photography

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Fishing case cites common law

Friday, May 8th, 2009

A case against the National Trust was resolved in favour of common law rights in Northern Ireland:

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

RPS Forum discusses NT issues

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

The Royal Photographic Society’s discussion forum has a lively thread updating on National Trust restrictions:

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

Shaky foundations exposed?

Monday, April 27th, 2009

The Copyright Action website has published a comment on the possible reliance of the National Trust on a 1965 schedule of Byelaws to ban commercial photography. Their conclusion is that this regulation (similar in legal basis to byelaws passed by local authorities, town or county councils) was intended to prevent itinerant photographers setting up to photograph visitors – the old tintype seaside trade.

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

Here are the Trust byelaws in full.

Click to continue »

Editorial Release Photography Permit

Monday, April 20th, 2009

With the advent of a copiously illustrated worldwide web, ‘publication’ has changed for ever. The legal definition of publication was always ready for this, because it never meant ‘going to press’. You published something if you displayed it your shop window or pinned a single notice on a supermarket advertising board. Publishing was, and is, no more than the act of making words, images or any other information public.

Click to continue »