Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Selling photos


roxpix 11 2.2k 11 Scotland
2 Mar 2004 10:52AM
LOL @ Mike,

Well, imagine selling off parts of their own country, what are the English thinking about Smile

Did someone need to fund switching from 35mm to digital Smile

Alan

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

2 Mar 2004 10:53AM
My point is that the amatuer may unwittingly may infringe one of these imposed regulations. The full time professional is fully aware of these restrictions as it is part of running his business.

The amatuer who does sell the odd photo or two is hardly liable to make a profit on the deal. This point has been well amplified in these forums and elsewhere.

Relying on the good nature and understanding of these bodies is unwise as the experience of a member of my family found out some while ago.(Not related to photography but public access to parks).

I personaly have no desire to sell photos for profit, and have not done so for many years now. I was merely taking up a point in the discusion.

However, for example, what what if the owner, whoever that may, of the lighthouse I photographed, subsequently demanded a fee because I had published it on this site?

Just Jas

roxpix 11 2.2k 11 Scotland
2 Mar 2004 10:55AM
Edward, I know its just as crazy up here.

Afraid I dont know enough to answer your question. How does the saying go 'only know enough to be dangerous'

I agree with your point about displaying a pic which can so easily become an advert for your work.

Alan
dclarke5 11 147 United Kingdom
2 Mar 2004 10:56AM
Managed to dig this out from the archives as I wanted to clarify the position when I wanted to sell a picture at an exhibition (last year) that had been taken on NT land. In the end the image was not included. I don't think the document answers all the questions posed.
Presumably I shouldn't be reproducing this document without permission and paying a charge to the NT?
Has anyone had any thoughts on whether making a sketch or a painting of say a flower on NT land is subject to the same "restrictions" as imposed upon the photographer?

Dave



National Trust Policy on Commercial Photography

Commercial photographers are at liberty to photograph National Trust landscape and coastline, except where they are undertaking a commission for product or service advertising.

However they are advised to contact the Media and Broadcast Liaison Officer (details below) should they wish to take pictures on SSSI land or of listed species.


For commercial photography of gardens, architectural exteriors and interiors, permission is required. Please contact the Media and Broadcast Liaison Officer, Harvey Edgington on: 020 7447 6759. If permission is given, the photographers are asked to confirm contractually that the pictures are for one-time use only. We may invite them to consider lodging appropriate images in the Central Photo Library on the usual 50/50 agency basis. Photography for other photo libraries is never permitted.

This policy has been in place for some years and is accepted by professionals in the photographic world. It was worked out in association with the Historic Houses Association and English Heritage. It echoes the sentiments of the founders of the National Trust, 107 years ago who, even then, were concerned that the National Trust should not be exploited commercially.


Rationale for the Policy

The National Trust is a charity with the statutory purpose of conserving places of historic interest or natural beauty for the benefit of the nation. It, therefore, has a duty to protect and husband its resources so as to be better able to carry out its conservation work.

This conservation remit means that it is vital to have the ability to manage the marketing of Trust property. For example, the promotion of a property such as Sissinghurst, which already attracts some 175,000 visitors a year, needs careful management. A picture featuring Sissinghurst on the cover of a popular magazine just prior to a Bank Holiday weekend dramatically increases the number of visitors and could lead to physical damage to the garden.

The Trust must also be careful not to advertise inadvertently or endorse products with which it does not wish to be associated. In addition many of its properties are leased to tenants and their concerns have to be taken into account and respected accordingly.


Maggie Gowan
Photographic Manager

Harvey Edgington
Media and Broadcast Liaison Officer

December 2002
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Mar 2004 10:57AM
Has anyone on here had actual experience of a fee being demanded, or other hassle endured, by them taking a photo of a natural feature or even a building - without permission - and subsequently selling it? (Or putting it on the internet). I am not here talking about military installations etc!

I do wonder whether we worry about things which are, in reality, never likely to crop up.

I realise that the pro has - in theory - to be a bit more conscientious than amateur looking to sell or otherwise use a few pics. But I'll bet not all pros lose sleep about this issue!
2 Mar 2004 11:14AM
The ostrich, with its head buried in the sand, leaves its backside delicately exposed for a swift kick.

Probably not, in the majority of cases, hopefully.

But some places, e.g. Trafalgar Square, apparently have wardens patrolling to oversee this very thing. Molly with her 'throw-away' camera would probably have no problem. Anyone with a 'serious' camera might find themselves justifying their intentions in the event.

Just Jas
FrankThomas e2
11 2.8k United Kingdom
2 Mar 2004 11:16AM
"...Commercial photographers are at liberty to photograph National Trust landscape and coastline, except where they are undertaking a commission for product or service advertising..."

My reading of this is that you should be ok to sell images of coastlines etc provided you are not taking the pictures as part of a commission - if you are just taking them "on spec" then that would seem to be ok.

Of course, IANALS
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Mar 2004 11:23AM
Lol at Jas!! I have taken pics in Trafalgar Square over the years with an SLR + big lens, and my current bulky digicam!!

One of the pics is in my portfolio on here!

I have yet to see, let alone be stopped by, a photo-warden!

An urban myth, perhaps?

:o)
2 Mar 2004 11:42AM
That is how I would interpret it. That they don't mind the more occasional picture being published, but not a full scale intensive promotion.

Generally the rules are formulated to protect and conserve the property and habitat. Provided that they are reasonably applied and observed then generally there is no problem.

If a warden saw me taking a few photos on the dunes of our West Beach in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the nature of the property, then I would imagine that he would take no action. If, however, I was trampling all over the flora and fauna etc merely to get a picture then he could probably hit me with a 'No photography without permit' ruling (and make sure that I didn't get one subsequently).

This would be applying the rules within the spirit of their intention.

The property is being conserved for the enjoyment of the nation.

No problem with paying a fee where the cost of conservation may be high.

No problem really with paying a small fee for photography. A pound or two as a small extra contribution towards maintaining the property as a desirable place to photograph might not go amiss, but a larger fee for full professional use which is not intended by the amateur photographer would, in my view.

The administration costs might make it uneconomical to collect such a small fee however.

Just Jas
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Mar 2004 11:45AM
I was just amused at the idea of photo-wardens (in uniform no doubt) patrolling Trafalgar Square and intervening when about a couple of hundred Japanese tourists, at any given time, are pointing their cams - some of them SLRs with huge lenses - at every fountain, every lion and not to mention Horatio himself!!!

Who knows, some of them may be making money out of these photos when they get back home. (Shock, horror!)

You'd need an army of wardens! Lol!!
UserRemoved 10 4.2k
2 Mar 2004 11:46AM
Many a time I've been tapped on the shoulder.
'Is that a professional camera?'
'No' (when I wasnt)
'Thats ok then as we dont allow those'

Although sometimes have been stopped from using a 'professional looking' camera. Depends where it is really.
It also depends on your attitude when questioned. As I said in a previous thread a simple courtesy phone call beforehand (whether you are doing it professionally or not) is always a good idea. You can always answer 'well such and such told me it was ok' which is preferable to 'this is a free country (sic) and I can photograph where I like'

If you are told you cannot take photos then abide by this. My professional status has inhibited me from taking photos in some places where I have had taken many amateur pics (some using the same equipment).

Many places overseas charge to be able to use a camera, whether professionally or not.

Also your 'military etc' quote covers a multitude.
BT buildings
Judge's houses
Policemen's houses
Prison Officer's houses
Government buildings
Buildings of strategic interest (eh what?)
And a few other Northern Ireland specific ones.

I was recently stopped by police whilst taking some night shots in Belfast City Centre. I think it was the third time that night when they called in my car registration that the voice on the other end of the radio commented - has that eejit got no home to go to!
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Mar 2004 11:51AM
I'd be most flattered to be thought a pro!

Maybe I just don't look professional enough! :-(

You've got to be sensible. But how many people would even know the house belonged to a judge, policeman or prison officer.

These are bureaucratic (but usually well-intentioned) rules that are largely unenforceable - like so much of the legislation on the statute books.

Oh and you will see a Government building in my portfolio as well. Lol!!
2 Mar 2004 12:27PM
Carabosse - I understand that 'tourist' photography is ok. Like I said earlier - reasonable behaviour usually only attracts reasonable attention.

If you set up a tripod and posed a model on one of the lions (whether it roared or not!) and started an intense photo shoot without a permit then I imagine a 'photo warden' would soon turn up in earnest!

If a passerby tripped over the leg of your tripod, or over your gadget bag, and broke a limb, then the advisability of the public liability insurance would soon become evident.

I think that we all understand this.

Just Jas
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
2 Mar 2004 12:31PM
Ah... using a tripod is a quite different matter and has been discussed extensively on the forum.

If you want to call attention to yourself, use a tripod. And a semi-nude model! You'd probably attract the attention of the police, never mind any 'photo-warden' (real or mythical) :o)

I'm thinking of getting a monopod (have never yet owned one). I wonder if one could get away with the type which has 3 small struts at the bottom to make it self-standing?
2 Mar 2004 12:34PM
I must depart from this discussion now and finish the carpentry on the front door. There is a definate penalty for not completing this project!!!

And I might not get a 'permit' to go out with my camera tomorrow, as a result!!!

From SWMBO! (She Who Must Be Obeyed) LOL

I never (rarely) use a tripod outdoors.

And I've never heard the lions roar in Traf Square either!!!

Who said semi-clad female model, carabosse? Thats just your imagination!!! LOL

Just Jas

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.