assistants, and occupy the site for hours. Generally, they see a three-figure sum per visit as appropriate when this is nonsense economically. I have in mind a three figure sum for an entire year's permit - and about the lowest possible three figure sum at that. It would be in addition to annual membership (which removes the question of entry fees). And, it would only be a permit to offer images for sale or publish them, not a permit to take pictures where they are normally not allowed. Actual photography access would be identical to any member of the public visiting the sites. By granting use of images (at request, only) to NT the freelance would be showing good faith. And the clause would not cover external sales of the image (through NT Picture Library for example). Internal and promotional use only. David The idea of suggesting a clause that allow NT to use the images is to moderate the likely costs of an annual permit.

NT, like many other orgs, seem to think that fees to use a camera for everyday stock photography should be based on what you would pay to turn up with models, assistants, and occupy the site for hours.

Generally, they see a three-figure sum per visit as appropriate when this is nonsense economically. I have in mind a three figure sum for an entire year’s permit – and about the lowest possible three figure sum at that. It would be in addition to annual membership (which removes the question of entry fees). And, it would only be a permit to offer images for sale or publish them, not a permit to take pictures where they are normally not allowed. Actual photography access would be identical to any member of the public visiting the sites.

By granting use of images (at request, only) to NT the freelance would be showing good faith. And the clause would not cover external sales of the image (through NT Picture Library for example). Internal and promotional use only.

David

]]> By: gwpics http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/2009/04/editorial-release-photography-permit/comment-page-1/#comment-2 gwpics Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:29:13 +0000 http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/?p=22#comment-2 In theory a good idea, but there are a couple of questions: 1. Would the photographer still be charged for admission; and 2. If we are paying for a licence why should we then grant the NT carte blanche to use the images as and when they see fit for no fee. Gerry In theory a good idea, but there are a couple of questions:

1. Would the photographer still be charged for admission; and

2. If we are paying for a licence why should we then grant the NT carte blanche to use the images as and when they see fit for no fee.

Gerry

]]>