Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Selling photos

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

kit-monster
kit-monster e2 Member 103685 forum postskit-monster vcard Singapore2 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 4:26 PM

I'm shocked about the whole NT thing. Does that include the big chunk of the Lake District owned by the NT?

I've always had a love hate relationship with the NT. They manage some of my favourite places including the lakes and as a result I've been a member for 17 years. But I hate the way they take a building with grounds that has evolved over the centuries and then decide to peel back everything to a particular point in the 17th century and seal it for all time.

I know we live in a competitive, commercial world but to own the rights to photograph scenery that's thousands of years old? I wonder how many donaters of land realised that this would be the case? I also wonder what the founders would think - isn't the NT supposed to be a guardian for the nation? Perhaps they should change their slogan to "For ever, for everyone - unless you want to sell a photo, and then it'll cost you".

I know I'm ranting and this probably should be a new thread but it does get my back up! Fair enough for the interior of a stately home, but a piece of coastline, a beach, a mountain crag. Next thing you'll be telling me I don't own the rain water that falls in my garden . . . .

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 Mar 2004 - 4:26 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225727 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 4:34 PM

You probably don't. Probably owned by the local Riverway /Water Authority. A neighbor of mine had this argument with them.

I would have said "If you own the rain water then why do I have to pay to remove your property from my land?" (rainwater drainage fees.)

Just Jas

Stan. L-B
Stan. L-B  12222 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Mar 2004 - 4:46 PM

A good example of extortion are the Church Commissioners. At my last enquiry for Durham
they were demanding a fee of 38. for an internal shoot!

roxpix
roxpix  102236 forum posts Scotland11 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 4:48 PM

Without being flippant who did the NT buy the land from in the first place and who gave the seller permision to sell it to them.
I can understand the ownerships of buildings etc but this matter of selling/transfering ownership of chunks of the planet is beyond me.
I have several seas and one or two oceans for sale if anyone is interested Smile
Please refrain from photographing these until your bid is accepted.

UserDeleted
1 Mar 2004 - 4:51 PM

I guess the point that Barrie was making is valid in this example.

38 is a lot of money if you are just going in for pleasure taking a roll of film for personal use and then leaving.

But a carefully targetted stock shoot could result in 10's of images if not well over 100 that could themselves make back that 38 several times over in picture sales...

Speculate to accumulate.

Mike

dclarke5
dclarke5  11147 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Mar 2004 - 4:59 PM

Barrie
I agree we should have such organisations to guarentee our heritage and protect where necessary. I can see the point of having permission for a commercial shoot of say Stonehenge (advert for stonemasons or JCB plant hire) but permission/charge for a picture of a rock or a flower to me seems pretty ridiculous.
I'm with Kit Monster on this.
I use to be a member by the way.
Dave

thf
thf  1032 forum posts
1 Mar 2004 - 5:29 PM

Are there any lawyers out there who can clarify exactly what the issue is about private land? I don't think you can have copyright in land, so is it a question of tresspass or something like that? If so, how would damages be calculated?

User_Removed
1 Mar 2004 - 5:33 PM

Tim

This question has been done to death on these forums before - the best way to find all the info is to use the forum search option and specify copyright. That should give you more than you probably want to read! Smile

I don't mean this to be a contentious statement but rather a statement of fact but when you look at the way the postings are split with regard to copyright issues, you tend to be able to differentiate those who earn their living by photograpy from those that don't - it's quite interesting really.

Barrie Smile

thf
thf  1032 forum posts
1 Mar 2004 - 5:52 PM

Barrie

yes & no - if you search copyright on the forums there is a huge amount of discussion but I haven't been able to see the answer to this precise question. If you know the answer I'd be grateful if you'd let me know, but if I'm boring you just ignore meSmile I'm just curious to know the exact legal basis (but not curious enough to go and look it up in Halsbury's Statutes).

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225727 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 6:49 PM

The pros problably accept the status quo as one of the facts of the job.

The amatuer who doesn't have to contend with this every day challenges this ruling when he comes across it.

Particularly if he pays for admission to a park and then finds he has to pay again to photograph a tree or a flower.

A bit like the 'Carry On Camping' film, where it was 'extra' to put a clothes line up.

Just Jas

UserDeleted
1 Mar 2004 - 8:35 PM

Just Jas

I think you misunderstood - it is free to take photographs which are not intended for commercial use at these sites. In fact at RHS gardens you can also use a tripod for amateur usage (subject to a small 5 fee), and a Kew you only need to obtain a permit at no cost.

However, planned commercial usage (pro photographer or not) is charged a fee.

I don't think pro's accept this but they make an allowance for it as part of business planning or profit planning for a job.

I would rather everywhere was free to enter and did not charge me to take photographs but the fact of the matter is that if this was the case many places would not exist, and nor would the photo opportunties within them. You also have to think that venues such as this also create work for professional photographers to prepare advertising, literature, tickets and so are part of a "virtuous circle".

Mike

kit-monster
kit-monster e2 Member 103685 forum postskit-monster vcard Singapore2 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 8:44 PM

Mike - didn't know about the tripod fee at RHS Gardens. I must have used mine a hundred times at Wisley, with no comment from anyone. It's strapped to the back of my rucksack, so it's not like I'm hiding anything. Now you leave me with a bit of a dilemma.

UserDeleted
1 Mar 2004 - 8:46 PM

Are you a member of the RHS - if you are then you may use a tripod at no cost.

Mike

kit-monster
kit-monster e2 Member 103685 forum postskit-monster vcard Singapore2 Constructive Critique Points
1 Mar 2004 - 8:53 PM

Yes - I'm a member. Guess that's why no questions were asked. And membership doesn't stretch to selling photos without fees? - no didn't think so. Does change my 10 year plan to become a professional plant photographer - unless, as mentioned, I factor these costs into my business plan.

UserDeleted
1 Mar 2004 - 9:07 PM

You are right it doesn't change the selling photos without fees. However the RHS gardens do allow you to pay a fee and shoot commercially - although off the top of my head I can't remember what it is.

As I said before - thes best way to manage this is to go with a plan, and shoot productively to maximise the return on your investment (that and arrive early and leave late !)

Of course you could investigate alternatives to the gardens and NT properties......

Mike

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.