EPUK Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland. The private mailing list and public resource for editorial photographers

National Trust lose high profile photographer in competition rights row.

16 May 2009 - Nick McGowan-Lowe

Renowned photographer Simon Norfolk has pulled out of a major National Trust photographic project in protest over rights-grabbing terms in an associated competition run by the conservation body.

Norfolk said he was ‘furious’ about the National Trust’s actions, and that he was left in no doubt that the forthcoming competition had been intended by the organisation to boost its own commercial picture library by exploiting the work of competition entrants.

Such competitions – referred to as ‘rights-grabs’ by professional photographers – impose obscure small-print rules allowing the organisers to publish photos entered free of charge or to resell them to others without any payment being made to the photographer.

Following Norfolk’s departure, the competition terms have been changed – but the National Trust deny any connection between the two events, and say that the competition was never intended as a rights-grab.

However, the move to photographer-friendly small-print marks a significant change for the National Trust, who have become notorious for running rights-grabbing photography competitions, as well as aggressively asserting what they see as their monopoly on photographs taken on National Trust-owned land.

“The National Trust would be taking all rights”

Along with three other photographers, Simon Norfolk had agreed to a joint promotion between a Sunday newspaper magazine and the National Trust to shoot images of National Trust properties for use in marketing, advertising and to launch a forthcoming National Trust photographic competition aimed at amateur photographers this June.

However, after accepting the commission, Norfolk became concerned that the true purpose was to gather photographs from amateur photographers for commercial gain.

Norfolk said that during discussions about the project, his contact at the National Trust “made it clear that my work and that of the other professional photographers was simply window dressing for the competition”

“I asked him what would be the terms of the competition. He told me the National Trust would be taking all rights to all the submitted work – not just the winning entries”

“None of my business”

Norfolk, a former photojournalist who became one of the most acclaimed contemporary British photographers after turning to landscape photography in 1993 – claims that when he questioned the National Trust’s unfair competition rules a member of the organisation’s marketing department “told me he didn’t care and that the terms of the competition were none of my business.”

“I was furious that my reputation, and that of the three other photographers, was apparently being used to sucker in amateur photographers to spend the summer filling the hard drives of a new National Trust picture library – all of which the Trust would be able to reuse and resell to generate profits.”

In subsequent email correspondence to the National Trust, Norfolk wrote: “Amateur photographers rarely know much about the business side of photography and often get drawn into unfair relationships with unscrupulous competition holders.”

“I believe that if a picture is good enough to win a competition then it should be given a real prize; and that if a picture is good enough to be re-used in the National Trust’s productions or elsewhere, then it ought to be paid for. I’m kind of old skool.”

Changes come after photographers’ protests

The National Trust – a 114-year old charity with a £350m turnover – denies Norfolk’s version of events, and claims the earlier ‘rights-grabbing’ competition terms never existed.

However, a spokesperson for the organisation conceded that other photographic competitions run by the organisation have attempted to take extended rights from entrants, and their change in policy came after protests from photographers.

“Clearly we have had lots of comments on the [recent rights-grabbing NT photography competition] that’s been running in Northern Ireland , and it seems right to take those comments on board”, said a National Trust spokesperson.

“In hindsight, we look back to those competitions and look to see if we can make those terms and conditions more acceptable. I suspect that with these issues some groups such as professional photographers may be more concerned with the terms and conditions than others, and we try to reflect that with the terms we’re working on with the Sunday Times.”

Alamy’s 17,000 National Trust images

Last month, picture library Alamy contacted photographers who were syndicating photographs of National Trust properties through the agency, telling them that the images would be removed from the picture library in just twelve days claiming that they breached NT byelaws.

At the time, Alamy wrote: “We have recently been working with The Trust to identify problematic images on the Alamy website. As a result of this we will shortly be contacting a group of contributors who have images taken on National Trust property without permission and advising them that these images will be removed.” In total 17,000 images were said to be affected.

According to the National Trust, landscapes and even photographs of plants and animals on open land, are criminal offences under a 1965 byelaw. While the National Trust claimed that they were simply enforcing their legal rights, many photographers saw this as a move to increase the value of the National Trust’s own commercial photo library by creating a near-monopoly on stock photographs. There is also considerable doubt whether this byelaw applies to stock photography.

Several Alamy contributors spoken to by EPUK said that they had been asked to remove images which had been taken from public land or with permission from the National Trust and which they were fully entitled to market themselves.

Want to contact the EPUK Website editor? editor@epuk.org

Comments

the bye law they quote is to cover hawking so they are interpritting the bye laws to cause people to panic.

Comment 1: eric barrett, 16 May 2009, 06:41 PM

Have reposted the link here

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/discuss/72157616719799087/

to try to keep up the pressure.

Steve

Comment 2: Steve, 17 May 2009, 10:01 PM

IF photography of anything on NT property is eventually banned I shall be forced to terminate my NT membership and boycot their shops/catalogues etc as this is unacceptable. If a butterfly alights on a flower growing on NT property and I capture that image, can I only sell it if I edit out the flower?? Ridiculous.

Comment 3: Nicky H, 19 May 2009, 08:50 AM

The National Trust have been a notorious bunch of money grabbing theives for years. As far as rights over landscapes though, would that even stand up in court? Rights over buildings are fairly precarious as I understand so I would have thought the legal case over landscape would be even shakier. As for plants and other material, it just looks unenforcable. How on earth are you going to prove where a picture of a daisy was taken if there are no identifying marks?

Comment 4: Peter D, 25 May 2009, 01:59 PM

_hi
I would just like to say, like every thing ales that rises in popularity as digital photography is really taken off this last year, there seems there are still people out there trying to spoil a great out dore activity by trying to make money out of laws that have never been used or thought of for many years, to earn revenue out of someone misfortune shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment 5: ken Birch, 10 August 2009, 08:20 AM

I was recently taking some photographs of my daughter at East Riddlesden Hall, Keighley, West Yorkshire, for my college portfolio, when a National Trust worker came thundering over to me and demanded to know what the photographs were for. When I explained they were for personal use, he carried on interrogating me to make sure they were not for commercial gain. Does the NT think that people who are taking photographs of family members in unidentifiable areas of their properties are such a commercial risk that they have to upset a seven-year-old child just to protect their dubious rights? My daughter is now reluctant to be photographed on that particular property and reticent at other national landmarks. Shame on you National Trust!

Comment 6: Lisa, 21 November 2009, 06:07 PM

It would not be so bad if the NT were the only organisation guilty of ‘rights grabbing’, but unfortunately they are not!

Pro Imaging are campaigning to stop the unethical business practice of right grabbing that far too many organisations have adopted for photo competitions.

Even if the NT were struggling financially, their attempt to assert their monopoly on photographs taken on National Trust-owned land would still be shamefull, but they are not!

Comment 7: Andrew Newey, 3 May 2010, 09:16 PM

When I was at photographic college (about 12 years ago) I had an architectural brief and asked about using a NT property. I was told that I could take photographs outside but that I wouldn’t be permitted to take shots inside, even though I was able to show a letter from the college stating that it was a required brief.

They offered to sell photos of the interior to me to use. I am forced to conclude that they are just out to grab as much money as they can in any way that they can.

Comment 8: John H. Maw, 5 July 2010, 05:11 PM

Vote with your feet. Since this came about the NT are minus 2 memberships and my wife and I will no longer be purchasing any of their overpriced merchandise either. My images were removed from Alamy despite being taken with NT permission.

As far as I can see, for the NT it’s a lose/lose situation. Their greed has sickened people like me and they will lose out on the publicity from national newspaper shoots, (which I often organised), that helped to provide publicity for them.

Comment 9: John Robertson, 16 August 2010, 06:50 PM

I notice that the National Trust (or maybe that should be National Front – as they seem to want to dictate to people, like modern day n*@@a’) have neither the common decency, or the balls, to reply to this, setting out their position. Or maybe it is just so far beneath them! Until they do no meaningful dialogue can reasonably take place.
Lastly, if I wish to enter a photo of an NT property into a competition or whatever, I AM GOING TO DO SO! Come what may!

Comment 10: William Bates , 4 March 2012, 03:30 AM

Comment on this article

(Your email will not appear on your comment, but we cannot accept your comment without one. We won't give your email address to anyone else)
(You don't need to enter your website address, but if you do, your post will link to it)
 

EPUK reserves the right to edit or delete posts which the moderators feel are irrelevant, offensive, libelous, untrue or just plain nutty; and in extreme cases, to ban those who make them.


EPUK is discussing:

YouTube copyright infringement, what to do Helicopter hire DACS - again The tyre fire you could see from space, by Mark Readman Taylor Swift

What is EPUK?

EPUK is an email group for professional editorial photographers who want to talk business. We don’t do techie stuff or in-crowd gossip. We don’t talk cameras or computers. What we talk about are the nuts and bolts of being in business - like copyright, licensing, fees and insurance.

Donate to EPUK

EPUK is run on a not-for-profit basis, funded solely by advertising, donations and hosting other lists. You can make a donation to EPUK through Paypal here:

Donate Now with PayPal

Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors.