Comments for National Trust Pictures

Comment on Shaky foundations exposed? by agallery

agallery — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:16:18 +0000

One aspect of the Alamy ban on NT pictures that has not been explored is the point that if the threat from NT is tested in court and proved to have no legal foundation, Alamy would be open to legal action from contributers for the cost of the work to reinstate the photographs and for the lost revenue during the period that they were not available for sale.

Comment on About NationalTrustPictures.com by National Trust: photography persecution - Page 4 - Wildlife and Environment Forums

Wed, 20 May 2009 13:00:34 +0000

[...] (+ link to this thread) National Trust Pictures – not the NT, not Alamy: | Copyright Action National Trust Pictures About NationalTrustPictures.com Alamy stock photography – Blog Flickr: Discussing The National Trust’s photography policy in [...]

Comment on About NationalTrustPictures.com by National Trust: photography persecution - Page 2 - Wildlife and Environment Forums

Sat, 16 May 2009 20:19:04 +0000

[...] Trust Pictures" and makes some extremely good points on the "about" page at National Trust Pictures About NationalTrustPictures.com. I found out about this through an article on the Copyright Action website at National Trust [...]

Comment on Shaky foundations exposed? by andy mcinroy

andy mcinroy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:44:46 +0000

It is clear that the NT are quoting these ancient bylaws out of context.

Thank you for starting this webpage to draw attention to these issues.

Comment on Editorial Release Photography Permit by admin

admin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:46:39 +0000

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

Comment on Editorial Release Photography Permit by gwpics

gwpics — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:29:13 +0000

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