On the radio a couple of days ago, a Scots farmer was talking about the problems encountered by walkers (presumably including photographers) who enter a field and get mobbed by cattle, not posing any threat, but just curious or mistaking the visitor for a food delivery. This is less common now that farmers arrive on quad bikes hauling the fodder and the cattle know the sound of the bike.

The suggestion was that if you have a dog, just let it off the lead – it will run away, and the cattle will follow it instead of you. This rather goes against the signs everywhere telling you KEEP the dog on the lead.

When I first started photographing historic sites, complete with a Reliant Supervan III, I returned from Mattersey Priory (Nottinghamshire) to find the van entirely surrounded by cattle. It took some time to get back in, and the paintwork (such as it was, in faded Reliant blue) was damaged. The farmer who got them to surrender the van explained that it was the salt from the roads, but it didn’t stop them actually licking the paint off with the salt!

So, next time, remember to take your sacrificial dog. And remember that the right to roam applies to all properties other than the private curtilage and gardens of homes; if it’s agricultural land, woodland, riverside, beach, moorland and some estate parkland you are not restricted to remaining on the Public Footpaths or highways. ‘Private Fishing’, a sign often found where I’m based, does not mean ‘Keep Out’ if you are a photographer or just out walking.

- DK

http://www.law-essays-uk.com/land-law-cases-52.php

This case relates to action taken by the Trust to attempt to stop an individual from gathering whelks, tidal fishing and intertidal littoral shellfish gathering.

In fact, Strangford Lough – the principal sea entry to Belfast – is in need of protection, and has been for decades. The danger is not that littoral harvesting or shallow water fishery could damage the environment – the real problem, already causing massive damage to the sea bed by the early 1990s, has been scallop dredging in the hunt for prized Irish Queen Scallops. This practice involves scraping the seabed (a fragile sediment) and removes all life – plants, other shellfish, everything. It leaves a complete desert. But, of course, the Trust doesn’t own the deep seabed.

The fight against dredging in Strangford Lough was aided by photography (Peter Vine and others) which showed, to the world, what a desert seabed looks like. How do I know about this? Because our company designed and edited the Marine Conservation Society’s books at that time, and other books on coastal waters and the environment created by Immel Ltd, Peter Vine’s (now gone) environmental publishing house. Those books were heavily illustrated and many were about the coastline and coastal waters, or sites of special interest. Shirley designed a particularly good photographic and educational coffee-table quality book on the flora of The Burren.

Though these were commercial projects, and people got paid (how else do people eat?) no separate value could ever be assigned to the photography. Imagine an author/photographer trying to produce a natural history book with many years searching out the shots, only to find that certain plants were on NT property or certain whole landscapes were NT, and therefore – it was all not allowed or we’ll have £200 a day thank you!

Photography of the countryside, architectural heritage, flora and fauna, topography, geology, man-made works, agriculture and landscaping is vital. It shapes public awareness of the value, shows changes, alerts us. Nothing should be done – especially by the Trust – which does anything except encourage photography.

- DK

http://www.rpsforum.org/showthread.php?t=15317

It is interesting to note Fay Godwin’s words quoted; no doubt she helped formed my views on this subject, though I was not consciously quoting her when I referred to painters, writers and artists having rights denied to photographers.

There are many chains of connections. I read old literature more than most people – especially from around 1780-1840, a critical period in the formation of political and social ideas. Sir Walter Scott has been a focus, because he briefly owned my house and I found his signature on the pre-1806 deeds. I ended up reading a great deal about Scott over two decades. He did something exceptional – he bought land, and not only opened it to the public, but cleared overgrown footpaths, built stiles, and erected signs pointing all comers to memorable locations.

Scott liked nothing better than to meet people following his paths and exploring his – totally private – desmaine. He encouraged artists (he was slightly more worried about poets, in case he was buttonholed or hunted down). He died before photography arrived, but it was exactly the sort of invention he would have loved. Many of his contemporaries placed belvederes on their properties, with footpath access, for the benefit of visiting artists.

Oh well – where would William and Robert Adam have been, or any of their contemporaries, without the assiduous detailed sketching and measurements of the Grand Tour? Without the well-paid publication of countless volumes of pictures of private properties throughout Europe, sometimes with the co-operation of the owners, sometimes without a thought for who might be the owner?

‘Sorry, we can’t allow the use of the camera obscura for commercial engraving…’

-DK

The three pictures shown may well all be on National Trust property (the beaches, unusually for any country, can fall into that category). But they are clearly not aimed at illustrating only National Trust related issues – the farmer and pig being sent out to the media (which includes my company) during the heat of the swine flu scare. Not, I think, an accident – and it’s a great shot, though uncredited to any photographer in this email shot. My use of this screen shot, for the Trust’s information, is legal under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. I am not reproducing the images per se or the design per se, but showing an image of something they have published; like a rag-out used in a newspaper, this is legitimate for the purposes of review.

I would question their policy in not crediting the photographers in such a mailshot, and just stating © of the library itself. That implies outright ownership of the images, transfer of copyright.

Here is the URL for the web version: http://www.b2bmailer.co.uk/view_email.asp?a=49443&b=612

I have been trying to work out why the Trust’s picture library effectively selling material which is not ultimately highly specific to the Trust bothers me slightly. There’s nothing to stop the NT Picture Library taking on any subject matter. Somehow this fits uncomfortably with a strictly edited roster of approved (or contracted) photographers being the only ones represented by the Trust library, and in turn no other photographers or libraries being able to market images taken on Trust property. That could well include both the beach scenes.

It’s a rather like a charity obtaining the right to exclusivity in handling secondhand clothing, so that no other ratepaying store in town can offer elegant used apparel (or compete)… and then setting out their stall with a range of brand new stuff just like Next or River Island, backed by advertising. And doing this from the rates, rents and tax benefit position that a charity shop can secure.

- David Kilpatrick

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist

Here are the Trust byelaws in full.

They read like the work of a committee thinking off the top and listing things which offended them at the time, like transistor radios and roller skates. The best clause by far is the one which makes it a criminal offence to sit down in a National Trust tea shoppe – they did not think to make provision for chairs INTENDED for visitors to sit on:

————————————-

The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty
Byelaws 1965
Made by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in pursuance of the powers vested in the National Trust by the National Trust Acts 1907-1953 with respect to land held for the benefit of the Nation.
Definitions
1. In the construction of these Byelaws “the National Trust” means the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act 1907.
“Trust Property” means all land and water including estuaries, fore-shores, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, canals and other land covered by water, and buildings for the time being held by the National Trust for the benefit of the Nation.
“Trust Buildings” mean any building upon Trust Property which is for the time being open to the Public whether on payment or not.
“Unauthorised person” means any person except -
(a) Any person for the time being duly authorised by the National Trust in writing for any purpose in connection with the management, maintenance or regulation of Trust Property.
(b) A person acting in the legal exercise of some right in over or affecting Trust Property; or
(c) A person duly authorised by a person entitled so to act as aforesaid.
Soil and Vegetation
2. (a) No unauthorised person shall dig, cut or take turf, sods, gravel, sand, clay or any other substance on or from Trust Property.
(b) No unauthorised person shall dig up or remove, cut, fell, pluck or injure any flowers, plants, fungi, moss, ferns, shrubs, trees or other vegetation growing on Trust Property or remove any seeds thereof or injure any grass or climb any tree.
(c) No unauthorised person shall knowingly bring and leave on or in or knowingly permit to be brought onto and left on or in Trust Property any form of living vegetation in such circumstances that the same would be likely to reproduce or propagate itself.
Fire
3. (a) No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property light any fire or discharge any fire-work.
(b) No person shall on Trust Property place, throw or let fall any lighted match, cigarette or any inflammable gas, spirit, substance or thing, or any bottle or broken glass so as to cause or be likely to cause damage by fire to Trust Property or to any object or vegetation thereon.
Firearms and Other Weapons
4. (a) No unauthorised person shall have in his possession while he is on any part of Trust Property other than any part thereof which is a public right of way any firearm unless it is so covered with a securely fastened gun cover that it cannot be fired.
In this byelaw the expression “firearm” means any lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or missile can be discharged.
(b) No unauthorised person shall throw or discharge any missile, stone, boomerang, or use any lassoo to the danger or annoyance of any person or animal on Trust Property.
Litter and Rubbish
5. (a) No unauthorised person shall bring rubbish, scrap, or waste materials on to Trust Property for the purpose of abandoning or disposing of the same whether in the litter bins provided by the National Trust or otherwise.
(b) No person shall leave or abandon on Trust Property except in receptacles provided for the purpose any litter, refuse, waste materials or offensive matter including (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) any metal, rubber, wooden or plastic articles and containers, bottles, paper, glass, china, dead animals, scrap, rubble and road-mending materials.
Note: An extract from the Litter Act 1958 is set out at the end of these Byelaws.
Malicious Damage
6. No person shall deface by writing or other marks any tree or rock on Trust Property or any building or other structure or any fixed or movable equipment set up, placed or maintained by the National Trust thereon.
See note on Malicious Damage at the end of these Byelaws.
Advertisements
7. No unauthorised person shall post, paint, display or distribute any bill, placard, advertisement or notice on Trust Property.
Dogs and Other Animals
8. No unauthorised person shall cause or allow any dog or other animal belonging to him or in his charge:
(a) To enter any part of Trust Property to which the Public are not granted access.
(b) To enter Trust Property to which Public access is had by payment unless a notice permitting such entry is exhibited at the entrance.
(c) To enter or remain on any Trust Property to which entry is allowed unless such dog or other animal is under proper control and is effectually restrained from causing damage to property including plants and from injuring, annoying or disturbing any person, bird or animal.
Protection of Animals
9. (a) No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property knowingly take, molest or wilfully disturb, injure, or destroy any living creature or the eggs of any living creature or spread or use any net or set or use any snare or other engine, instrument, lamp, lure or other means for the taking, injury, or destruction of any such living creature or its eggs whether in on or above Trust Property.
(b) No unauthorised person shall knowingly bring and leave on or in or knowingly permit to be brought on to and left on or in Trust Property any living creature in such circumstances that the same would be likely to reproduce or propagate itself or cause damage to Trust Property or plant or animal life thereon.
Bathing and Skating
10. (a) No person shall bathe or skate on Trust Property or use Trust Property for bathing or skating in or on any lake, pond, river, stream or canal adjacent thereto where such bathing or skating is for the time being prohibited by authorised notices exhibited on Trust Property.
(b) No unauthorised person shall waterski on Trust Property nor use Trust Property for waterskiing in or on any lake, pond, river or canal adjacent thereto.
(c) No person shall skate on rollers in any car park on Trust Property or on
any road owned by the National Trust and on which vehicular traffic is permitted by the National Trust.
Driving, Parking and Mooring of Conveyances
11. (a) No unauthorised person shall:
(i) Moor, park or leave on Trust Property any conveyance except in mooring sites or parking places provided by the National Trust.
(ii) Leave any conveyance between sunset and sunrise in any parking place on Trust Property.
(iii) Ride or drive any conveyance over or upon Trust Property otherwise than upon roads, tracks and waterways authorised for the use of such con-veyance.
(iv) Use any part of Trust Property in connection with any race, hill climb, rally, regatta, or other similar function involving the use of any conveyance.
(b) No person shall ride or drive any conveyance to the danger or annoyance of or without due consideration for other persons resorting to Trust Property.
Note: In this Byelaw “conveyance” includes any air, land or watercraft vehicle or machine other than wheelchairs and perambulators. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) shall have no application to pedal cycles.
Horse-riding
12. (a) No unauthorised person shall ride a horse on any part of Trust Property where horse-riding is prohibited by an authorised notice or where horse-riding is likely to result in damage to Trust Property whether prohibited by notice or not.
(b) No person shall ride a horse to the danger or annoyance of or without due consideration for other persons resorting to Trust Property.
Camping
13. No unauthorised person shall pitch, erect, or permit to remain on Trust Property any tent, booth, windbreak, pole, clothes-line, building, shed, post, fence, railing or other erection or obstruction whatsoever.
Water Abstraction
14. No unauthorised person shall take any water from Trust Property or pollute the same.
Noise
15. No person shall:
(a) In any building on Trust Property; or
(b) In the open air on any Trust Property, after having been requested to desist by any, person on Trust Property who is disturbed by the sound of the instrument operate or cause or suffer to be operated any wireless set, television set, tape recorder, gramophone, amplifier or similar instrument, or operate or play upon any noisy or musical instrument.
16. No unauthorised person shall bring on to Trust Property any swing, roundabout, organ or other like thing.
Hawking
17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph.
Public Gatherings
18. No organised public gathering, procession or exhibition shall take place on Trust Property without the previous written authority of an Officer of the National Trust, and no person shall interfere with or hinder any function which has been authorised as aforesaid.
Training of Animals
19. No unauthorised person shall, except in any such place as may, from time to time be set apart by the National Trust for the purpose, break in or train or race any horse, dog or other animal.
Agistment
20. No unauthorised person shall turn out or permit to remain on Trust Property any cattle, sheep or other animal.
National Trust Officers’ Powers to Remove Offenders
21. Any Officer of the National Trust may remove from Trust Property:
(a) Any conveyance as defined in Byelaw 11 for the time being on Trust Property in contravention of these Byelaws.
(b) Any structure for the time being erected on Trust Property in contravention of these Byelaws.
(c) Any show, exhibition, swing, roundabout, organ or other like thing for the time being on Trust Property in contravention of these Byelaws.
(d) Any cattle, sheep or other animal found by him on Trust Property in contravention of these Byelaws.
(e) Any cattle, sheep or other animal suffering from disease.
(f) After due warning any person who in his view commits any offence against these Byelaws.
Obscene Language
22. No person shall on Trust Property use any indecent or obscene language to the annoyance of any person.
Trust Buildings
23. No unauthorised person shall without the permission of the National Trust:
(a) Enter or remain in any Trust Building wearing boots or shoes which may do damage to such building or any of the contents thereof.
(b) Smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette in any Trust Building.
(c) Take any photograph in any Trust Building.
(d) Touch any furniture or other contents of any Trust Building or (with-out prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) sit upon any chair or other article of furniture in any such building.
Nuisance and Wilful Obstruction
24. No person shall on Trust Property wilfully obstruct, disturb, interrupt or annoy any other person in the proper use and enjoyment of such property or wilfully hinder, obstruct, disturb, or interrupt any Officer of the National Trust in the exercise of his powers and duties under the National Trust Acts 1907-1953 or these Byelaws.
Unlawful Entry
25. No unauthorised person shall climb any wall, fence, or hedge on or enclosing Trust Property or any gate in such wall, fence or hedge.
Penalties for Infringement of Byelaws
26. Every person who shall offend against any, of the foregoing Byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding £2 for each day during which the offence continues, or such other maximum as may be specified from time to time by any Act of Parliament enacted after the date hereof.
27. The Byelaws which were made by the National Trust on the 15th July 1955 and were confirmed by the Secretary of State on the 18th October 1955 shall be and are hereby repealed.
Made and Ordered to be Sealed the Eleventh day of June One thousand
nine hundred and sixty-five.
The Common Seal of the National Trust for
Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (SEAL)
was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
CONESFORD, Member of Executive Committee
J. F. W. RATHBONE, Secretary
The Secretary of State this day confirmed the foregoing Byelaws and fixed the date on which they are to come into operation as the first day of October 1965.
R. J. GUPPY (SEAL)
An Assistant Under Secretary of State
Whitehall
26th August, 1965
Notes:
The Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 87 reads:
87. Offence of leaving litter
(1) If any person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from
any place to which this section applies, and leaves, am thing whatsoever ill ,such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, lie shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be guilty of an offence.
(2) No offence is committed under this section where the depositing and leaving of the thing was
a) authorised by law, or
b) done with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of’ the place in or into which that thing was deposited.
(3) This section applies to any public open place and, in so far as the place is
not a public open place, also to the following places
a) any relevant highway or relevant road and any trunk road which is a special road;
b), any place on relevant land of a principal litter authority;
(c) any place on relevant Crown land.
(d) any place on relevant land of any designated statutory undertaker;
(e) any place on relevant land of any designated educational institution;
(f) any place on relevant land within a litter control area of a local authority.
(4) In this section “public open place” means a place in the open air to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access without payment; and any covered place open to the air on at least one side and available for public use shall be treated as a public open place.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) A local authority, with a view to promoting the abatement of litter, may take such steps as the authority think appropriate for making the effect of subsection (5) above known to the public in their area.
Criminal Damage
It is an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 without lawful excuse to destroy or damage any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged. The maximum penalty under the Act on conviction on indictment is imprisonment not exceeding to years, though, by virtue of section 22 of and Schedule 2 to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 where the value of the damage caused appears to the court not to exceed the relevant sum (currently £2,000) the offence is triable only summarily with a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a fine of the amount specified for the purposes of section 33 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (currently £2,500).

The tripod purchase came after going into the ticket/entrance area of the Cathedral, and asking the uniformed (police?) guard whether photography inside was permitted. The reply was very affirmative. So I asked whether a tripod (in several languages, from trepied to stativ and back) could be used. No problem! Go ahead!  We walked over the square, found a good small photo dealer almost facing the Cathedral, and a servicable compact video tripod with head small enough to take back in a suitcase, complete with a fabric bag.

The guard had omitted to say that the inside was full of scaffolding at the critical point before the altar, but the tripod enabled some worthwhile 12mm on full frame digital shots. Shirley, who was using a Sony A700 handheld with 18-250mm, got a surprisingly high quality Alamy-usable pix, sharp hit rate using the sensor stabilisation and no tripod, but only from well-lit areas like the Fisherman’s Chapel.

The tripod then went with us to other locations. It was accepted without question at Valdemossa (George Sand/Chopin/Carthusian monastery – monastic music, above) and the exceptional country estate and house of Sa Granja. Though working very quickly, I was able to secure views using the Sigma 12-24mm on the full frame Sony Alpha 900 which bettered anything shown in guide books or local postcards. Sa Granja, a privately owned attraction, was very quiet in November and I could have spent a day photographing many compositions of exhibits and room settings. They advertised folk dancing at 4.30pm, which we duly turned up for, but it did not happen. That was the downside of an Autumn visit.

One or two locations in Mallorca – such as the Governor’s House museum at Capdepera castle – displayed clear signs for no photography or video. There is a problem with any of the cave systems, as these ban photography explicitly. The so-called Safari Park allows photography, but most shots will be a waste of time as the setting is charmless and the animals are rarely seen against a good background. The superb aquarium of Playa de Palma does not ban cameras, nor do the gardens of L’Alfaiba. Wandering freely round the Residence hotel (ex-Virgin Group) in Deia, we were unchallenged in taking shots from its vantage points, and of the hotel grounds (sadly, in dull overcast weather).

At some of these locations, like the aquarium, we did not carry a tripod. I rely on the SSS (sensor stabilisation) of the Alpha 900 with lenses such as the 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/2 and of course the Sigma 12-24mm which provides new views of many locations. Unsharp pictures are rare, maybe one in twenty if the 3 stops guideline for safety is followed.

We based ourselves in Can Pastilla, because it was cheap and very close to the airport, as well as being central for all the radial drives needed to reach the corners of the island. It’s a bit run-down, but much nicer than more popular resorts (it’s almost in a 1960s timewarp). From this experience, staying in Valdemossa would be the optimum (outside Palma city centre) for a photographer. It simply affords maximum day and evening photogenicity. One thing is worth reporting – if you want to get the perfect sunset at Cap d’Andratx (flagged up as the best sunset in Mallorca) then mid-November is your time. There will be a similar phase in spring. We were lucky, spending our only 30 minutes in this location after a frantic coastal road drive, precisely timed to catch the sunset behind the lighthouse (photograph by Shirley, below).

To see the results of our Mallorcan shoot, here’s our Alamy selection.

- DK

The present photographic restrictions on many heritage sites and attractions (whether private, National Trust, English Heritage, Historic Scotland or independent organisations such as the Zoological Society of London, London Underground) do not appear to be there to reduce security risk, improve amenity, protect patrimony or increase direct revenue. They seem to be enforced for perverse reasons. One of these is an institutional fear of losing control. Another is jealousy or indignation that anyone should ‘profit’ through creating a valuable work.

Both these reasons, which would no doubt be denied, can be addressed by introducing annual editorial release permits for which photographers, writers, artists, website creators, or film-makers could apply.

A reasonable fee for such a permit would be as much as a family annual membership, maybe double that – in the order of £100. Today, the fees paid for non-commercial uses of images (newspapers, magazines, websites, TV flashups, textbooks, guide books etc) are generally modest. A photographer might cover the expenses of visiting a site after three or four sales, and it might take a year for achieve that. In many cases no fees at all are paid for the use of images, the fee being based entirely on the wordage provided by a writer-photographer.

Such a permit has the benefit that it would be issued to an individual, therefore known and database logged by the organisation. That individual would also have to agree to the conditions of the permit, answering the issue of institutional control. It would also be possible, without removing the creative artist’s ability to subsist from or subsidise their creative work, to remove the objection to ‘profit’ being made.

Here’s how – not in legal language, and possibly not comprehensive enough:

—————

This Permit in return for the fee paid, grants the Applicant the right to publish or licence for publication, with or without valuable consideration, works portraying the property of the Grantor, created between (start date) and (expiry date). The works may be in any visual medium, writing, audio, or data recording.

No use of the works for advertising, product endorsement, company or product publicity, packaging, or for the creation of products based on the work itself is permitted. No property or model release is granted by the issue of this Permit.

No privileges are given to the Applicant beyond the normal terms and conditions of entry to property. Restrictions on the use of tripods, easels, flash or other lighting must be adhered to. Restrictions on video filming, photography of the interiors or contents or properties, access to closed areas may apply. The Applicant agrees to comply with the requests of management or staff.

All work released must include title, caption, credit, byline, metadata or other authorship and copyright information. This must include the acknowledgment “By kind permission of (the Grantor)”.

The Applicant agrees to provide copies of any such works to the Grantor, on request, for internal and Grantor’s own publication and promotional uses without financial consideration. The Applicant agrees to the Grantor licencing such works to Third Parties subject to a percentage commission or remit of fees, to be agreed prior to any such licence. The Grantor agrees to identify the Author under the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Copyright and Derivative Work: the Grantor reserves copyright in all artefacts, paintings, sculptures, statues, ornaments, designs, architecture, planting, landscaping at properties. The Permit does not authorise the reproduction (direct copying) of art or objects on display. The Permit allows recording of items in the setting or context only, as a Derivative Work incorporating any such items.

The Applicant must not bring the Grantor into disrepute, through actions or works, or permit the use of works in a defamatory manner. The Applicant agrees to abide by any decisions made by the Grantor relating to works produced under the terms of this Permit, which may be revoked without refund of payment made if the terms and conditions are broken by the Applicant.

Specific clause for video: the apparatus used must be operated by a single invididual. Permits for film crews, news teams, etc are separately negotiable.

Specific clause for writers and journalists: the Permit allows paraphrasing of guide books, leaflets, information signs, labels and interpretation material without further attribution. Where text is quoted directly it must be attributed.

Specific clause for artists: restrictions on the use of easels apply as for tripods. Artists are permitted to make photographic records to aid later work, and to use guide books, leaflets etc as reference.

—————

A permit like this works better than ad hoc photography permits. In the Czech Republic, it is very convenient to buy a lapel sticker pass which authorises your camera in museums and heritage sites – but the conditions applying are not made clear. The same goes for many churches where tripods are allowed for a small fee. The myth of Machu Picchu – or the reality of it – with $300 permits demanded of anyone found entering with a lens longer than 200mm, and $200 for tripod use, is only likely to spread to other heritage sites.

It is not just the ignorance of photographic reality which annoys the visiting freelance, it’s the assumptions made about the rewards for everyday travel photography. With fees typically around $100 per usage in most magazines and guides, and agencies taking half that, paying a $300 ‘fine’ because your lens happens to be marked 200mm whether you plan to sell your pictures or not really hurts!

There is a secondary issue to this. Technically, publication is publication whether for reward or not. Anyone who puts an image of a restricted or private property on Flickr, Facebook or their own website is publishing it. Nor does publication with a fee imply that photography is commercial; fees are often paid purely on artistic merit. Prizes and awards are given on the same basis. Many pictures of a certain place or property are not chosen for use because they show that subject. They are used because they show a certain type of subject, such as a landscape or architecture. The photographer does not earn the fee, the prize or other recognition because they managed to get a shot of X – there are probably several thousand shots of X available, including hundreds in the (commercial) library run by the owners of X.

The semi-pro freelance or the amateur contest entrant are both successful because the image is different, special, perhaps unique – the conditions, the weather, the time, the way people are placed in a scene.

For the professional shooting library stock, the image may sell just because of what it shows, and not the merits of the photography.

I suggest that if a permit was made available, it would be taken up by a relatively small group of professional and semi-pro stock shooters (numbered in tens or hundreds in the UK). A few dedicated amateurs who exhibit work, sell prints, and enter contests might fork out as well. Visiting photographers from abroad might well pay for it. I don’t think any organisation issuing such a permit would be overwhelmed by thousands of photographers, artists, camcorder users or writers.

Finally, remember that some restrictions have nothing to do with photography. Many years ago visiting Cragside, the National Trust property in Northumberland, we were asked to leave our bags at the entrance. The cameras could go in (no commercial photography or tripods allowed) but the bags were too large. Why? They had suffered thefts. People with large bags (camera or shoulder) had walked out with objects. That kind of restriction would be unaffected by any permit!

- DK

It is not connected with any specific National Trust organisation worldwide, and is not intended to pass off as such.

It is a resource for photographers who wish to show, and sell, images taken of heritage and trust-held properties, locations, gardens, architecture and landscape of merit – and to discuss the restrictions placed on such photography, provide information on camera-friendly locations to visit, permit costs, tripod bans, flash bans and anything else relevant.

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.

The header photos currently displayed are unconnected with the site – they were part of the template – and I’d like to have some 850 x 200 pixel images or montages, which can have a small URL/credit line, to replace them from photographers with suitable material.

Please use the forum to get in touch. It is possible to become an author (contributor) to this site if approved by me and upgraded to the necessary privileges.

- DK