What do YOU think about these rules and byelaws and how will they affect you? Join the discussion and have your say 👇👇Next Up UK PHOTOGRAPHY FREEDOMS: th-cam.com/video/dxO0ZC3MhLI/w-d-xo.html
The official Purpose of the National Trust is to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If one defines ‘the nation’ as the state, then the National Trust would potentially have powers over people on National Trust land. But that would be a dictatorship. However, if one recognises the fact that without the people, there is no nation, then the true purpose of the the National Trust is indeed to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the people. And only a slave gives away powers to others in open spaces. Our rights are guaranteed by the fact that they only exist for our benefit. Therefore they haven’t got a leg to stand on if they try to claim rights OVER US, on the basis of any claim of ownership. They are simply custodians. Furthermore, there’s also decades of precedent whereby artists have made pictures on National Trust land without interference. This is as ridiculous as closing footpaths, parks, and other public spaces including beaches, during the so-called pandemic.
Private land that is "open to the public" is classified as a public space. You can film or take photos in any public space, building, shop etc. The only thing the owner can do is ask you to leave. So this makes no sence at all. This is legal nonsence and could be criminal fraud by the National Trust as they have no right or claim to any photos or images taken on their land or of their land by any photographer. Regardless of any other Law. IMO.
As for the £20 fine. If this is enforceble under Bye Laws for "Breaking their rules of no photographs". Then they can only fine you a maximum of £20 regardless of how many photos you took on that given day. This is basic common Law. Else at 120fps you would end up owing millions!!! 😂
The documents you show already state photographs on open access land and pay-for-access spaces are public and therefor are allowed. So this is Legal Nonsence and appears to be a criminal money making scam form the National Trust.
@@steadyeddie639 I think you have hit the nail on the head what they are up to these days includes aspect in the name of the environment against the real environment.
I've been a pro for 35yrs - been in several legal arguments over the years, including being an expert witness for Fuji twice - just because someone or an organisation says 'Legally Binding' doesn't actually make it so since art is so arbitrary in how it is created and who creates it. I might just challenge them on this - Thanks for the info
I'm not sure why you would think legally binding is something that could be challenged because "art is so arbitrary in how it is created and who creates it". That is entirely irrelevant to this case. The only legal things at work here are laws for private land and contract law. Since private landowners can even deny people access to their land entirely, it seems reasonable that they can allow people onto it only on the terms they set. The minute you set foot on National Trust land, for all legal intents and purposes, you agree to and sign a legally binding contract on whatever those terms are. The only thing that can be challenged, then, would be if any of those terms are in conflict with other laws, but as far as I know, UK law states that you cannot even take photos on someone's private property without their prior permission, and so the contractual terms you enter into with the National Trust give you _fewer_ restrictions, not more, than you would otherwise have on private land. What would there be to challenge?
@@hakonsoreide 1 How the art was created. For instance - if I visited a location and drew a picture from memory that was so close to an actual photograph it could not be distinguished from such. Or I took a photograph and changed the art in a computer programme to look like a painting - these are just two examples of arbitrary. 2. the laws in The United Kingdom allow for each and every law to be challenged, or appealed at any level so a decision can therefore be arbitrary or discretionary. 3. You can take pictures on private land,(some environments are excluded, such as military). Their purpose however may not necessarily be legal, (selling them or gaining a pecuniary advantage), but this too can be challenged. The laws surrounding CCTV come in to play here. If I for instance have a CCTV camera pointed at my neighbours house there is little they can do about it. It's a bone fide of contention - ie someone has to legally challenge it for it to become day to day law. There are bye-laws on private land which are also very arbitrary. Most go unchallenged. Drone photography however is another sketchy area. Some of the laws come down to privacy, where intentional and unintentional subjects can be challenged in court. The CAA have also introduced laws concerning aerial photography, controlling the issue of licences, and following up complaints.. Lastly. you state. "The minute you set foot on National Trust land, for all legal intents and purposes, you agree to and sign a legally binding contract" Er no. Hope that helps.
@@nelsonclub7722 Thanks for the thorough clarification. Painting from memory would be an easy one to challenge since the work wasn't done on someone else's private property. Modifying a photo taken on someone's private property to look like a painting afterwards that you sell still means you conducted an activity for the purposes of trade on someone's property (the taking of the photo). Surely, and legally, the end result isn't what matters, it is what you can and can't do on someone else's property and for what purpose? When it comes to CCTV, people still have to follow data protection laws and privacy laws, even if they usually don't, and nothing would probably happen if they didn't. Certainly you can take a photo when on someone else's private land, but surely both your presence on someone's private land and what you do with that picture is something that the landowner could challenge in court if you didn't have permission to do so?
@@nelsonclub7722Thanks for the thorough clarification. I still think the nature of the art is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you do and don't do on someone else's private land and for what purpose: If you paint something from memory, you're not doing the activity on their land, and so that is irrelevant; if you take a photo that you paint from later, or modify to look like a painting, that is relevant since the photo was taken on the property. You naturally can take pictures on private land as much as you like, but my point was the same you make: it's the purpose and use that matters and that can be challenged, as can your presence on someone else's private land since trespassing is also a thing. When it comes to CCTV, video doorbells, etc, you are still required to follow privacy and data protection laws. If you point a CCTV at your neighbours, they have a legal right to know about it, to look at the footage you have of them, and in the final instance, contact the police about invasion of privacy and harassment if they feel that is what it amounts to. In any case, and as you point out, most of the time, these kinds of things go unchallenged and have no legal ramifications for anyone. Now, if you don't call it a contract, which is what I did, and also what the video title calls it, what do you call it?
@@hakonsoreide In so many ways you are correct - but art is such an arbitrary subject - and now with AI even more so - what constitutes a 'photograph' can be challenged - what constitutes AI if I say used 'set extension' or 'autofill'' can be arbitrarily argued - if I 'added' an element to a photograph - its a very grey area hence my initial outlier - of 'legally binding' - and that there is little to no such thing when it comes to the laws of The United Kingdom unless you have signed a contract between each party and that each specific point is made aware in the small or large print of each contract. I doubt English heritage has that in place - it would be a minefield for them if they did this, both legally and for the wider public persona of attracting camera happy tourists. Another aspect is to what constitutes 'Trust Land. If I were to say to take a closeup photograph of a Ladybird on a Daffodil on Trust Land anyone would have a hard time saying that this photogrpah was taken on Trust Land - the only way that this law could be invoked were to be if the Trustee were to examine every memory card before and after a visit!!!! Even more difficult if you use film!!! It's a deterrent and an abhorrent one in my non-legal but with a great deal of experience in these type of cases. but I did ask my sister to clarify - and she is a former barrister!!!! All good - personally I wouldn't bother getting into a legal argument with them - I doubt they would too, but it would make me avoid any such organisation that deters the keen enthusiast and hobbyist/tourist from enjoying the very thing they are supposed to be promoting in the first place. Even Disney doesn't do this and I had a run in with them some years a go - I expect from a legal standpoint it is to stop professionals from exploiting the site commercially. And yet I cannot think of one professional who would even consider doing this without permission. One last thing - a few years ago I was asked by a classic car owner if I could take some pictures of his car and he had a backdrop in mind - being a professional I rang English Heritage and told them what was planned - they wanted £1,700 to use the old dilapidated Stanley Mill for one shot - we chose somewhere else!!!
I was a member of the National trust for a number of years as I thought I was supporting UK Heritage, then I found out what it really is, I cancelled my membership, will never rejoin and am glad someone is showing this and showing the NT for what its really is !
@@tonysutton6559 me to, I do wonder, everyone that leaves comments, seems always think, any any reading there comment, knows everything, in full detail? making why did they leave any comment, not new facts,
I fell foul of the National Trust twice as an amateur photographer. Firstly when using my D810 at a country house, a volunteer said I must be professional because I had an expensive camera. She totally ignored everyone taking photos with their phones. I knew I was wasting my time arguing so just stopped taking photos. The second was at another stately home I visited with friends, one of whom is an attractive lady and another volunteer confronted us and accused her of being a professional model. She's actually a nurse. The volunteer took some convincing that pretty lady + big camera doesn't always mean professional modelling assignment. I wonder if the NT has a training program for their volunteers?
when asked by museums, I dont mind buying a permit if the cost is reasonable. we all benefit from the work they do and it does cost money. However, that sort of rule cannot apply outside buildings. As for the volunteer, she obviously has no idea about those of us who own and use SLR technology.
@@LetsClickPhotography the fact that they make no attempt to apply the rules to all visitors (ie those using smart phone cameras) would probably negate any chance of relying on that legal principle. if 99 % of visitors can film, than how do you apply the same rule to the 1 %. just because they are using an SLR ? Having and using a model, would be one distinguishing reason, but if your model is your partner or friend, ...
as you say --- if you have an expensive pair of boots on, does that make you professional walker ? Did you arrive in an expensive car, must be a professional driver.
This happens to me too because I use a 35mm Minolta, which is fairly professional looking. I was taking photos in a local church once when a warder rushed up to me and told me I couldn't sell any of my photos, lol. It's either that or I get looks of hatred and loathing, for some insane reason.
NT byelaws states, "17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph." So, if you take a photo without the intent/purpose of using it for trade or reward, that's fine, even if you later decide to use it for trade or reward. It's quite clear in the wording; if you didn't intend to use it commercially at the time you took the photograph, you will not have broken the byelaw.
I submit a lot of photographs to stock-photography sites. Most won't touch a photograph with a recognizable building (or person) without a release-form from the building owner or person. Happily, most of my work is now macro.
@@PhilJonesIIIFor editorial use, it's perfectly fine and legal as long as you took it from public land (the odd exception as I'm sure you know). Some agencies specialise in editorial images, and most of my stock media falls into the editorial category.
While taking photos of a well photographed Lake District scene from NT land, I was approached and told by a NT warden that ALL photography using "professional looking cameras" (I was using a Canon 70D on a tripod) was against NT bylaws. However, the NT warden also said that if I stood in the field immediately behind where I was that would be ok as I would not be on NT land. He said he would let me off on that occasion and let me carry on with my photography, but I thought how petty it was as I would have been able to photograph the exact same scene from either location. To be clear I don't sell or publish my photos.
"Let you off". Let you off from what? I've heard of that nonsense occurring in other places, at one time there was a suggestion that using 'professional' cameras in London parks be banned, ostensibly to protect children. The camera a person uses has no bearing on the photographer's purpose.
I use my photography to help with anxiety and depression, so the last thing I was looking for was an argument and confrontation. I knew it was a load of b******s he was spouting and my reaction and response might have been different if he had tried to escalate. But he said his piece and wandered off, no doubt thinking he had asserted his non-existent authority. It has not put me off and I've been back to the same location several times since. I am even a member of the NT. @@grahvis
As a drone flyer who started off when you had to build them yourself, I can understand not flying one over their estate houses but flying one in the open countryside I feel is different. I have DJI Mavic pro that is now hardly used because of all the rules. I once got told by someone on a public beach that i couldn't fly there as this section was his property. Think I'm right in saying the coastline is owned by the crown and not individuals.
This sounds like scaremongering to me. Even if the notice is deemed to establish a contract, if the landowner requests a payment which isn't paid, their only remedy is to prove breach of contract. That's a heavy burden of proof. They need evidence that a particular individual entered their property after passing a legible notice with the by-laws on it, and then took the photos. If you don't admit who it was (even if the EXIF shows it was your camera, they need to show who was using it) and don't tell them what route you took to enter their property, they will find it in most cases unenforceable. Unless they have something like cctv evidence of you entering past a notice and also taking the photos. By the way, I'm not a lawyer - this is just my amateur understanding.
The incidents I mentioned about how and why photographers had received legal letters etc would buy into that. If you admit the ‘crime’ before being accused of it, that requirement to ‘prove’ breach of contract is complete, another reason perhaps why there are no recorded court tests.
@@LetsClickPhotographyThey would also need your name and address, which you shouldn’t be giving out to anyone who asks unless they are the police, work for the courts etc. a random national trust employee can ask until they are blue in the face. You must not give them a fake name, but point out that with identity theft on the rise, you do not give out personal details to anyone and be on your way (obviously off their land at that point). If they do call the police, and the police ask your name and address, (they should accept a refusal unless you’ve been playing silly buggers with respect to staying on the property and are being trespassed) but if you choose to answer the police questions (in my opinion advisable, you want them on your side - other situations are different but in this exact one, I personally would answer the police questions voluntarily) you can ask to speak privately (I.e. out of earshot of the national trust employee) and instruct the police not to pass it on and the police have to respect that.
@@PippetWhippet I don't think the police would be interested as trespass isn't a crime (and it isn't trespass if someone paid an entrance fee or it's open to visitors) and there's also no evidence that the photographs are going to be used commercially. They can only take it to the courts in the case of actually seeing the photo being used in a commercial transaction, such as a publication where it's been paid for, etc, none of which is a police matter.
We built a quay on our coastguards cottage that had a covenant that allowed the NT to charge us a significant sum for permission - which they tried to do - but luckily I checked the deeds found out that they were limited to charging 5 guineas 😂 - and they didn’t pursue it…..
The National Trust (NT) is, as you say, a business. It is a charity and membership organisation which owns land and buildings. Many of the properties were previously owned by monied and powerful families which, having hit hard times financially - and for various other reasons - gifted the properties to the NT. I used to be a member but the NT's approach to allowing photography in their properties and on their land (for me, as an amateur photographer) wasn't acceptable. I'm not sure if it was down to local management or a national 'policy' but I got fed up of the inconsistency of approach and cancelled my membership. Another factor was that, at the time, the NT still allowed hunting on its land. Thankfully hunting, including trail hunting, is now banned. I won't defend the NT for their stance towards COMMERCIAL photography on its land / property but we shouldn't forget that similar rules and restrictions apply elsewhere in the UK. My understanding is that, with few exceptions, as long as a person is standing on PUBLIC property, they can photography anything they want. However, if you want to carry out a commercial photographic shoot on private property, permission should be sought and obtained beforehand and there may be rules imposed and a cost involved. Commercial / professional photographers should also have Public Liability and Professional Indemnity insurance to compensate the land / building owner and/or any visitors to the land / property for any injury, damage or financial loss they might suffer. I don't think it's realistic for anyone to enter what is, in reality, private land / property (NT-owned or otherwise), take photographs and then sell / license them without challenge. The land and buildings owned and managed by the NT may do so 'for the nation' but the land and buildings are not owned BY the nation.
As a professional photographer, I used to buy an annual licence from the Head Office, then Contact the local managers before each shoot. Keep a good relationship with trust staff and they will actively assist with arranging your commercial shoot.
Agreed. As I mentioned in this, have a conversation maybe even a bit of light hearted banter and work with them, you'll be all good (and line item costs for permits are happily passed on to clients, as you know). But that requires the pro's knowledge of the rules and byelaws in advance of course.....a whole different tangent of conversation. On the flip side though taking a photo for personal enjoyment that, with no foresight at the time of shot, you find yourself in a position to sell a single prints of 2 years later (or you gift to a seperate charity for use in a calendar, another instance I read about) is questionable. You've not contravened byelaw 17 at the moment of creation and that's where the byelaw and the NT 'rules' somewhat disconnect.
Under the Photographic access paragraph at 3:10 “Unfortunately it doesn’t include the selling or distributing of images in any way for publication, electronically or print, so using the images in this way would be a breach of the National Trust’s policies and bylaws”.
@@christianpetersen1782 That’is the disconnect between ‘rules’ and ‘law’. The ‘law’ states that it can only be broken whilst on trust land, not something that you can do retrospectively without intent at the time. The rules might be clear in that respect but are not enforceable under that byelaw and therefor, at most a civil matter with a highly unlikely retrospective trespass claim. However a trespass claim is not going to deal with print sales and so in lies the ambiguity - and the likely reason why a court case has never been brought.
They also own any image they may take of you and they can use it for commercial purposes without informing you. Big fuss some years back about a woman who was surprised to see her photo in a NT ad on the side of a bus.
Thanks for a clear and concise explanation - I have been previously misinformed over some of these issues, especially the lower stratum over a property/public building. I am a member of the NT and respect their regulations, even though they can be restricting in photographic and drone coverage terms. However, there are many more members of the public who are far more misinformed and try to pass off their preferences as 'law' to prevent the legal (and moral) freedoms of photography.
You should do a professional drone course for drone pilots (or at least study CAP 722, which overrides the law you quoted), so long as the remote pilot is NOT on National Trust land, they can generally film anything on the National Trust property that they want (respecting minimum distances, which can be quite close). I generally launch my drone from an adjacent property and then fly over the National Trust; the CAA's rules apply to drones, and the National Trust has no jurisdiction to narrow the freedoms that the CAA allow. The laws you quoted do not restrict drone pilots. Contact "Pigs Can Fly", which is a commercial drone training organisation; the founders are actual Police Drone Pilots, and I came second top in their class!
After many years as NT members we are not renewing this year because of so many changes and their attitude. At some properties you have to book a time slot! Everywhere you go they are in your face for more money.
It’s become more noticeable at many ‘day out’ venues over the last couple of years. Some NT properties we visit have started placing a desk beside the exit door to the home. A ‘sales person’ approaches customers individually as they try to leave to ask them to purchase draw tickets…
Just watched this one and your last Dave, and I've got to say I had absolutely no idea about these laws! It's food for thought, especially when it comes to doing sponsered product reviews. I've been a National Trust member for years (and done volunteer work) - I reckon we should get some rights included in the membership! 😆
Perhaps we should lobby them the next time the board vote is up! I actually got pulled by one of their volunteers whilst running a small, but clearly noticable, workshop last year.....I said 'it's ok, I'm a member'.....but it didn't wash haha.
As a drone pilot I find it extremely unfair and frustrating that there is no access to some of the most interesting and beautiful places in the country. There should be some way for amateur or semi professional drone pilots/photographers to get access even if it was a limited booking process and further drone qualifications or insurance was required. But just to ban outright seems very small minded.
A really informative follow up to the previous video, Dave. I wanted to wait until I returned from holiday so I could give this one my full attention. Great research and interesting to read the comments on this one too.
Thanks mate. Apologies for the delayed reply but tbh I stopped looking at the comments for a few days - far too mentally exhausting haha. Hope you had a good holiday, looking forward to some 'out and about' vids.
@LetsClickPhotography These last two videos have definitely hit the spot, well done. I have more video footage than I know what to do with at the moment and I have a product review to do for the tog channel.
Thanks for a really good breakdown of some of these less than obvious "rules". My concern is that so many of these "wardens", volunteers and assorted unofficial policers of society often do not properly understand the rules they purport to enfoce, and usually have a very shallow understanding of the rules or the actual laws. So often we meet people in all walks of life whose gaps in their knowledge are filled in with imaginary conflations that seem to them to sound reasonable so, to them at least, become facts despite being based in fiction. It a neseccary human failing to want to have authority over our fellow beings, but those who are given that authority need to be carefully chosen, and properly schooled, so as to prevent inappropriate overreach. The example of the guy taking a family photograph of an attractive lady being accused of being a professional photographer because he has a nice camera and the lady as being "obviously" a professional model perfectly illustrates my point. The saying that "Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools" is quite appropriate in so many day to day affairs.
Happy to have discovered your channel. Very informative videos, especially regarding the laws surrounding photography. I appreciate the research you’ve put in to these and provision of evidence. I only wish the police, security and members of the public had a better understanding. Subscribed.
Good video save that I don't agree the Byelaws form a contract with visitors as there is no consideration. As for aerial photogrpahs, see Berstein v Skyviews 1978
@@familyhelpdeskhelpdesk270 - If it is completely integral, then you may have a point, however, technically, it is still considered a payload and the purpose of the aerial vehicle is to take the camera to a location for it to capture footage. Even with a completely integral camera, you may have difficulty in using that argument in court.
I fly an aircraft. We must remain 500ft from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure (except for the purposes of taking off or landing). National Trust properties are not marked as such on aviation charts. Thus, I would have no way of knowing that I am overflying such a property, and, assuming that the area is clear of vehicles, vessels, people, and structures, I could be perfectly legal in being quite close to the surface and taking photographs (I have a camera mounted to my aircraft which is always running and, I could be carrying a passenger who is equipped with their own camera). As I have not been informed by one of their bylaw signs of any conditions to which I must abide when entering their land, I would find them hard-pressed to make any demands of me pertaining to my flight or what I may do with any resultant images.
@@Snoozzzzzze - That's not strictly true. Commercial operators can obtain permissions to go above 400ft AGL. However, the reasoning for drones being subject to these bylaws is supposedly because they are below 400ft. I may not be flying a drone, but I can legally fly below 400ft (under the conditions I stated) which puts me in the same arena as a drone.
I'm frequently asked if I sell the images I take & process. Generally, I don't take shots with the intention to sell prints, or whatever, but if asked I will obviously oblige. This would seemingly give me a get-out-of-jail-free card on 2 fronts: 1) When I take a photo my intention is not to profit from it... 2) I don't ever part with a raw file, but might with a processed image which has been materially modified from that file.
The trust may make these laws up, however, the person who takes the photo owns it, you can argue that the regs they would like to enforce are not clearly marked, there for, not binding. If the tracks are a public right of way, or they are rupps, they cannot stop any vehicle or horse etc from using them as its a right of way and public land and that would also apply to photography, any photo can be used commercially from public land. In other words, they dont have much of an argument, as any contract must be clear and made to both or all parties, not just the land owner
@@hakonsoreide it would depend on whos land it is. If it belongs to the NT, it would still be very difficult for them to stop or charge, but technically speaking they would have a claim, its likely however that it would not be in the financial interest to pursue. The big sticking point would be if its inside a NT building If they are taken from someone else's land, NT have no claim whatsoever Its the same with drones, if they are operated from private land not belonging to the NT or a public track, again, their is no comeback, unless its at a public event where there are spectators/guests and the police have the powers to take them downs in the way they see fit
Would be interested to know if other big organisations such as English Heritage have similar bylaws, there’s a lot of English Heritage properties in my area
The footpath is a Right of Way, which means you may use it to pass from place to place, but the title of the land is held by the National Trust. The rules are therefore the same, as if you had been admitted to the estate as a paying or otherwise guest of the NT. A court looks at reasonableness, so you cannot on a public right of way on land not permitted for fires cause a fire for any purpose, so the same would apply on photographs intended for commercial use.
I'm 75 and had membership of the NT for many of those years, except spells of living abroad. I have never, ever been challenged by anyone, even the most jobsworthy of volunteers (and I have met many of those!). The NT quite rightly expects to have the right to sell photographs of property that it owns and does not take kindly to anyone in competition with it, but as far as taking your own personal photos is concerned, it is not the slightest bit interested. I think this is whipping up a problem that really does not exist except in exceptional circumstances!
Have you considered the definition of a "conveyance" - Under Section 12 of TA 1968, conveyance refers to transporting a person, or group of people by land, water or air by vehicle for personal use, or the use of another. Pedal bikes and animals such as horses do not qualify as a conveyance as they are not constructed or adapted in a way that may become one. This seems to imply that to be in breach of the bylaw one would have to drive or ride in or on the conveyance, something which a drone is not designed for.
I cancelled my NT family membership forever after they insisted on charging my disabled, 90 year old mother in law a full entry fee for Clumber Park to sit in our car and read a newspaper whilst waiting for us while we walked our dogs. She was staying with us for a while whilst convalescing from an accident and she couldn’t walk. The car was parked on the verge alongside the public road and not in the actual gated area. I wrote to head office about this, assuming it was an error by the attendant on the day, but they wouldn’t back down. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.
Hi L C P, thank you so much for doing this so clearly and sensibly, I do think that the underscore issue is that it is not the tasking of pictures or filming that is prohibited it is the commercial publication of images, this of course does not cover any images or footage taken from outside the property of objects within the curtilage. Cheers, Richard.
I'm fine with the inside ones being treat like this but the outside ones, and per image charges. Show it as predatory money making. Honestly i would suggest most wedding photographers stay clear.
Thank you for this. It's very hard not to be made angry by their weaselly tactics and discriminatory money-grabbing policies when a lot of that land was gifted to them with the intent that it be preserved and accessible to everyone - not 'everyone except those who want to film it'. A depressing video, but a valuable one for the clarity it provides.
At the end of the day mate, it is their land and property, hence their rules, I have taken photos and shot video at NT property for years (for personal use) and have never had a problem, English Heritage? - That's another story, do-able but not easy. If you enter into dialogue with them it generally clears the way.
It really helps to have a camera that doesn’t _look_ like a professional camera. You and I know someone with a black magic pocket/cinema camera is likely doing professional work, but they don’t look pro, meanwhile someone with a 40d and a battery grip is likely an amateur but their camera looks like a professional camera. If you really don’t want to take out a smaller camera, some electrical tape binding parts of it to make it look like it’s falling apart works wonders. Also applies in areas with a risk of being mugged, if your camera looks like it’s falling apart, it’s far less likely to make you a target.
Pond5 recently removed most (but not all) of my video clips (about 50) which were filmed on the Gower Peninsula here in south Wales. Although much of the Gower Peninsula is owned by the National Trust, all my clips are of open-access land, and none are taken using drones. The National Trust's website states: "Those who wish to take views of our open-access land, such as landscapes and coastlines, for editorial publication or photographic competitions are free to do so." Does this mean, therefore, that it is okay to take photos and video clips of open-access land owned by the National Trust, and submit them to stock agencies, providing they are sold as Editorial only? (My photos of Gower landscapes, for example, are still for sale on Alamy.)
Alamy did the same a few years back, I think around 2016 with a mass deletion. Then seemed to start accepting them back almost straight away. As far as I’m aware the NT have always taken this up directly with the stock agencies rather than the individual. Despite the end use being editorial, the sale in the middle may technically be commercial but they’d probably tackle Alamy again in the long run and need to prove location rights. However, I guess you’d have to make your own judgement call on the interpretation - you can find more info on NT open access land rights via the government data website here: www.data.gov.uk/dataset/171dcad3-ed21-4afe-966d-e3f255987d57/national-trust-open-data-land-always-open
Regarding overflight, there is a 1979 test case, where repeated overflight of a helicopter was breach of the land owners right to "enjoy" the property (not privacy). It was mostly regarding the disturbing noise of the helicopter, though photography WAS being done of the property below. So flying a drone over a publicly accessible place, is generally always legal, unless you are taking pictures of nude people - against privacy/decency laws. If your drone does fail & land/crash on NT property, you do have the right to recover it - it's your property, and the NT keeping hold of it (confiscating it, or not allowing it's return/recovery) would be theft, technically. So yes, you can fly a sub 250g drone pretty much all over NT land & properties, as long as you take of & land from a place you are allowed to, eg not NT property, including NT roads.
Would that not stand to reinforce the link to the NT byelaw though, in respect of a disturbance? There are of course differing levels which would be a further consideration. For instance if I fly my mini 2 at ceiling height then I can't hear it, but at 150 feet I can. (For the sake of discussion let's remove the environmental factors wind noise, environment noise, people actually being present etc and the burden of proof being with the NT.) At that 150 feet point it's creating a disturbance, which could be deemed an infringement of enjoyment. This particular test case sounds like it may well back that up, especially if hovering over a particular area for a period of time, and that would be a breach of the byelaw, therefor not legal. I'm not trying to argue against drones btw, just purely a discussion about the facts surrounding the NT ban, the byelaw and whether it holds water as a legal restriction. How they would even attempt to enforce it of course is a mystery......something tells me that this is in place more as a 'no liability defence' in case of a crash down.
Well, no, the judgement specifically said it was *repeated* intrusion - on different days, that was the issue - and said that a single flight was not significant, eg the owner wouldn't change their plans for their use of the garden based on a single flight.
@@Dom-De From what you are describing it sounds like that judgment was in a case between two individuals. But if someone were to take the National Trust to court the case would not simply be about whether that individual violated the Trust's right to enjoy the property but would initially rest of the legality of the bylaw. That would need to be deemed unlawful before it becomes a dispute over the specific instance(s). And the Trust would not doubt argue that if the bylaw did not exist then people would regularly fly drones on it's property. So it would claim the bylaw is the only way it can protect itself from a repeated intrusion. So I do not share you belief this is settled case law.
With regard to Nt , I imagine time of day impact the possibility of a case, if there's no one there, then who's enjoyment is affected? If the place is open then I can understand that
7:10. There was a court case many years ago which went to appeal when a land owner objected to an estate agent using a helicopter/plane to take photos of a house for sale, the landowner claimed the helicopter/plane was invading their privacy, the case was rejected and iirc the outcome was the appeal court rules that as long as someone doing this remains 50m from the property, they’re not invading privacy. I can’t remember the case details but it was back in the 60’s and 70’s and remains case law until today. The 50m bit is a funny as general aviation must stay 500 foot away from houses, building, vessels etc. but the is no definition of 500 foot it just says distance, not altitude, so you could hover 20 feet off the deck 500 feet away from a building and be within the law.
I would have thought that taking and distributing photos of their property would give the NT free publicity and attract more visitors, and as a result more revenue. Going after photographers for short term gains is biting the hand that feeds them.
I’m going to have to watch the video again at a better time of day, and not when I’ve just got back from watching a midweek football match 🤣🤣 some really interesting points once again, and as I’m only ever likely to take photos for personal enjoyment when on NT property (ahem 😁) I shouldn’t come unstuck. And I don’t intend to ever fly a drone. Cheers again Dave.
@@LetsClickPhotography I’m a big Pompey supporter, not to reveal that I’m ancient but have been since 1972! Mum & Dad are in a care home down here, so if there’s a match when I’m visiting I like to try & get along to have a watch. Looking good for promotion this year at last too.
This contract sounds fairly normal for any landowner. We as members normally just visit, photograph, enjoy the National Trust (NT) from paying a fee. We would not expect to make money from a private landowner whilst being on their land, surely you can see this is very wrong when on NT property too. Politeness at least to ask permission and accept owners answer.
If the conditions are posted beyond the point where access to where the conditions can be read implies acceptance then the conditions aren't enforceable as you've technically entered into a contract before you even know what that contract is. And what if you enter the land via a route that doesn't have that sign?
Very interesting, thank you. I know of an unrelated "Charitable Trust", that is run by a certain group of people, that happily impose their will in the rest of a small community. There's no democracy and corruption and hypocrisy is rife... There's a lot of power in these private charitable trusts, that can potentially be captured and used against ordinary people, at any point in the future. I find it quite troublesome.
The statutory definition of “public place” contained within the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 at section 1(4) states it 'includes any highway and any other premises of place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise'
So if a painter paints a picture perfect painting of a landscape of a section of land and then sells it will that be ok? Or a foreigner that photographs some landscape photos ,what are they gonna do,track them down and enforce a rule abroad. Photographs are what draws people to places. In turn bring money towards the economy. You gotta take the good with the bad, regardless of what it is, but so much restriction is offputting. It’s kind of sad that everybody wants a dollar for what everybody else does. If you want a photograph of the land, get out and take it yourself. Don’t bitch and complain If someone puts in the time to take a photograph of something that’s out on public display.(something that can be seen with the naked eye including aerial).(not physically, trespassing) what’s the harm. A photograph is an extend view of something that you can see with your eyes. And it shows others what they may not be able to see in person or didn’t know about . People pay for the art of the photo of the land or object not the actual property in which the picture is about ,that is the difference. Commercial set ups I get it there could be damage to property and that I see needing a permit ,because it’s more than just one person or two people with a camera. If you can’t take a picture without damaging property you shouldn’t be taking a picture. Every photo will be different. So you’re really not taking anything but your perspective of the scene(your art) .
It's important to say IF YOU ARE NOT A COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHER you can take your photographs, process them, print them and upload them without worrying about the NT's restrictions which apply to commercial photographers.
So are Google Earth breaking NT rules/bylaws, by publishing via the WWW, images of NT property? I was aware of the drone rules, but this is a great video with some stuff I was not aware of. Thanks for the heads up.
You only have to follow the bylaws when you're on or above National Trust land. You can take photos of National Trust land from outside the land, consequence-free.
Oddly, where I live in Cumbria a lot of land is NT owned but it is crossed by roads owned and maintained by the local council, so you can stand on the road and take photos
In regards to drone usage on National Trust land, that bylaw is no longer used by NT to prevent unauthorised drones on their land. One basic tenet of bylaws is that they must not infringe on any legislation already in place. The airspace is governed by many statutes. The issue of how much airspace a landowner ‘owns’ has never been tested but Skyways v Bernstein is one precedent which lands in favour of a low flying pilot, but again, o mention of height. In any case that would be a civil matter.
Thanks. I have an image of a NT notice board from Tarn Hows in the LDNP that I took about 18 months ago (I've seen it knocking about various noticeboards during the last few years). It states the byelaws in the banning of drones but is dated 2017. Considering that byelaws only come into force once entered onto their land, one presumes this would be in relation to TOAL from their land, rather than attempting to overide airspace legislation? Taken in conjunction with the CAA Open category guidance 'Drone operators need to consider any other restrictions and legitimate interests of statutory bodies such as Local Authorities, many of which have established local byelaws. These byelaws often restrict the take-off/landing of drones from council land.' would suggest that in terms of TOAL they would still be enforceable......that said I cannot see the byelaw link on their website. But yes 'rules' rather than byelaws are definitely a civil matter
@LetsClickPhotography Agreed. TOAL is still not permissible as that requires land owner permission. NT used to say that flying was not permitted, citing the bylaw. The bylaw was from the 1950s, so I always felt it would be unenforceable, and NT no longer reference it, so they now agree.
@@InTheFootstepsofHeroes Thanks for the input, my thoughts entirely on how enforcable some of these byelaws are - the one recent court case I could find was heard in Northern Ireland in relation to the Hawking byelaw and commercial coastline fishing, the NT lost.
If I remember correctly the National trust used to say it was our national trust as members we were joining with them to protect the country's heritage. Now after we have supported them for decade's it's theirs. We'll they won't get a penny more from me
@@mikeysteamI'm ok with you trying, of course what a court would say is another matter, the NT hasn't even attempted to test it's byelaw in court for a good reason, the threat is better than a case being thrown out.
@@user-sl4ct6lv1k oh I wouldn't bother doing that myself! No, if a drone is causing a nuisance then someone would probably just go and return the nuisance back, I imagine.
I think you need to look at this from the other side. If you allowed someone to visit your house and garden, wouldn't you want to be have some degree of control over what they took photographs of, particularly when they intended to sell them for profit and when it was you who had met the cost of developing and maintaining the property? Wouldn't you want a share of that profit? I know that I would! In general, I've found both the NT and NTS to be very good at accommodating amateur photographers (like myself) as long as you respect their property and their right to manage it, and don't get confrontational if ever challenged.
Sorry, but that is a silly argument. Anyone who comes to my home and garden, at least, is invited or allowed. I do not sell them any ticket, yet alone an extortionately priced one. I offer them refreshments free of charge and I do not expect to flog them overpriced gifts as part of their experience. Nor do I try to sell them membership before they are barely though the door, encourage them to buy a guide, expect them to pay extra to plug in to hear me tell them about the place, or pay to park their car outside my property. If NT do not want people taking photos in the houses and other buildings that is fair, but limiting how people can use a picture of a view is like me saying someone cannot stand on the road in my village and take a picture because it might include my home. Should Google Earth and Street view pay us every time someone views one of their images with our private properties on it? NT are now a woke excuse of a charity who will bleed people of their last pennies given half a chance and quite frankly are not deserving of anyone’s money. They are certainly not a fit custodian of our national heritage and if they are that financially hard up they only have themselves to blame.
@@Bemusedbeyondbeliefbet you don't allow a 'drag' hunt and pack of hounds in your garden, possibly infected with tuberculosis, let them 💩 every where, and ride away either. While making everyone else keep dogs on leads and clean up after themselves either....
At this time you can photograph anything you can see from a public area, so if I wanted to stand outside your garden and photograph your house, there isn't anything legally to stop me. I can even publish those photographs to a webpage for editorial purposes e.g. public interest, or storytelling etc..
From a business perspective it would make better sense to actually encourage people to come and take photos. As so many people pursue photography as a hobby/pastime the NT are cutting out a big income stream from visitors. Entry tickets are not cheap and customers would feel they are getting more value if they could take photos. I like so many others dont visit NT properties because I can't take photos. But no the NT feel by barring people they are financially better off. Or is there a reason we are not being told? Either way it's bonkers.
Thanks for doing this video - have to admit wasn't fully aware of the rules, by laws and conversely didn't take these into account, interest what NT can or cannot do if you on public land ( e.g., not NT land ) use a telephoto shot of an object that resides on their land like Bird of Prey, Castle, Lighthouse, Barn, etc
Seems to me to be a bit of a non-story. For an organisation that relies on a self financing model, all forms of income have to be explored. For the vast majority of people visiting NT sites, this won’t be an issue. It is strange that people want our heritage and countryside to be protected but don’t offer a way for that protection to be financed. Money certainly won’t come from any government department. Everyone wants everything cheaper and cheaper yet never thinks about the costs involved providing a service or in this case protection of a heritage site. I’m not an NT member and even disagree with some of their policies, but don’t see a problem here. I would guess the income from professional photo permits is not that significant but still money that could help maintain a beautiful site? Imagine a country without the National Trust.
I worked with the National "dis-trust" as they are known, rebuilding a beach cafe I Studland. FOUR long years, forcing them to do it properly. I despise them, for good reason.
The camera was around way before 'The National Trust' lol.. 6:33 They make this info at odds with a similar court test case, 'Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] QB 479' Also, just to note, byelaws can only be derived from the primary legislation that is already in place to control an issue as I see it. Byelaws can't be above the primary legislation. Certain barristers have discovered this with many byelaws thus making them unenforcable (ultra vires).
Not photography but just illustrates what the NT are about. My wife wanted to be a room steward at a property near us. When she applied and heard her accent, they refused her there and then. Obviously not posh enough even though her knowledge was far greater than theirs.
Thank you so much for this is exactly what we need. I am not out to annoy anyone but if the fine goes up, then i may get worried. Presumably what you are alluding to is that it would be civil matter, and therefore the would need someone to pursue. If they dont have details then that going to be pretty hard. The 500ft is a bit of a concern. Does that mean all those photography TH-cam are on the lake District making money from their channel are all in breach of the bylaw??? They post pics of the lake District for commercial download all the time. Thanks from a pro photographer in Kent .
As far as TH-cam is concerned, not necessarily, it depends on the end goal. You Tube is difficult to place as it could be described as editorial or educational, factual and journalistic, as well as commercial. Personally I wouldn't stand next to a NT byelaws sign and film myself advertising that well known photography website provider, easily provable as a paid for commercial piece of film. The burden of proof resides with the NT though and I guess that's why there aren't any court tests. Those photographers who I could find reports of receiving letters have basically 'admitted' where they were and what they were doing in advance of coming to the NT's attention. All the best.
Their problem is that these are private company byelaws. They do not trump national law which permits photographic images to be taken in public and be used for any purpose. The lake district is public under the current law. They would have to start civil proceedings. As law currently stands they would probably fail and set a pressident.
I was curious and looked up the CAA 1982 Regs and sec 76 makes no reference to the lower stratum of air space? Have I missed something? I am interested because there are “auditors” on here who seem to think they can overfly private property with their drone regardless of the owners wishes.
Hi there, I just came across your video. I have a youtube channel, recently focussed on walks in nature. In your opinion would the NT deem any footage shot on their land, that as commercial usage if I were to put the footage on my channel and subsequently my channel then reaches the YPP threshold to be monetised?
Was the National Trust legally allowed to set its own bylaws? What governs a legal person's ability to set bylaws? What's the difference between bylaws and the conditions of access when I buy a ticket to enter?
I can accept that if I pay and entrance fee to somewhere, including my membership, I agree to the terms and conditions of entry and that may well include what I can do with my photos. But if I am strolling along a public right of way and take photos then where's the Contract that I'm supposed to be bound by? Has this archaic bye-law, targeted at photographers in the 1960s from offering to sell people their photographs, actually been tested in a case that has reached a Court? I've not heard of one. Instead the National Trust use bully tactics and threats to stop people selling images. And they, and others, go after the Stock Sites and POD sites where they know that the owners aren't going to put up a fight as there are plenty more images they can make money from. For me, all the NT do is persuade me that I'm only going to pay the minimum annual membership fee (senior rate) and not a penny more.
Easy way around this 👌🏼 legally speaking, if you gift a friend or family member that hasn't been on national trust property, the copyright to the image, they could then sell said image(s) and not be in breach of the bylaws, and because you the photographer gifted the image rights away, you are by law not using that image for commercial gain. Then if that friend or family member was kind enough to 'donate' a percentage of the money from them images, everyone's a winner, and fuck the national trust 👌🏼
We have some of the same type of rules here in the states. I no longer visit those areas anymore. They are wrong imo. Permits nope. Take me to court. National distrust. Here we have stupid drone rules. Post a video on youtube you need a pilots liscense? They say it is commercial? I do not make money on my flying. Sub 250gm. I give up on drones because of new rules they dream up on the fly.
So, if I were an artist (using oil paints as opposed to a camera) and I set up my easel on NT land and created a painting that I later sold, that would be ok? What if I photographed that painting and sold prints of the painting, still ok? And what if I took a photograph and later at home created a painting from one of those photographs? Not expecting an explanation, just pondering how absurd their bylaws are!
None of this is new, and anyone familiar with both the NT and the law has known this all along. The NT have an unhealthy attitude to image rights. There has been a controversy for many decades, because anyone entering a NT photo competition is giving the NT full permission to use their photos in a commercial way without their permission or payment. Rights are all one way with the NT. However, it is a matter of application. As noted in the video, the NT primarily take action against anyone, who tags the NT on their photo, either on social media, or picture libraries. So the answer is, never tag the NT on any of your photos. The NT are very contradictory over rights and permissions, as was shown with the NT giving fox hunts permission to "trail hunt" on their land, and blatantly ignoring the fact, that trail hunting, was a dubious contrivance and cover, for illegal fox hunting. The NT ignore the evidence and I crossed swords with them on Twitter about this. Only when the Zoom footage was leaked, and masters of the hunt were exposed as using trail hunting as cover for illegal fox hunting, did the NT take action, because prior to this, they just took the hunt's word for it, and ignored all the footage of them illegally hunting. Revealing that the NT is very biased when it comes to rights. It acts very much like the worst type of private landowner. Also, as noted in the video, the NT own a large proportion of the Lake District National Park, probably the most photographed landscape in the world. I very much doubt that unless carrying out a commission, most well known landscape photographers, have been getting NT permits, not least of all, because in the Lake District, it is very difficult to tell on whose land you are standing. In other words, vast amounts of landscape photographs must have been sold and traded, without the knowledge of the NT, for the best part of a 100 years. One thing not dealt with in the video unless I missed it, are public rights of way, where the legal position is quite different to CRoW Access Land, as there are not the same restrictions, as you are not entering into any sort of permissive legal contract with the land-owner when you use them. NT land is criss-crossed with public rights of way.
Public Rights of Way crossing NT land is an interesting one. I believe there are rules saying what you can and cannot do on a PROW. It wouldn't surprise me if doing something like photography is excluded.
@@mrsp3992- My knowledge of this, is that there are no clear rules, only case precedent, where particular instances have been ruled on by courts. Without being any sort of legal expert on this, I believe a lot of these rulings have been a bit contradictory. Least of all, because these matters rarely get to a level in the courts, where there are higher court rulings on these matters. It has to be remembered, that as far as taking photographs on a public right of way, that their legal status is the same as a road or footpath by a road. Whilst nowadays we tend to think of a road, or tarmacked pavement, as quite different to say a public footpath etc, in reality their legal status is the same. If you go back to the middle of the 19th Century, you see that OS maps of the time, made no distinction between roads and public rights of way. Indeed, there was no real difference, as most roads were little more than dirt tracks. My understanding of this, is you have the same rights as regards photography, as in any public place, in that you can photograph anyone, anything, or private property, and that the public right of way, is regarded as a public place.
Thanks for the excellent comment. I read a letter from the NT to a photographer a few years back in which they basically stated 'you can do what you want on PROW......but we're not telling you where they are on our land'. It was written slightly more high brow than that, but that was the definite 'between the lines' take away.
Speaking as a National Trust life member, and a photographer who has sold images, it seems reasonbale to charge a commercial photog for a license who is making revenue off the back of National Trust property, just as film companies are charged a fee for making a movie.
It doesn't strike me that the NT is being unreasonable here. Certainly, regarding the drones, if I go off to the countryside for a walk the last thing I want is one of those things buzzing overhead.
I'm the same with dogs, but you can't escape them. Thankfully drones don't leave sh1t everywhere, don't bite or kill people, and don't need shouting by the owners who can't control them.
The concept that you are bound by a contract that is written on a sign in a place has been extensively tested by operators of private car parking. The general outcome of all of these cases has been that a sign board has to be clearly legible to be legally valid. The National Trust's so-called bylaws would fail this test.
Private land that is "open to the public" is classified as a public space. You can film or take photos in any public space, building, shop etc. The only thing the owner can do is ask you to leave. So this makes no sence at all. This is legal nonsence and could be criminal fraud by the National Trust as they have no right or claim to any photos or images taken on their land or of their land by any photographer. Regardless of any other Law. IMO.
Bernstein vs Skyviews sets the precedent for flying above land in the lower stratum. As long as you are not impinging on the land owners lawful use and enjoyment, then you are okay (assuming no other legal restrictions). National Trust has no control if you take off from public land. If you read the act that enables their bylaws, it does not extend to the air (despite what they claim). You can, however, get into bother if you are disturbing protected nature (nesting birds, etc.). So a ground risk assessment is absolutely necessary before you do fly over the NT land. And if you have a good search, you should find the workaround for getting past their commercial photography ban.
T national trust will purchase coastal Land, an from my experience do no maintenance to stop it falling into-sea, an there is a part near me, that starts at edge of Port Leven in Cornwall, where a road used to go to centre of village, an when saw it recently there-was a fence with a diversion to walk or cycle. Then they have these public access roads that they ar happy to take your membership money for, which ar createred, Like anothr of their roads on Lizard peninsula, to Looe barr. Then some of their pathways ar so narrow, they ar danerous, only wide enough for dolls feet, an some of their pathways ar ok, where, they have something over areas that often ar quagmires, whiLe others they ignore, an some occasions have slanted paths that ar dangerous instead of flat, an some of their up an down paths, there will be bramble on 1 side, an barbed wire on other, so nowhere to hold onto.!!!!! Some paths have awkward opening gates an things to climb over, an some cases, every few feet.!!!!! There is a shared bridleway on Lizard in Cornwall with farms, an they have allowed them to make perhaps 2 foot deep trenches with tractors, an they fill with water.!!!!! This is reason i am no a member of t national trust.!!!!!..
Well, that's a sod! I don't think I've inadvertently flouted these rules as I'm only an occasional professional and most of my photos are for my non-monetary architectural and landscape history blog. It's horrible for those that rely on them for a living though. I did think at one time to add some photos to the NT stock, until I looked into their usage of photographer's rights, so I didn't.
Wainwright created those well before the CRoW Act was introduced (and before the NT owned much of that land) which was the piece of legislation I was reading from.....so at a guess no.
@@LetsClickPhotography my point was would he have been affected as things are now under current conditions? Or to put it differently. If I go out now making notes and hand drawing maps could I have legal problems?
@@waerlogauk ah I see what you mean now. Well Wainwright having already created such pieces should give reason to suggest a historic public right upon the land. But that piece of legislation does go to suggest that in this time, with no historical reference to give guidance, potentially there may have been issues with the publication side of things. Although I’m sure that would be sorted out easily enough as it would (at worst) be a civil matter of trespass - and lots of nuances or caveats to proceeding with that.
After many years of membership I realised that I did not agree with the management and directorate operated. The procedures used for elections did not seem right!
It's a pretty common thread amongst drone operators that once you're off the ground, no land owners have any rights. But they do, as granted in that CAA Act. Having those rights and being able to implement them are two seperate things though. Even with the best notice in the world, at worst a flyover would be trespass which is a civil matter and not one easily followed up on. Throw obstruction, disruption or intimidation into the hat however and that could be in the realm of aggrevated trespass. That is a criminal matter and the police could attend and arrest. TBH it's a mess, the NT are smart in that they've tied their ban into their byelaws - at least in relation to TOAL - making it easier to 'enforce' (although in this day and age doubtful they could get the police to attend).
@@Velo-Rides the byelaw bit does yes. From my understanding the byelaws can only apply to TOAL. Launch and land ‘off-land’ would be a civil matter at best and very difficult to enforce or prove, unless the pilot makes it into aggravated trespass as mentioned above
What do YOU think about these rules and byelaws and how will they affect you? Join the discussion and have your say 👇👇Next Up UK PHOTOGRAPHY FREEDOMS: th-cam.com/video/dxO0ZC3MhLI/w-d-xo.html
The official Purpose of the National Trust is
to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If one defines ‘the nation’ as the state, then the National Trust would potentially have powers over people on National Trust land. But that would be a dictatorship.
However, if one recognises the fact that without the people, there is no nation, then the true purpose of the the National Trust is indeed to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the people.
And only a slave gives away powers to others in open spaces.
Our rights are guaranteed by the fact that they only exist for our benefit. Therefore they haven’t got a leg to stand on if they try to claim rights OVER US, on the basis of any claim of ownership. They are simply custodians.
Furthermore, there’s also decades of precedent whereby artists have made pictures on National Trust land without interference. This is as ridiculous as closing footpaths, parks, and other public spaces including beaches, during the so-called pandemic.
Private land that is "open to the public" is classified as a public space. You can film or take photos in any public space, building, shop etc. The only thing the owner can do is ask you to leave. So this makes no sence at all. This is legal nonsence and could be criminal fraud by the National Trust as they have no right or claim to any photos or images taken on their land or of their land by any photographer. Regardless of any other Law. IMO.
If the National Trust tried this scam on me I would challenge them in Court.
As for the £20 fine. If this is enforceble under Bye Laws for "Breaking their rules of no photographs". Then they can only fine you a maximum of £20 regardless of how many photos you took on that given day. This is basic common Law. Else at 120fps you would end up owing millions!!! 😂
The documents you show already state photographs on open access land and pay-for-access spaces are public and therefor are allowed. So this is Legal Nonsence and appears to be a criminal money making scam form the National Trust.
I've been living my 56yrs oblivious to these rules 🤔 I will continue living my life not giving these rules another thought. 👍🏻
haha fair enough :)
They may not want us to record the changing landscapes...
@@steadyeddie639They don't have any issue with that unless you do it commercially.
@@steadyeddie639 I think you have hit the nail on the head what they are up to these days includes aspect in the name of the environment against the real environment.
I've been a pro for 35yrs - been in several legal arguments over the years, including being an expert witness for Fuji twice - just because someone or an organisation says 'Legally Binding' doesn't actually make it so since art is so arbitrary in how it is created and who creates it. I might just challenge them on this - Thanks for the info
I'm not sure why you would think legally binding is something that could be challenged because "art is so arbitrary in how it is created and who creates it". That is entirely irrelevant to this case.
The only legal things at work here are laws for private land and contract law. Since private landowners can even deny people access to their land entirely, it seems reasonable that they can allow people onto it only on the terms they set. The minute you set foot on National Trust land, for all legal intents and purposes, you agree to and sign a legally binding contract on whatever those terms are.
The only thing that can be challenged, then, would be if any of those terms are in conflict with other laws, but as far as I know, UK law states that you cannot even take photos on someone's private property without their prior permission, and so the contractual terms you enter into with the National Trust give you _fewer_ restrictions, not more, than you would otherwise have on private land.
What would there be to challenge?
@@hakonsoreide 1 How the art was created.
For instance - if I visited a location and drew a picture from memory that was so close to an actual photograph it could not be distinguished from such. Or I took a photograph and changed the art in a computer programme to look like a painting - these are just two examples of arbitrary.
2. the laws in The United Kingdom allow for each and every law to be challenged, or appealed at any level so a decision can therefore be arbitrary or discretionary.
3. You can take pictures on private land,(some environments are excluded, such as military). Their purpose however may not necessarily be legal, (selling them or gaining a pecuniary advantage), but this too can be challenged. The laws surrounding CCTV come in to play here. If I for instance have a CCTV camera pointed at my neighbours house there is little they can do about it. It's a bone fide of contention - ie someone has to legally challenge it for it to become day to day law.
There are bye-laws on private land which are also very arbitrary. Most go unchallenged.
Drone photography however is another sketchy area. Some of the laws come down to privacy, where intentional and unintentional subjects can be challenged in court.
The CAA have also introduced laws concerning aerial photography, controlling the issue of licences, and following up complaints..
Lastly. you state.
"The minute you set foot on National Trust land, for all legal intents and purposes, you agree to and sign a legally binding contract"
Er no.
Hope that helps.
@@nelsonclub7722
Thanks for the thorough clarification.
Painting from memory would be an easy one to challenge since the work wasn't done on someone else's private property. Modifying a photo taken on someone's private property to look like a painting afterwards that you sell still means you conducted an activity for the purposes of trade on someone's property (the taking of the photo).
Surely, and legally, the end result isn't what matters, it is what you can and can't do on someone else's property and for what purpose?
When it comes to CCTV, people still have to follow data protection laws and privacy laws, even if they usually don't, and nothing would probably happen if they didn't.
Certainly you can take a photo when on someone else's private land, but surely both your presence on someone's private land and what you do with that picture is something that the landowner could challenge in court if you didn't have permission to do so?
@@nelsonclub7722Thanks for the thorough clarification.
I still think the nature of the art is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you do and don't do on someone else's private land and for what purpose: If you paint something from memory, you're not doing the activity on their land, and so that is irrelevant; if you take a photo that you paint from later, or modify to look like a painting, that is relevant since the photo was taken on the property.
You naturally can take pictures on private land as much as you like, but my point was the same you make: it's the purpose and use that matters and that can be challenged, as can your presence on someone else's private land since trespassing is also a thing.
When it comes to CCTV, video doorbells, etc, you are still required to follow privacy and data protection laws. If you point a CCTV at your neighbours, they have a legal right to know about it, to look at the footage you have of them, and in the final instance, contact the police about invasion of privacy and harassment if they feel that is what it amounts to.
In any case, and as you point out, most of the time, these kinds of things go unchallenged and have no legal ramifications for anyone.
Now, if you don't call it a contract, which is what I did, and also what the video title calls it, what do you call it?
@@hakonsoreide In so many ways you are correct - but art is such an arbitrary subject - and now with AI even more so - what constitutes a 'photograph' can be challenged - what constitutes AI if I say used 'set extension' or 'autofill'' can be arbitrarily argued - if I 'added' an element to a photograph - its a very grey area hence my initial outlier - of 'legally binding' - and that there is little to no such thing when it comes to the laws of The United Kingdom unless you have signed a contract between each party and that each specific point is made aware in the small or large print of each contract. I doubt English heritage has that in place - it would be a minefield for them if they did this, both legally and for the wider public persona of attracting camera happy tourists. Another aspect is to what constitutes 'Trust Land. If I were to say to take a closeup photograph of a Ladybird on a Daffodil on Trust Land anyone would have a hard time saying that this photogrpah was taken on Trust Land - the only way that this law could be invoked were to be if the Trustee were to examine every memory card before and after a visit!!!! Even more difficult if you use film!!! It's a deterrent and an abhorrent one in my non-legal but with a great deal of experience in these type of cases. but I did ask my sister to clarify - and she is a former barrister!!!! All good - personally I wouldn't bother getting into a legal argument with them - I doubt they would too, but it would make me avoid any such organisation that deters the keen enthusiast and hobbyist/tourist from enjoying the very thing they are supposed to be promoting in the first place. Even Disney doesn't do this and I had a run in with them some years a go - I expect from a legal standpoint it is to stop professionals from exploiting the site commercially. And yet I cannot think of one professional who would even consider doing this without permission. One last thing - a few years ago I was asked by a classic car owner if I could take some pictures of his car and he had a backdrop in mind - being a professional I rang English Heritage and told them what was planned - they wanted £1,700 to use the old dilapidated Stanley Mill for one shot - we chose somewhere else!!!
I was a member of the National trust for a number of years as I thought I was supporting UK Heritage, then I found out what it really is, I cancelled my membership, will never rejoin and am glad someone is showing this and showing the NT for what its really is !
Many years ago I spent four months working for a well-known UK charity.
You are not wrong.
Maybe you should have stayed and changed it from the inside, but again life is too short for this and I don't blame you for leaving
What is it really?
@@tonysutton6559Good question.
@@tonysutton6559 me to, I do wonder, everyone that leaves comments, seems always think, any any reading there comment, knows everything, in full detail? making why did they leave any comment, not new facts,
Since the NT acts like a private company in so many ways, I would remove its charitable status.
they are a business -- but they have managed to pull off the biggest con ever.
it shouldnt --- same as the majority of so called charities .
All charities are private companies.
@@composedlight6850 Why is it a con?
All charities are buinesses. If their costs exceed their income they go bust.
I fell foul of the National Trust twice as an amateur photographer. Firstly when using my D810 at a country house, a volunteer said I must be professional because I had an expensive camera. She totally ignored everyone taking photos with their phones. I knew I was wasting my time arguing so just stopped taking photos. The second was at another stately home I visited with friends, one of whom is an attractive lady and another volunteer confronted us and accused her of being a professional model. She's actually a nurse. The volunteer took some convincing that pretty lady + big camera doesn't always mean professional modelling assignment. I wonder if the NT has a training program for their volunteers?
when asked by museums, I dont mind buying a permit if the cost is reasonable. we all benefit from the work they do and it does cost money. However, that sort of rule cannot apply outside buildings. As for the volunteer, she obviously has no idea about those of us who own and use SLR technology.
@@LetsClickPhotography the fact that they make no attempt to apply the rules to all visitors (ie those using smart phone cameras) would probably negate any chance of relying on that legal principle. if 99 % of visitors can film, than how do you apply the same rule to the 1 %. just because they are using an SLR ? Having and using a model, would be one distinguishing reason, but if your model is your partner or friend, ...
as you say --- if you have an expensive pair of boots on, does that make you professional walker ? Did you arrive in an expensive car, must be a professional driver.
This happens to me too because I use a 35mm Minolta, which is fairly professional looking. I was taking photos in a local church once when a warder rushed up to me and told me I couldn't sell any of my photos, lol. It's either that or I get looks of hatred and loathing, for some insane reason.
I would have asked them to prove I was a professional.
NT byelaws states, "17. No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph."
So, if you take a photo without the intent/purpose of using it for trade or reward, that's fine, even if you later decide to use it for trade or reward. It's quite clear in the wording; if you didn't intend to use it commercially at the time you took the photograph, you will not have broken the byelaw.
I submit a lot of photographs to stock-photography sites. Most won't touch a photograph with a recognizable building (or person) without a release-form from the building owner or person.
Happily, most of my work is now macro.
@@PhilJonesIIIFor editorial use, it's perfectly fine and legal as long as you took it from public land (the odd exception as I'm sure you know). Some agencies specialise in editorial images, and most of my stock media falls into the editorial category.
Pretty weak argument that no court would fall for. Try again!
So thats not buidings or people as all are recognisable and the law has to be applied evenly to all. @@PhilJonesIII
While taking photos of a well photographed Lake District scene from NT land, I was approached and told by a NT warden that ALL photography using "professional looking cameras" (I was using a Canon 70D on a tripod) was against NT bylaws. However, the NT warden also said that if I stood in the field immediately behind where I was that would be ok as I would not be on NT land. He said he would let me off on that occasion and let me carry on with my photography, but I thought how petty it was as I would have been able to photograph the exact same scene from either location. To be clear I don't sell or publish my photos.
"Let you off". Let you off from what? I've heard of that nonsense occurring in other places, at one time there was a suggestion that using 'professional' cameras in London parks be banned, ostensibly to protect children. The camera a person uses has no bearing on the photographer's purpose.
I use my photography to help with anxiety and depression, so the last thing I was looking for was an argument and confrontation. I knew it was a load of b******s he was spouting and my reaction and response might have been different if he had tried to escalate. But he said his piece and wandered off, no doubt thinking he had asserted his non-existent authority. It has not put me off and I've been back to the same location several times since. I am even a member of the NT. @@grahvis
You should have just told him to fuck off and ignored the stupid bastard, because that what I’d have done!
As a drone flyer who started off when you had to build them yourself, I can understand not flying one over their estate houses but flying one in the open countryside I feel is different. I have DJI Mavic pro that is now hardly used because of all the rules.
I once got told by someone on a public beach that i couldn't fly there as this section was his property. Think I'm right in saying the coastline is owned by the crown and not individuals.
This sounds like scaremongering to me. Even if the notice is deemed to establish a contract, if the landowner requests a payment which isn't paid, their only remedy is to prove breach of contract. That's a heavy burden of proof. They need evidence that a particular individual entered their property after passing a legible notice with the by-laws on it, and then took the photos. If you don't admit who it was (even if the EXIF shows it was your camera, they need to show who was using it) and don't tell them what route you took to enter their property, they will find it in most cases unenforceable. Unless they have something like cctv evidence of you entering past a notice and also taking the photos.
By the way, I'm not a lawyer - this is just my amateur understanding.
The incidents I mentioned about how and why photographers had received legal letters etc would buy into that. If you admit the ‘crime’ before being accused of it, that requirement to ‘prove’ breach of contract is complete, another reason perhaps why there are no recorded court tests.
@@LetsClickPhotographyThey would also need your name and address, which you shouldn’t be giving out to anyone who asks unless they are the police, work for the courts etc. a random national trust employee can ask until they are blue in the face. You must not give them a fake name, but point out that with identity theft on the rise, you do not give out personal details to anyone and be on your way (obviously off their land at that point). If they do call the police, and the police ask your name and address, (they should accept a refusal unless you’ve been playing silly buggers with respect to staying on the property and are being trespassed) but if you choose to answer the police questions (in my opinion advisable, you want them on your side - other situations are different but in this exact one, I personally would answer the police questions voluntarily) you can ask to speak privately (I.e. out of earshot of the national trust employee) and instruct the police not to pass it on and the police have to respect that.
@@PippetWhippetThe police don't have to keep secrets. That would be ridiculous.
@@PippetWhippet I don't think the police would be interested as trespass isn't a crime (and it isn't trespass if someone paid an entrance fee or it's open to visitors) and there's also no evidence that the photographs are going to be used commercially. They can only take it to the courts in the case of actually seeing the photo being used in a commercial transaction, such as a publication where it's been paid for, etc, none of which is a police matter.
We built a quay on our coastguards cottage that had a covenant that allowed the NT to charge us a significant sum for permission - which they tried to do - but luckily I checked the deeds found out that they were limited to charging 5 guineas 😂 - and they didn’t pursue it…..
Is that equal to 5 guinea pigs in value?
We are in a complete F***ng mess in this country. Everything needs a complete reset.
The National Trust (NT) is, as you say, a business. It is a charity and membership organisation which owns land and buildings. Many of the properties were previously owned by monied and powerful families which, having hit hard times financially - and for various other reasons - gifted the properties to the NT. I used to be a member but the NT's approach to allowing photography in their properties and on their land (for me, as an amateur photographer) wasn't acceptable. I'm not sure if it was down to local management or a national 'policy' but I got fed up of the inconsistency of approach and cancelled my membership. Another factor was that, at the time, the NT still allowed hunting on its land. Thankfully hunting, including trail hunting, is now banned. I won't defend the NT for their stance towards COMMERCIAL photography on its land / property but we shouldn't forget that similar rules and restrictions apply elsewhere in the UK. My understanding is that, with few exceptions, as long as a person is standing on PUBLIC property, they can photography anything they want. However, if you want to carry out a commercial photographic shoot on private property, permission should be sought and obtained beforehand and there may be rules imposed and a cost involved. Commercial / professional photographers should also have Public Liability and Professional Indemnity insurance to compensate the land / building owner and/or any visitors to the land / property for any injury, damage or financial loss they might suffer. I don't think it's realistic for anyone to enter what is, in reality, private land / property (NT-owned or otherwise), take photographs and then sell / license them without challenge. The land and buildings owned and managed by the NT may do so 'for the nation' but the land and buildings are not owned BY the nation.
As a professional photographer, I used to buy an annual licence from the Head Office, then Contact the local managers before each shoot. Keep a good relationship with trust staff and they will actively assist with arranging your commercial shoot.
Agreed. As I mentioned in this, have a conversation maybe even a bit of light hearted banter and work with them, you'll be all good (and line item costs for permits are happily passed on to clients, as you know). But that requires the pro's knowledge of the rules and byelaws in advance of course.....a whole different tangent of conversation.
On the flip side though taking a photo for personal enjoyment that, with no foresight at the time of shot, you find yourself in a position to sell a single prints of 2 years later (or you gift to a seperate charity for use in a calendar, another instance I read about) is questionable. You've not contravened byelaw 17 at the moment of creation and that's where the byelaw and the NT 'rules' somewhat disconnect.
Under the Photographic access paragraph at 3:10 “Unfortunately it doesn’t include the selling or distributing of images in any way for publication, electronically or print, so using the images in this way would be a breach of the National Trust’s policies and bylaws”.
@@christianpetersen1782 That’is the disconnect between ‘rules’ and ‘law’. The ‘law’ states that it can only be broken whilst on trust land, not something that you can do retrospectively without intent at the time. The rules might be clear in that respect but are not enforceable under that byelaw and therefor, at most a civil matter with a highly unlikely retrospective trespass claim. However a trespass claim is not going to deal with print sales and so in lies the ambiguity - and the likely reason why a court case has never been brought.
They also own any image they may take of you and they can use it for commercial purposes without informing you. Big fuss some years back about a woman who was surprised to see her photo in a NT ad on the side of a bus.
@@cliveadams7629 I'm pretty sure the NT do the whole image consent forms these days, I was asked to sign one once.
Well researched Dave. Great information. We have similar things happening here (USA) with the National Park Service. - Michelle
Thanks for a clear and concise explanation - I have been previously misinformed over some of these issues, especially the lower stratum over a property/public building. I am a member of the NT and respect their regulations, even though they can be restricting in photographic and drone coverage terms. However, there are many more members of the public who are far more misinformed and try to pass off their preferences as 'law' to prevent the legal (and moral) freedoms of photography.
You should do a professional drone course for drone pilots (or at least study CAP 722, which overrides the law you quoted), so long as the remote pilot is NOT on National Trust land, they can generally film anything on the National Trust property that they want (respecting minimum distances, which can be quite close). I generally launch my drone from an adjacent property and then fly over the National Trust; the CAA's rules apply to drones, and the National Trust has no jurisdiction to narrow the freedoms that the CAA allow. The laws you quoted do not restrict drone pilots. Contact "Pigs Can Fly", which is a commercial drone training organisation; the founders are actual Police Drone Pilots, and I came second top in their class!
Bang goes my support of national trust...
After many years as NT members we are not renewing this year because of so many changes and their attitude. At some properties you have to book a time slot! Everywhere you go they are in your face for more money.
It’s become more noticeable at many ‘day out’ venues over the last couple of years. Some NT properties we visit have started placing a desk beside the exit door to the home. A ‘sales person’ approaches customers individually as they try to leave to ask them to purchase draw tickets…
welcome to the club -- The National Trust is interested in one thing only --- Money
How else can that finance building and land maintenance?
Just watched this one and your last Dave, and I've got to say I had absolutely no idea about these laws! It's food for thought, especially when it comes to doing sponsered product reviews. I've been a National Trust member for years (and done volunteer work) - I reckon we should get some rights included in the membership! 😆
Perhaps we should lobby them the next time the board vote is up! I actually got pulled by one of their volunteers whilst running a small, but clearly noticable, workshop last year.....I said 'it's ok, I'm a member'.....but it didn't wash haha.
As a drone pilot I find it extremely unfair and frustrating that there is no access to some of the most interesting and beautiful places in the country. There should be some way for amateur or semi professional drone pilots/photographers to get access even if it was a limited booking process and further drone qualifications or insurance was required. But just to ban outright seems very small minded.
A really informative follow up to the previous video, Dave. I wanted to wait until I returned from holiday so I could give this one my full attention. Great research and interesting to read the comments on this one too.
Thanks mate. Apologies for the delayed reply but tbh I stopped looking at the comments for a few days - far too mentally exhausting haha. Hope you had a good holiday, looking forward to some 'out and about' vids.
@LetsClickPhotography These last two videos have definitely hit the spot, well done. I have more video footage than I know what to do with at the moment and I have a product review to do for the tog channel.
Thanks for a really good breakdown of some of these less than obvious "rules". My concern is that so many of these "wardens", volunteers and assorted unofficial policers of society often do not properly understand the rules they purport to enfoce, and usually have a very shallow understanding of the rules or the actual laws. So often we meet people in all walks of life whose gaps in their knowledge are filled in with imaginary conflations that seem to them to sound reasonable so, to them at least, become facts despite being based in fiction.
It a neseccary human failing to want to have authority over our fellow beings, but those who are given that authority need to be carefully chosen, and properly schooled, so as to prevent inappropriate overreach. The example of the guy taking a family photograph of an attractive lady being accused of being a professional photographer because he has a nice camera and the lady as being "obviously" a professional model perfectly illustrates my point. The saying that "Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools" is quite appropriate in so many day to day affairs.
If you happen to get fined just offer "these were AI generated images..." 😃
😂😂😂 good shout
Happy to have discovered your channel. Very informative videos, especially regarding the laws surrounding photography. I appreciate the research you’ve put in to these and provision of evidence. I only wish the police, security and members of the public had a better understanding. Subscribed.
Good video save that I don't agree the Byelaws form a contract with visitors as there is no consideration.
As for aerial photogrpahs, see Berstein v Skyviews 1978
A conveyance is something that moves or transports something, so hard to see ow it would apply to a drone.
Agreed.
If you are using a drone for photography, it is transporting a camera, making it an aerial conveyance by that definition.
@@halfrhovsquaredI would argue that it is not conveying if the camera is built in to the drone.
@@familyhelpdeskhelpdesk270 - If it is completely integral, then you may have a point, however, technically, it is still considered a payload and the purpose of the aerial vehicle is to take the camera to a location for it to capture footage.
Even with a completely integral camera, you may have difficulty in using that argument in court.
I fly an aircraft. We must remain 500ft from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure (except for the purposes of taking off or landing).
National Trust properties are not marked as such on aviation charts.
Thus, I would have no way of knowing that I am overflying such a property, and, assuming that the area is clear of vehicles, vessels, people, and structures, I could be perfectly legal in being quite close to the surface and taking photographs (I have a camera mounted to my aircraft which is always running and, I could be carrying a passenger who is equipped with their own camera).
As I have not been informed by one of their bylaw signs of any conditions to which I must abide when entering their land, I would find them hard-pressed to make any demands of me pertaining to my flight or what I may do with any resultant images.
You aren’t a drone and the 500 foot rule was covered in the video hence no drones as they are limited to 400’
@@Snoozzzzzze - That's not strictly true. Commercial operators can obtain permissions to go above 400ft AGL.
However, the reasoning for drones being subject to these bylaws is supposedly because they are below 400ft. I may not be flying a drone, but I can legally fly below 400ft (under the conditions I stated) which puts me in the same arena as a drone.
I'm frequently asked if I sell the images I take & process.
Generally, I don't take shots with the intention to sell prints, or whatever, but if asked I will obviously oblige.
This would seemingly give me a get-out-of-jail-free card on 2 fronts:
1) When I take a photo my intention is not to profit from it...
2) I don't ever part with a raw file, but might with a processed image which has been materially modified from that file.
The trust may make these laws up, however, the person who takes the photo owns it, you can argue that the regs they would like to enforce are not clearly marked, there for, not binding.
If the tracks are a public right of way, or they are rupps, they cannot stop any vehicle or horse etc from using them as its a right of way and public land and that would also apply to photography, any photo can be used commercially from public land.
In other words, they dont have much of an argument, as any contract must be clear and made to both or all parties, not just the land owner
Good points. What if the photos are not taken from a track, though, in which case it is no longer public land?
@@hakonsoreide it would depend on whos land it is.
If it belongs to the NT, it would still be very difficult for them to stop or charge, but technically speaking they would have a claim, its likely however that it would not be in the financial interest to pursue.
The big sticking point would be if its inside a NT building
If they are taken from someone else's land, NT have no claim whatsoever
Its the same with drones, if they are operated from private land not belonging to the NT or a public track, again, their is no comeback, unless its at a public event where there are spectators/guests and the police have the powers to take them downs in the way they see fit
Would be interested to know if other big organisations such as English Heritage have similar bylaws, there’s a lot of English Heritage properties in my area
Looks like no restrictions at all.
I believe that EH is a Statutory Body.
What happens if you use a public footpath through their land , you cannot put restrictions on a footpath .
The footpath is a Right of Way, which means you may use it to pass from place to place, but the title of the land is held by the National Trust. The rules are therefore the same, as if you had been admitted to the estate as a paying or otherwise guest of the NT. A court looks at reasonableness, so you cannot on a public right of way on land not permitted for fires cause a fire for any purpose, so the same would apply on photographs intended for commercial use.
If it a public foot path its a public footpath and the NTcan not stop you walking along such. @@svensimpson4130
They have no claim against it what so ever
They may not want us to record the changing landscapes...
They want money to do it
So publish and if they take it that far pay the £20?
Thank you for shedding such a clear light on these draconian laws.
I'm 75 and had membership of the NT for many of those years, except spells of living abroad. I have never, ever been challenged by anyone, even the most jobsworthy of volunteers (and I have met many of those!). The NT quite rightly expects to have the right to sell photographs of property that it owns and does not take kindly to anyone in competition with it, but as far as taking your own personal photos is concerned, it is not the slightest bit interested. I think this is whipping up a problem that really does not exist except in exceptional circumstances!
Have you considered the definition of a "conveyance" - Under Section 12 of TA 1968, conveyance refers to transporting a person, or group of people by land, water or air by vehicle for personal use, or the use of another. Pedal bikes and animals such as horses do not qualify as a conveyance as they are not constructed or adapted in a way that may become one. This seems to imply that to be in breach of the bylaw one would have to drive or ride in or on the conveyance, something which a drone is not designed for.
I cancelled my NT family membership forever after they insisted on charging my disabled, 90 year old mother in law a full entry fee for Clumber Park to sit in our car and read a newspaper whilst waiting for us while we walked our dogs. She was staying with us for a while whilst convalescing from an accident and she couldn’t walk. The car was parked on the verge alongside the public road and not in the actual gated area. I wrote to head office about this, assuming it was an error by the attendant on the day, but they wouldn’t back down. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.
Hi L C P, thank you so much for doing this so clearly and sensibly, I do think that the underscore issue is that it is not the tasking of pictures or filming that is prohibited it is the commercial publication of images, this of course does not cover any images or footage taken from outside the property of objects within the curtilage.
Cheers, Richard.
A spot on summarisation Richard, thanks
I'm fine with the inside ones being treat like this but the outside ones, and per image charges. Show it as predatory money making.
Honestly i would suggest most wedding photographers stay clear.
Thank you for this. It's very hard not to be made angry by their weaselly tactics and discriminatory money-grabbing policies when a lot of that land was gifted to them with the intent that it be preserved and accessible to everyone - not 'everyone except those who want to film it'. A depressing video, but a valuable one for the clarity it provides.
At the end of the day mate, it is their land and property, hence their rules, I have taken photos and shot video at NT property for years (for personal use) and have never had a problem, English Heritage? - That's another story, do-able but not easy. If you enter into dialogue with them it generally clears the way.
Agreed, a bit of gentle banter and a polite demeanour go a long way
It really helps to have a camera that doesn’t _look_ like a professional camera. You and I know someone with a black magic pocket/cinema camera is likely doing professional work, but they don’t look pro, meanwhile someone with a 40d and a battery grip is likely an amateur but their camera looks like a professional camera.
If you really don’t want to take out a smaller camera, some electrical tape binding parts of it to make it look like it’s falling apart works wonders. Also applies in areas with a risk of being mugged, if your camera looks like it’s falling apart, it’s far less likely to make you a target.
I'm Australian and I've had problems with NT, but never English Heritage. So go figure.
@@Design_no If you are Australian then of course things are upside down for you.
Pond5 recently removed most (but not all) of my video clips (about 50) which were filmed on the Gower Peninsula here in south Wales.
Although much of the Gower Peninsula is owned by the National Trust, all my clips are of open-access land, and none are taken using drones. The National Trust's website states: "Those who wish to take views of our open-access land, such as landscapes and coastlines, for editorial publication or photographic competitions are free to do so."
Does this mean, therefore, that it is okay to take photos and video clips of open-access land owned by the National Trust, and submit them to stock agencies, providing they are sold as Editorial only? (My photos of Gower landscapes, for example, are still for sale on Alamy.)
Alamy did the same a few years back, I think around 2016 with a mass deletion. Then seemed to start accepting them back almost straight away.
As far as I’m aware the NT have always taken this up directly with the stock agencies rather than the individual.
Despite the end use being editorial, the sale in the middle may technically be commercial but they’d probably tackle Alamy again in the long run and need to prove location rights.
However, I guess you’d have to make your own judgement call on the interpretation - you can find more info on NT open access land rights via the government data website here: www.data.gov.uk/dataset/171dcad3-ed21-4afe-966d-e3f255987d57/national-trust-open-data-land-always-open
Regarding overflight, there is a 1979 test case, where repeated overflight of a helicopter was breach of the land owners right to "enjoy" the property (not privacy). It was mostly regarding the disturbing noise of the helicopter, though photography WAS being done of the property below.
So flying a drone over a publicly accessible place, is generally always legal, unless you are taking pictures of nude people - against privacy/decency laws.
If your drone does fail & land/crash on NT property, you do have the right to recover it - it's your property, and the NT keeping hold of it (confiscating it, or not allowing it's return/recovery) would be theft, technically.
So yes, you can fly a sub 250g drone pretty much all over NT land & properties, as long as you take of & land from a place you are allowed to, eg not NT property, including NT roads.
Would that not stand to reinforce the link to the NT byelaw though, in respect of a disturbance? There are of course differing levels which would be a further consideration. For instance if I fly my mini 2 at ceiling height then I can't hear it, but at 150 feet I can.
(For the sake of discussion let's remove the environmental factors wind noise, environment noise, people actually being present etc and the burden of proof being with the NT.)
At that 150 feet point it's creating a disturbance, which could be deemed an infringement of enjoyment. This particular test case sounds like it may well back that up, especially if hovering over a particular area for a period of time, and that would be a breach of the byelaw, therefor not legal.
I'm not trying to argue against drones btw, just purely a discussion about the facts surrounding the NT ban, the byelaw and whether it holds water as a legal restriction. How they would even attempt to enforce it of course is a mystery......something tells me that this is in place more as a 'no liability defence' in case of a crash down.
Well, no, the judgement specifically said it was *repeated* intrusion - on different days, that was the issue - and said that a single flight was not significant, eg the owner wouldn't change their plans for their use of the garden based on a single flight.
@@Dom-De From what you are describing it sounds like that judgment was in a case between two individuals. But if someone were to take the National Trust to court the case would not simply be about whether that individual violated the Trust's right to enjoy the property but would initially rest of the legality of the bylaw. That would need to be deemed unlawful before it becomes a dispute over the specific instance(s). And the Trust would not doubt argue that if the bylaw did not exist then people would regularly fly drones on it's property. So it would claim the bylaw is the only way it can protect itself from a repeated intrusion. So I do not share you belief this is settled case law.
Sounds a very weak argument from someone who thinks they can do whatever they like. What gives you the right over other people's wishes?
With regard to Nt , I imagine time of day impact the possibility of a case, if there's no one there, then who's enjoyment is affected? If the place is open then I can understand that
7:10. There was a court case many years ago which went to appeal when a land owner objected to an estate agent using a helicopter/plane to take photos of a house for sale, the landowner claimed the helicopter/plane was invading their privacy, the case was rejected and iirc the outcome was the appeal court rules that as long as someone doing this remains 50m from the property, they’re not invading privacy. I can’t remember the case details but it was back in the 60’s and 70’s and remains case law until today.
The 50m bit is a funny as general aviation must stay 500 foot away from houses, building, vessels etc. but the is no definition of 500 foot it just says distance, not altitude, so you could hover 20 feet off the deck 500 feet away from a building and be within the law.
I am an occasional visitor to the lakes and absolutely refuse to pay their exorbitant charges for parking.
I would have thought that taking and distributing photos of their property would give the NT free publicity and attract more visitors, and as a result more revenue. Going after photographers for short term gains is biting the hand that feeds them.
I’m going to have to watch the video again at a better time of day, and not when I’ve just got back from watching a midweek football match 🤣🤣 some really interesting points once again, and as I’m only ever likely to take photos for personal enjoyment when on NT property (ahem 😁) I shouldn’t come unstuck. And I don’t intend to ever fly a drone. Cheers again Dave.
Hey Martin, yes absolutely me too.....personal enjoyment only ;) Go on then, big reveal, who do you support??!! :)
@@LetsClickPhotography I’m a big Pompey supporter, not to reveal that I’m ancient but have been since 1972! Mum & Dad are in a care home down here, so if there’s a match when I’m visiting I like to try & get along to have a watch. Looking good for promotion this year at last too.
This contract sounds fairly normal for any landowner. We as members normally just visit, photograph, enjoy the National Trust (NT) from paying a fee. We would not expect to make money from a private landowner whilst being on their land, surely you can see this is very wrong when on NT property too. Politeness at least to ask permission and accept owners answer.
If the conditions are posted beyond the point where access to where the conditions can be read implies acceptance then the conditions aren't enforceable as you've technically entered into a contract before you even know what that contract is. And what if you enter the land via a route that doesn't have that sign?
I see it as a fake charity protecting the interests of landowners first!
this is so useful, spent years in the peaks so mental to hear this! thank you :D
Which peaks?
Not been from Britain, I still can't understand how you can have private ownership in a National Park, 🤔
Wonderfully clearly put. Although I am not a photographer, I am sharing this with friends and FB groups.
Very interesting, thank you.
I know of an unrelated "Charitable Trust", that is run by a certain group of people, that happily impose their will in the rest of a small community. There's no democracy and corruption and hypocrisy is rife...
There's a lot of power in these private charitable trusts, that can potentially be captured and used against ordinary people, at any point in the future. I find it quite troublesome.
Sounds like the canal and river trust.
The statutory definition of “public place” contained within the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 at section 1(4) states it 'includes any highway and any other premises of place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise'
So if a painter paints a picture perfect painting of a landscape of a section of land and then sells it will that be ok? Or a foreigner that photographs some landscape photos ,what are they gonna do,track them down and enforce a rule abroad. Photographs are what draws people to places. In turn bring money towards the economy. You gotta take the good with the bad, regardless of what it is, but so much restriction is offputting. It’s kind of sad that everybody wants a dollar for what everybody else does. If you want a photograph of the land, get out and take it yourself. Don’t bitch and complain If someone puts in the time to take a photograph of something that’s out on public display.(something that can be seen with the naked eye including aerial).(not physically, trespassing) what’s the harm. A photograph is an extend view of something that you can see with your eyes. And it shows others what they may not be able to see in person or didn’t know about . People pay for the art of the photo of the land or object not the actual property in which the picture is about ,that is the difference. Commercial set ups I get it there could be damage to property and that I see needing a permit ,because it’s more than just one person or two people with a camera. If you can’t take a picture without damaging property you shouldn’t be taking a picture. Every photo will be different. So you’re really not taking anything but your perspective of the scene(your art) .
It's important to say IF YOU ARE NOT A COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHER you can take your photographs, process them, print them and upload them without worrying about the NT's restrictions which apply to commercial photographers.
So are Google Earth breaking NT rules/bylaws, by publishing via the WWW, images of NT property? I was aware of the drone rules, but this is a great video with some stuff I was not aware of. Thanks for the heads up.
You only have to follow the bylaws when you're on or above National Trust land. You can take photos of National Trust land from outside the land, consequence-free.
Oddly, where I live in Cumbria a lot of land is NT owned but it is crossed by roads owned and maintained by the local council, so you can stand on the road and take photos
In regards to drone usage on National Trust land, that bylaw is no longer used by NT to prevent unauthorised drones on their land. One basic tenet of bylaws is that they must not infringe on any legislation already in place. The airspace is governed by many statutes.
The issue of how much airspace a landowner ‘owns’ has never been tested but Skyways v Bernstein is one precedent which lands in favour of a low flying pilot, but again, o mention of height. In any case that would be a civil matter.
Thanks. I have an image of a NT notice board from Tarn Hows in the LDNP that I took about 18 months ago (I've seen it knocking about various noticeboards during the last few years). It states the byelaws in the banning of drones but is dated 2017. Considering that byelaws only come into force once entered onto their land, one presumes this would be in relation to TOAL from their land, rather than attempting to overide airspace legislation?
Taken in conjunction with the CAA Open category guidance 'Drone operators need to consider any other restrictions and legitimate interests of statutory bodies such as Local Authorities, many of which have established local byelaws. These byelaws often restrict the take-off/landing of drones from council land.' would suggest that in terms of TOAL they would still be enforceable......that said I cannot see the byelaw link on their website.
But yes 'rules' rather than byelaws are definitely a civil matter
@LetsClickPhotography Agreed. TOAL is still not permissible as that requires land owner permission. NT used to say that flying was not permitted, citing the bylaw. The bylaw was from the 1950s, so I always felt it would be unenforceable, and NT no longer reference it, so they now agree.
@@InTheFootstepsofHeroes Thanks for the input, my thoughts entirely on how enforcable some of these byelaws are - the one recent court case I could find was heard in Northern Ireland in relation to the Hawking byelaw and commercial coastline fishing, the NT lost.
The NT are not owners of the land, they are custodians and should behave so.
The land belongs to the PEOPLE, not NT.
If I remember correctly the National trust used to say it was our national trust as members we were joining with them to protect the country's heritage. Now after we have supported them for decade's it's theirs. We'll they won't get a penny more from me
As the old saying goes, “laws are made to be broken”! 👌
Including taking a drone out the sky? Ok with breaking that law?
@@mikeysteamI'm ok with you trying, of course what a court would say is another matter, the NT hasn't even attempted to test it's byelaw in court for a good reason, the threat is better than a case being thrown out.
@@user-sl4ct6lv1k oh I wouldn't bother doing that myself! No, if a drone is causing a nuisance then someone would probably just go and return the nuisance back, I imagine.
The charitable status of the National Trust must be removed until such time as its contract with the people of The UK has been examined and modified.
I think you need to look at this from the other side. If you allowed someone to visit your house and garden, wouldn't you want to be have some degree of control over what they took photographs of, particularly when they intended to sell them for profit and when it was you who had met the cost of developing and maintaining the property? Wouldn't you want a share of that profit? I know that I would! In general, I've found both the NT and NTS to be very good at accommodating amateur photographers (like myself) as long as you respect their property and their right to manage it, and don't get confrontational if ever challenged.
Sorry, but that is a silly argument. Anyone who comes to my home and garden, at least, is invited or allowed. I do not sell them any ticket, yet alone an extortionately priced one. I offer them refreshments free of charge and I do not expect to flog them overpriced gifts as part of their experience. Nor do I try to sell them membership before they are barely though the door, encourage them to buy a guide, expect them to pay extra to plug in to hear me tell them about the place, or pay to park their car outside my property. If NT do not want people taking photos in the houses and other buildings that is fair, but limiting how people can use a picture of a view is like me saying someone cannot stand on the road in my village and take a picture because it might include my home. Should Google Earth and Street view pay us every time someone views one of their images with our private properties on it? NT are now a woke excuse of a charity who will bleed people of their last pennies given half a chance and quite frankly are not deserving of anyone’s money. They are certainly not a fit custodian of our national heritage and if they are that financially hard up they only have themselves to blame.
@@Bemusedbeyondbeliefbet you don't allow a 'drag' hunt and pack of hounds in your garden, possibly infected with tuberculosis, let them 💩 every where, and ride away either. While making everyone else keep dogs on leads and clean up after themselves either....
At this time you can photograph anything you can see from a public area, so if I wanted to stand outside your garden and photograph your house, there isn't anything legally to stop me. I can even publish those photographs to a webpage for editorial purposes e.g. public interest, or storytelling etc..
From a business perspective it would make better sense to actually encourage people to come and take photos. As so many people pursue photography as a hobby/pastime the NT are cutting out a big income stream from visitors. Entry tickets are not cheap and customers would feel they are getting more value if they could take photos. I like so many others dont visit NT properties because I can't take photos. But no the NT feel by barring people they are financially better off. Or is there a reason we are not being told? Either way it's bonkers.
Thanks for doing this video - have to admit wasn't fully aware of the rules, by laws and conversely didn't take these into account, interest what NT can or cannot do if you on public land ( e.g., not NT land ) use a telephoto shot of an object that resides on their land like Bird of Prey, Castle, Lighthouse, Barn, etc
Seems to me to be a bit of a non-story. For an organisation that relies on a self financing model, all forms of income have to be explored. For the vast majority of people visiting NT sites, this won’t be an issue. It is strange that people want our heritage and countryside to be protected but don’t offer a way for that protection to be financed. Money certainly won’t come from any government department. Everyone wants everything cheaper and cheaper yet never thinks about the costs involved providing a service or in this case protection of a heritage site. I’m not an NT member and even disagree with some of their policies, but don’t see a problem here. I would guess the income from professional photo permits is not that significant but still money that could help maintain a beautiful site? Imagine a country without the National Trust.
I worked with the National "dis-trust" as they are known, rebuilding a beach cafe I Studland. FOUR long years, forcing them to do it properly. I despise them, for good reason.
The camera was around way before 'The National Trust' lol..
6:33 They make this info at odds with a similar court test case, 'Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd. [1978] QB 479'
Also, just to note, byelaws can only be derived from the primary legislation that is already in place to control an issue as I see it. Byelaws can't be above the primary legislation. Certain barristers have discovered this with many byelaws thus making them unenforcable (ultra vires).
Not photography but just illustrates what the NT are about. My wife wanted to be a room steward at a property near us. When she applied and heard her accent, they refused her there and then. Obviously not posh enough even though her knowledge was far greater than theirs.
Thank you so much for this is exactly what we need. I am not out to annoy anyone but if the fine goes up, then i may get worried. Presumably what you are alluding to is that it would be civil matter, and therefore the would need someone to pursue. If they dont have details then that going to be pretty hard. The 500ft is a bit of a concern. Does that mean all those photography TH-cam are on the lake District making money from their channel are all in breach of the bylaw??? They post pics of the lake District for commercial download all the time. Thanks from a pro photographer in Kent .
As far as TH-cam is concerned, not necessarily, it depends on the end goal. You Tube is difficult to place as it could be described as editorial or educational, factual and journalistic, as well as commercial. Personally I wouldn't stand next to a NT byelaws sign and film myself advertising that well known photography website provider, easily provable as a paid for commercial piece of film. The burden of proof resides with the NT though and I guess that's why there aren't any court tests. Those photographers who I could find reports of receiving letters have basically 'admitted' where they were and what they were doing in advance of coming to the NT's attention. All the best.
The law he quoted doesn't apply to drones.
So how do they enforce it if you took the photos OUTSIDE their land???? Just a minor point...
Their problem is that these are private company byelaws. They do not trump national law which permits photographic images to be taken in public and be used for any purpose. The lake district is public under the current law. They would have to start civil proceedings. As law currently stands they would probably fail and set a pressident.
Yes, all that really needs to be understood is whether it is a public place or not as defined in Section 33 Criminal Justice Act 1972.
I was curious and looked up the CAA 1982 Regs and sec 76 makes no reference to the lower stratum of air space? Have I missed something? I am interested because there are “auditors” on here who seem to think they can overfly private property with their drone regardless of the owners wishes.
I will take as many photographs on Nation Trust property as I wish - I regularly walk upon this NT land.
Hi there,
I just came across your video. I have a youtube channel, recently focussed on walks in nature. In your opinion would the NT deem any footage shot on their land, that as commercial usage if I were to put the footage on my channel and subsequently my channel then reaches the YPP threshold to be monetised?
Was the National Trust legally allowed to set its own bylaws?
What governs a legal person's ability to set bylaws?
What's the difference between bylaws and the conditions of access when I buy a ticket to enter?
I live in the Peak District; - my pictures of my turf are my property...
Useful reminder to togs, and nothing less than you’d expect. Commercial use pay, private use - pay the entrance fee and snap away.
There is no Law that can prevent any commercial photographer form taking photos on any land that is "open to the public". Without any claim.
I can accept that if I pay and entrance fee to somewhere, including my membership, I agree to the terms and conditions of entry and that may well include what I can do with my photos. But if I am strolling along a public right of way and take photos then where's the Contract that I'm supposed to be bound by? Has this archaic bye-law, targeted at photographers in the 1960s from offering to sell people their photographs, actually been tested in a case that has reached a Court? I've not heard of one. Instead the National Trust use bully tactics and threats to stop people selling images. And they, and others, go after the Stock Sites and POD sites where they know that the owners aren't going to put up a fight as there are plenty more images they can make money from. For me, all the NT do is persuade me that I'm only going to pay the minimum annual membership fee (senior rate) and not a penny more.
Easy way around this 👌🏼 legally speaking, if you gift a friend or family member that hasn't been on national trust property, the copyright to the image, they could then sell said image(s) and not be in breach of the bylaws, and because you the photographer gifted the image rights away, you are by law not using that image for commercial gain. Then if that friend or family member was kind enough to 'donate' a percentage of the money from them images, everyone's a winner, and fuck the national trust 👌🏼
We have some of the same type of rules here in the states. I no longer visit those areas anymore. They are wrong imo. Permits nope. Take me to court. National distrust. Here we have stupid drone rules. Post a video on youtube you need a pilots liscense? They say it is commercial? I do not make money on my flying. Sub 250gm. I give up on drones because of new rules they dream up on the fly.
I genuinely went into this video believing that they would have no right to ban drone flights, it was a sad surprise to find out some of this stuff :(
So, if I were an artist (using oil paints as opposed to a camera) and I set up my easel on NT land and created a painting that I later sold, that would be ok? What if I photographed that painting and sold prints of the painting, still ok? And what if I took a photograph and later at home created a painting from one of those photographs? Not expecting an explanation, just pondering how absurd their bylaws are!
None of this is new, and anyone familiar with both the NT and the law has known this all along. The NT have an unhealthy attitude to image rights. There has been a controversy for many decades, because anyone entering a NT photo competition is giving the NT full permission to use their photos in a commercial way without their permission or payment. Rights are all one way with the NT. However, it is a matter of application. As noted in the video, the NT primarily take action against anyone, who tags the NT on their photo, either on social media, or picture libraries. So the answer is, never tag the NT on any of your photos. The NT are very contradictory over rights and permissions, as was shown with the NT giving fox hunts permission to "trail hunt" on their land, and blatantly ignoring the fact, that trail hunting, was a dubious contrivance and cover, for illegal fox hunting. The NT ignore the evidence and I crossed swords with them on Twitter about this. Only when the Zoom footage was leaked, and masters of the hunt were exposed as using trail hunting as cover for illegal fox hunting, did the NT take action, because prior to this, they just took the hunt's word for it, and ignored all the footage of them illegally hunting. Revealing that the NT is very biased when it comes to rights. It acts very much like the worst type of private landowner.
Also, as noted in the video, the NT own a large proportion of the Lake District National Park, probably the most photographed landscape in the world. I very much doubt that unless carrying out a commission, most well known landscape photographers, have been getting NT permits, not least of all, because in the Lake District, it is very difficult to tell on whose land you are standing. In other words, vast amounts of landscape photographs must have been sold and traded, without the knowledge of the NT, for the best part of a 100 years. One thing not dealt with in the video unless I missed it, are public rights of way, where the legal position is quite different to CRoW Access Land, as there are not the same restrictions, as you are not entering into any sort of permissive legal contract with the land-owner when you use them. NT land is criss-crossed with public rights of way.
Public Rights of Way crossing NT land is an interesting one. I believe there are rules saying what you can and cannot do on a PROW. It wouldn't surprise me if doing something like photography is excluded.
@@mrsp3992- My knowledge of this, is that there are no clear rules, only case precedent, where particular instances have been ruled on by courts. Without being any sort of legal expert on this, I believe a lot of these rulings have been a bit contradictory. Least of all, because these matters rarely get to a level in the courts, where there are higher court rulings on these matters. It has to be remembered, that as far as taking photographs on a public right of way, that their legal status is the same as a road or footpath by a road. Whilst nowadays we tend to think of a road, or tarmacked pavement, as quite different to say a public footpath etc, in reality their legal status is the same. If you go back to the middle of the 19th Century, you see that OS maps of the time, made no distinction between roads and public rights of way. Indeed, there was no real difference, as most roads were little more than dirt tracks. My understanding of this, is you have the same rights as regards photography, as in any public place, in that you can photograph anyone, anything, or private property, and that the public right of way, is regarded as a public place.
Thanks for the excellent comment. I read a letter from the NT to a photographer a few years back in which they basically stated 'you can do what you want on PROW......but we're not telling you where they are on our land'. It was written slightly more high brow than that, but that was the definite 'between the lines' take away.
UK -PLC wants a slice of everything you do but would probably prefer just to take everything you have .
My take on this is I need a(nother) premium compact so I don't look like a pro. Got it. I'll start looking as I see no other option...
Speaking as a National Trust life member, and a photographer who has sold images, it seems reasonbale to charge a commercial photog for a license who is making revenue off the back of National Trust property, just as film companies are charged a fee for making a movie.
It doesn't strike me that the NT is being unreasonable here. Certainly, regarding the drones, if I go off to the countryside for a walk the last thing I want is one of those things buzzing overhead.
I'm the same with dogs, but you can't escape them. Thankfully drones don't leave sh1t everywhere, don't bite or kill people, and don't need shouting by the owners who can't control them.
Troll .
The concept that you are bound by a contract that is written on a sign in a place has been extensively tested by operators of private car parking. The general outcome of all of these cases has been that a sign board has to be clearly legible to be legally valid. The National Trust's so-called bylaws would fail this test.
Private land that is "open to the public" is classified as a public space. You can film or take photos in any public space, building, shop etc. The only thing the owner can do is ask you to leave. So this makes no sence at all. This is legal nonsence and could be criminal fraud by the National Trust as they have no right or claim to any photos or images taken on their land or of their land by any photographer. Regardless of any other Law. IMO.
So how does a private landowner make up “laws” to suit themselves? Law surely is enforced by statute. What gives these laws legal status?
Bernstein vs Skyviews sets the precedent for flying above land in the lower stratum. As long as you are not impinging on the land owners lawful use and enjoyment, then you are okay (assuming no other legal restrictions).
National Trust has no control if you take off from public land. If you read the act that enables their bylaws, it does not extend to the air (despite what they claim). You can, however, get into bother if you are disturbing protected nature (nesting birds, etc.). So a ground risk assessment is absolutely necessary before you do fly over the NT land.
And if you have a good search, you should find the workaround for getting past their commercial photography ban.
T national trust will purchase coastal Land, an from my experience do no maintenance to stop it falling into-sea, an there is a part near me, that starts at edge of Port Leven in Cornwall, where a road used to go to centre of village, an when saw it recently there-was a fence with a diversion to walk or cycle.
Then they have these public access roads that they ar happy to take your membership money for, which ar createred, Like anothr of their roads on Lizard peninsula, to Looe barr.
Then some of their pathways ar so narrow, they ar danerous, only wide enough for dolls feet, an some of their pathways ar ok, where, they have something over areas that often ar quagmires, whiLe others they ignore, an some occasions have slanted paths that ar dangerous instead of flat, an some of their up an down paths, there will be bramble on 1 side, an barbed wire on other, so nowhere to hold onto.!!!!!
Some paths have awkward opening gates an things to climb over, an some cases, every few feet.!!!!!
There is a shared bridleway on Lizard in Cornwall with farms, an they have allowed them to make perhaps 2 foot deep trenches with tractors, an they fill with water.!!!!!
This is reason i am no a member of t national trust.!!!!!..
Well, that's a sod! I don't think I've inadvertently flouted these rules as I'm only an occasional professional and most of my photos are for my non-monetary architectural and landscape history blog. It's horrible for those that rely on them for a living though. I did think at one time to add some photos to the NT stock, until I looked into their usage of photographer's rights, so I didn't.
You mentioned prohibitions on the making of maps. Would the famous Wainwright walking books which included maps have been affected by this?
Wainwright created those well before the CRoW Act was introduced (and before the NT owned much of that land) which was the piece of legislation I was reading from.....so at a guess no.
@@LetsClickPhotography my point was would he have been affected as things are now under current conditions? Or to put it differently. If I go out now making notes and hand drawing maps could I have legal problems?
@@waerlogauk ah I see what you mean now. Well Wainwright having already created such pieces should give reason to suggest a historic public right upon the land. But that piece of legislation does go to suggest that in this time, with no historical reference to give guidance, potentially there may have been issues with the publication side of things. Although I’m sure that would be sorted out easily enough as it would (at worst) be a civil matter of trespass - and lots of nuances or caveats to proceeding with that.
you can create and publish your own map but need alicence if you make an accurate copy of an OS map. So sketch maps are ok.
@@garybrindle6715 the issue here is not with possible copyright and OS maps but with the national trust prohibiting mapping.
Thanks very much really interesting stuff...
After many years of membership I realised that I did not agree with the management and directorate operated. The procedures used for elections did not seem right!
Does that bit about the lower and upper stratum blow all these drone auditors out of the water? Never heard this mentioned before.
It's a pretty common thread amongst drone operators that once you're off the ground, no land owners have any rights. But they do, as granted in that CAA Act. Having those rights and being able to implement them are two seperate things though. Even with the best notice in the world, at worst a flyover would be trespass which is a civil matter and not one easily followed up on.
Throw obstruction, disruption or intimidation into the hat however and that could be in the realm of aggrevated trespass. That is a criminal matter and the police could attend and arrest. TBH it's a mess, the NT are smart in that they've tied their ban into their byelaws - at least in relation to TOAL - making it easier to 'enforce' (although in this day and age doubtful they could get the police to attend).
@@LetsClickPhotographyDoes this only apply if your TOAL on their land, and not if you TOAL from a public space near the NT land?
@@Velo-Rides the byelaw bit does yes. From my understanding the byelaws can only apply to TOAL. Launch and land ‘off-land’ would be a civil matter at best and very difficult to enforce or prove, unless the pilot makes it into aggravated trespass as mentioned above
Surely the Section 17 means you cannot sell etc ON National Trust land? Sorted!
I think that was the intention when the byelaw was written, but it is now being re-interpreted by the NT to their own benefit.