Permission to photograph megalithic monuments?

close
common era C
common era Jul 28, 2009 12:36:49

As some of you know I have recently completed a guide book to the prehistoric monuments of The Peak District for my MA. In the process of contacting publishers etc. I have just received an interesting email from The National Trust (see below).

Now, I am aware that the maps I have created in the book may be too close for comfort to the OS Explorer maps I used to locate the sites. My idea was that the maps in the book should never be used in isolation, but used in conjunction with the OS series and I have always thought that somewhere along the way I would have to change the maps either to use the actual OS maps (expensive) or rework so they don't infringe copyright, but I wasn't aware that including photographs that I took myself of the monuments could also be a problem:

"...The project is very well conceived and designed, although there are a number of concerns that I have about permissions for reuse/sourcing material. This relates to permisson from OS to use their maps as sources and ditto permission from landowners (including the Trust) to take photography on their land and use it for a commercial purpose - ie a book..."

Anyone have any thoughts etc? Anyone run into this kind of stuff before? It's mostly the photography aspect that I am interested in as I know the maps are 'ify' at present!

You can see pics of the book if you need to at the link below. Click on The Prehistoric Peak link:

http://www.andrewjohnstonedesign.co.uk

P.S. It might be worth noting that the vast majority of the sites in the book are located on Access Land where permission to go and see them was not required and where it was on private land I did get verbal permission each time.

M megadread
megadread Jul 28, 2009 12:55:52
Replying to common era

I have no idea about copyright etc Andy but would just like to say i hope you overcome this problem and the book is published.
Silly innit that the NT are about providing access yet in this case where your promoting visiting sites they are the stumbling block.
Best wishes, Geoff.

M moss
moss Jul 28, 2009 13:11:06
Replying to common era

common era wrote:
As some of you know I have recently completed a guide book to the prehistoric monuments of The Peak District for my MA. In the process of contacting publishers etc. I have just received an interesting email from The National Trust (see below).

Now, I am aware that the maps I have created in the book may be too close for comfort to the OS Explorer maps I used to locate the sites. My idea was that the maps in the book should never be used in isolation, but used in conjunction with the OS series and I have always thought that somewhere along the way I would have to change the maps either to use the actual OS maps (expensive) or rework so they don't infringe copyright, but I wasn't aware that including photographs that I took myself of the monuments could also be a problem:

"...The project is very well conceived and designed, although there are a number of concerns that I have about permissions for reuse/sourcing material. This relates to permisson from OS to use their maps as sources and ditto permission from landowners (including the Trust) to take photography on their land and use it for a commercial purpose - ie a book..."

Anyone have any thoughts etc? Anyone run into this kind of stuff before? It's mostly the photography aspect that I am interested in as I know the maps are 'ify' at present!

You can see pics of the book if you need to at the link below. Click on The Prehistoric Peak link:

http://www.andrewjohnstonedesign.co.uk

P.S. It might be worth noting that the vast majority of the sites in the book are located on Access Land where permission to go and see them was not required and where it was on private land I did get verbal permission each time.

Hi CE,

Think you've stumbled into a bit of a problem here, it seems that the NT have set up there own picture gallery, with all that involves, and there are arguments (links soon) about how they can justify 'owning' a photo scene, when anybody else can take the photo as a legitimate visitor to the site... a lawyers discussion would be appropiate on this one. Just ask nicely, it is after all paid for by members of the public...

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-pictures-not-the-nt-not-alamy

H head-first
head-first Jul 28, 2009 13:33:08
Replying to common era

This is very interesting. It's understandable that the OS would assert their copyright on map reproduction, but I find it difficult to believe that the NT has any reasonable cause for complaint. I'm not an expert on copyright, and it's a notoriously complex area, but I don't think ownership of an artifact transfers copyright to the owner. If this were the case, an art gallery would own copyright to all the works in its possession, and a person buying a CD would own the rights to its reproduction.

This leads me to question whether the NT have a case. They may 'own' the sites, but surely the photographer owns the copyright for their photographs. If you take pictures on land owned by an authority but freely accessible to the general public, I don't see how that authority could assert control over your work - assuming that the work is completely benign. (Private land may be a different matter, I don't know).

It might be worth speaking to someone who's published archaeological work in the past. Maybe a local university department? A publisher?

S scubi63
scubi63 Jul 28, 2009 15:47:07
Replying to common era

How does this sit with publishing on TMA?
When I did an 'out of hours' at Stonehenge recently I think I remember a bit on the application form stating that all photo's must be for personal use and not be published anywhere else including websites, without EH's permission. I remember have to supply addition information in a seperate letter!

Also what is to stop people publishing photo's in books abroad and people importing them back in the UK?

S sleeptowin
sleeptowin Jul 28, 2009 15:55:14
Replying to common era

just take pics, and then say they were taken years ago.
and the publish them. and then tell them to sod off.

if you take a picture its yours, simple as that.

A anthonyqkiernan
anthonyqkiernan Jul 28, 2009 15:57:19
Replying to common era

Just a thought: these sites need maintainance and upkeep. One source of revenue for EH is published works eg. postcards. Should you just be allowed profit from your photographs of their sites without a by-your-leave? If you set a camera up in the Louvre expecting to fire off a series of Mona Lisa postcards, would you be surprised to feel a hot hand on your collar?

For 'you' read 'one', of course. (And, "pah, 'maintainance and upkeep' in the same sentence as EH..." is not the right response from anyone.)

R Rhiannon
Rhiannon Jul 28, 2009 16:08:10
Replying to common era

Just because it's NT's policy doesn't mean it'd stand up in court. You'd think the reasonable thing would be to ask for permission and permission would be granted by most landowners. And then you could acknowledge them politely.

I can see that they might forbid you to take photos, that's one thing (albeit fantastically petty). But your photo or drawing or painting or poem or whatever, that's your creative work and you've got copyright on it. As I understand it anyway. They couldn't forbid you to publish and sell a drawing you'd made of stonehenge, surely - that'd be laughable. Surely that wouldn't stand up in court. And a photo is very similar if it's a work of creativity, which it is.

That;s what I reckon anyway.

W wychburyman
wychburyman Jul 28, 2009 16:31:05
Replying to common era

Bastards, I would have thought the European Court of Human Rights would have something to say about it!

That and their charity status should be revoked!

Annoyed of Wychbury

M Moth
Moth Jul 28, 2009 17:02:35
Replying to common era

I suspect the NT & EH are the only ones who might cause you problems. Did you ask it was that emailed you to expand on it?

They might just want their name on it, or if they do want payment it might be a reasonable amount or whatever. Tis shite tho.

F1 racing has the same sorta thing - photos are for private use only, copyright belongs to the lovely Mr Ecclestone's mob....

love

Moth

P Psychostevouk
Psychostevouk Jul 28, 2009 20:33:00
Replying to common era

I was told by an NT staff that they stopped an EH staff from photographing their property from the NT land adjoining it, citing the rules they worked under...... Desperate.

K Kozmik_Ken
Kozmik_Ken Jul 29, 2009 14:09:45
Replying to common era

NT are notorious b***ards when it comes to image copyright. I don't know if this has been mentioned in other posts, but they recently ran a photography competition where submitting an image indicated your consent for NT to own the copyright on it!

If you take an image on NT land, they own the copyright, if you take an image outside of NT land, but looking in on it, they still own the copyright.

It would be interesting to see how they would enforce such conditions.

PS: A month of eh! Easy life!

J Jane
Jane Jul 29, 2009 16:26:52
Replying to common era

The law is clear:

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

So how NT and indeed the motor racing powers-that-be can claim copyright, I do not know.

M mascot
mascot Jul 30, 2009 10:49:20
Replying to common era

Some interesting comments on the NT stance at the site below - an interesting sire that seems to focus on general copyright issues for professional and semi-professional photographers.

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/national-trust-byelaws-in-a-twist

Also link below gives details of the NT's complaints procedure :-)

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-contact_us/w-complaints_procedures.htm

L landells
landells Jul 30, 2009 19:35:11
Replying to common era

This link may help you find some answers and even if it doesn't it still make interesting reading - anyone interested in photography should read it

UK photographers rights - version 2

and the woman who wrote the guide seems more than happy to answer individual questions