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

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!

Selling photos

kit-monster 14 3.7k 2 Singapore
1 Mar 2004 4:26PM
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 . . . .

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Just Jas Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
1 Mar 2004 4:34PM
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 16 222 United Kingdom
1 Mar 2004 4:46PM
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 14 2.2k 11 Scotland
1 Mar 2004 4:48PM
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 15 3.6k
1 Mar 2004 4:51PM
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.

dclarke5 15 147 United Kingdom
1 Mar 2004 4:59PM
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.
thf 14 32
1 Mar 2004 5:29PM
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 16 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
1 Mar 2004 5:33PM

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 14 32
1 Mar 2004 5:52PM

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 Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
1 Mar 2004 6:49PM
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 15 3.6k
1 Mar 2004 8:35PM
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".

kit-monster 14 3.7k 2 Singapore
1 Mar 2004 8:44PM
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 15 3.6k
1 Mar 2004 8:46PM
Are you a member of the RHS - if you are then you may use a tripod at no cost.

kit-monster 14 3.7k 2 Singapore
1 Mar 2004 8:53PM
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 15 3.6k
1 Mar 2004 9:07PM
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......


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.