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