The National Trust's photography policy

[ianbutty]

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/a ... /4756.aspx

Please use this thread to discuss this alamy blog entry.

[ianbutty]

I think this is a good thing. But I do wonder who is driving this the National Trust or Alamy.

Also I think they need to clarify this. As I understand it, it only aplies to National Trust properties. And doesn't apply to areas of coastline or countryside that the NT own. If I'm right the the following images of mine won't get removed: AXT3CA and AXT3C4

Additionally I believe that photographs of National Trust properties taken from a public highway are also 'legal'
I wonder if these images will be removed: A43XA7 and AKFG76

Actually I'll be a bit miffed if the last one gets removed as it has sold a couple of times through Alamy!

[Blackcat]

A little clarification on the exact interpretation of 'property' would be useful. I have many images taken in similar circumstances to yours Ian, but in the Peak District national park, where the National Trust own very large areas of land. I would think as they were generally taken from public footpaths in the park that they would be ok but its not certain.

I do wonder if Alamy themselves are the leading force here, I was recently contacted by them to remove an image of Chatsworth Gardens I had - maybe they are slowly trying to clean up what shouldn't be on the site. If so, it should somewhat reduce the overall number of images on Alamy!

[geoffpix]

The Trust only have issues with images taken on 'pay to enter' properties. Any open access/free property, they allow commercial exploitation of images, since they have no conditions of entry to such property they couldn't inforce any conditions.

I've got images which I took on behalf of one of the local properties (via the property manager), they were used for some local publicity and were permitted for wider use with a proviso of the property tag line (they were trying to up the visitor numbers). I haven't bothered to scan a number of these but did talk to the NTPL a few weeks ago about representing them and was given the stock reply of 'not taking on anyone at present'. Didn't even consider looking at them, odd since they've sold in the past and maybe would do so again.

For whatever they say about managing crowds, the reason for the stance is to maximise commercial exploitation of the NTPL collection. Seen it in their emails to agencies and confirmed on another forum.

On the plus side the Trust/NTPL treat their togs very well, speaking to one not that long ago and the average fee was very good.

Myself, I would rather be on the inside looking out but that's for another day....hopefully

[Inchiquin]

Well once again Alamy have terminated a discussion on this topic on their forum.

The issue for me at the moment is this: NT asks Alamy to remove pics. Alamy tells photographer pics are to be removed. Photographer tells Alamy the pics are taken from public land and should not be removed. Alamy replies that the NT will adjudicate.

So the organisation that decided the pics should not be there in the first place will now be allowed to decide whether they should be there or not?

NT's policy appears to be: let's piss off as many people as we possibly can and deal with the objections later if anyone bothers to complain. Seems a strange way to run an organisation whose raison d'etre is to benefit the nation.

Alan

[geoffpix]

The solution is very simple, place your images with agencies that have resisted the NTPL.

I had the email, via an agency, years ago on this matter and the images are still there......they will be as long as my agency resists this policy. Many/most collections have ignored the NTPL over this and AFAIK they will continue to do so. Alamy naturally rolls over.

I wish I could stop my NT membership over this issue but I long ago resigned over the democratic vote on hunting (ignored by the board).

I'm waiting for the trust to come after me since I didn't have to pay to get my images even in 'paid' gardens since I was invited in by a property manager...I was a de facto 'friend of the garden'.

See you in court Mr Lacey.

[Inchiquin]

The solution is very simple, place your images with agencies that have resisted the NTPL.

Hmm, yes - that's another issue altogether! From what I understand the big boys would just sneer at my 40D. I'm not a practising pro like yourself so I have no real reason or budget to invest in top-flight equipment. This leaves all the also-rans and to be honest there are so many I don't know where to start. I've invested a lot of time and effort in Alamy and the thought of starting all over again doesn't fill me with excitement. I've been uploading small batches to PD as time permits but I saw Alamy as the ideal solution for someone like myself with experience of selling stock but not a full-time pro.

Alan

[geoffpix]

The solution is very simple, place your images with agencies that have resisted the NTPL.

Hmm, yes - that's another issue altogether! From what I understand the big boys would just sneer at my 40D. I'm not a practising pro like yourself so I have no real reason or budget to invest in top-flight equipment. This leaves all the also-rans and to be honest there are so many I don't know where to start. I've invested a lot of time and effort in Alamy and the thought of starting all over again doesn't fill me with excitement. I've been uploading small batches to PD as time permits but I saw Alamy as the ideal solution for someone like myself with experience of selling stock but not a full-time pro.

Alan

Alan,

The 40D is a Getty list camera, it's no bar to getting work on the best agencies, be they general or specialist. Many other agencies use the old or new Getty lists as their requirements...PL etc.

For me the lustre went off Alamy a long time ago, they still make me good 'up-front' money but the gloss is taken off that by having to rekeyword every five minutes. That eats into my profits and makes the 60% commission somewhat of a smoke screen.

My advice is always to find the best agent that will take your work, be they specialist or general, they don't care if you are a pro or otherwise, all they are concerned with is getting saleable images. Alamy will still be the best game in town for some but there are better games to play.

[Inchiquin]

Thanks Geoff, excellent advice. I will apply my mind to it as soon as I can.

Alan

[Matphoto]

I came across an interesting fact that may explain Alamy's intransigence about the discussion on the NT.
If you follow the link and look at the fourth entry on present position and past positions, it may give a clue.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/flo/smith

[geoffpix]

I came across an interesting fact that may explain Alamy's intransigence about the discussion on the NT.

Alamy had this self same clearout a number of years ago and they've done others with organisations/properties that contacted them. What's disturbing this time is that Alamy are saying that they are referring even images taken from public roads etc back to the NTPL. That is so completely unacceptable that it beggars belief.

[Matphoto]

I have a number of images on Alamy that contain NT property ( taken after entrance payment ) and I myself have requested deletion. I also have others that are take on NT land ( no payment ) these I have not put any keywords appertaining to the NT and nothing in the titles that mention the NT.
I have not had an email from Alamy asking for removal. Maybe that is the answer to avoid deletion.

[hollis_f]

I emailed the Head Warden at the Farne Islands, a NT holding. Here's his reply -

Many thanks for your e-mail and good news - as the Farne Islands are classified as an 'open space property' then no, there is no need for a licence and you will not be charged for talking/selling photographs. I hope this helps and I hope you have an enjoyable visit to the islands - and good luck with the photos!

[Inchiquin]

I have not put any keywords appertaining to the NT and nothing in the titles that mention the NT.
I have not had an email from Alamy asking for removal. Maybe that is the answer to avoid deletion.

Don't think so. The picture I was told would be removed had no mention of the NT anywhere. However, once the dust has settled and the image is still there, I will be plastering "national trust" all over the keywords to make sure buyers find it. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot I'm happy to supply the bullets.

Alan

[Inchiquin]

Well I've just had an email from Member Services that sounds much more encouraging and seems to suggest that Alamy are keen to get it right.

Among several encouraging paragraphs, the email also says "Images shot when there was no photographic policy in place or when the location was not under NT ownership will of course remain on our web site."

So, does anyone here know when this photographic policy started, so I can start looking through my archives?

Alan