Photos Of Coast Line In The UK Not Allowed

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
without permission.

Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.

What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
as it could possibly be owned by the local council?

Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
to promote a product?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
> > I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> > to promote a product?
>
> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> photography.

And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
today?

I'm also quite curious as to what a "celebratory" monkey is. Are they
celebrating their rescues, or what?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>without permission.
>
>Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
>What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
If private property, the occupier can set conditions for entry to that
property including banning or limiting photography. This can include
central and local government property eg offices, museums etc.

If 'public' property, Parliament by virtue of its sovereignty can
limit such photography by legislation, and central and local
government can limit it via statutory instruments and bylaws made
under such legislation. This could even include photographs taken
from outside the area concerned.

The most likely type of bylaws etc are ones controlling commercial
activities in such areas and commercial photography would be
considered part of that. In these instances commercial photography
can probably be negotiated, perhaps involving payment of a fee. In
some instances it could be refused eg a modelling backdrop for page 3.

Professional wedding photography in such areas could also be included.

The operators of such facilities are under continuing financial
pressure and therefore want to make a quid whereever possible.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 21:11:25 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.

A public footpath might cross private land.

>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?

If it's privately owned it's private land. Councils can invoke
their rights as landowners in the same way as everybody else.

>>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
>> to promote a product?

If anybody exploits it for financial gain it's commercial use.

>
>The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>photography.

That answer might be simple but it apparently refers to a
different question.

DG

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Charlie Self writes:

> And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> today?

If you live there, and it's truly a democracy, you can vote and pray.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Charlie Self writes:
>
> > And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
> > today?
>
> If you live there, and it's truly a democracy, you can vote and pray.
>

No one mentioned democracy. Developed and democracy are not the same.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?
>
>
Was the monkey rescue center a government facility, or was it funded by
private individuals? If it was taxpayer funded, then you should have the
right to photograph it. If it is privately funded, then you can still
photograph it, but you must stand on public property while doing so. IOW,
they have the right to prevent you from taking photographs while you are
visiting on their property. Of course, they can always put up so many signs
that say, "keep off the grass" that pictures of their grass are guaranteed
to be ugly.....that is the problem that we frequently have here in the US.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
********************************************************************
In the United States and perhaps other countries, if you take a picture of a
tiger and it can be shown that it is the tiger that belongs to a zoo, you
can't use it in commercial use. That is easy to determine because of the
markings on a tiger differ from one to the other. (They do on many animals,
even toads.) If you use it for editorial then they probably can't say much
as long as you are not putting them down. Commercial use is define more as
using them to sell a product, which ofcourse then it would imply that the
center (centre) endorses the product. That would be the same as taking a
picture of a person and then saying that this person likes Coca-Cola. If
you publish it in a magazine and just said this person likes to shop in this
area, then it would not be commercial most likely. As for the foot path, I
don't know why that would be but 230 years ago my family left Europe and
never looked back. Thank God for that. RJT.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qiqme.2245$Mi4.1180@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net...
> >I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
it
> > to promote a product?
> >
> >
> Like all the other posters so far, I am not a lawyer.
>
> That foot path would have been on private land. Most land belongs to
> someone or some entity. It is now quite commonplace to find notices in
> Public Parks, National Trust Properties, etc, prohibiting "Commercial"
> photography without permission.
>
yes and rather amusingly, visits to national trust properties, not to
mention their membership levels have slumped since they introduced that
rule. incidentally in public parks you CAN take photographs, councils
however like photographers to have public liability insurance first. as long
as you have this there are no problems whatsoever - my advice, get public
liability insurance then you can contact the film department of that local
council and youll be amazed what they can organise for you for nothing. for
example, i can stand in the middle of a busy road with a camera tripod
complete with police assistance!
cheers
james

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

LCD wrote:

> Could the idiots mean 'celebrity' monkey? In which case, which celebrity
> is it?

Just mention ITV Digital to it...

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In article <1117395367.912773.29210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Self <charliediy@aol.com> wrote:
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
>> photography.
>
>And if you live there, since that's probably 97% of the developed world
>today?

I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.

(I use the word 'photograph' here with the implicit assumption of publication
of the resulting image. There are very few things that you are not allowed
to photograph at all.)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <429a1d19.2459164@news.paradise.net.nz>, Peter says...
>
>> The operators of such facilities are under continuing financial
>> pressure and therefore want to make a quid whereever possible.
>
>The Vatican Museums in Rome charge 12 Euro (= US $16) for an entry
>ticket, get tons of visitors, yet ban completely photography and even
>camcorders (!) in the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>their postcards and publications.

I think one of the large Japanese companies have the franchise for
photography in the Sistine Chapel.

Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
<news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:

> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK, however,
> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> without permission.
>
> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>
> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>

It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
their land is still private).

And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
about the things you can do on their property.

If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
photography, if they wish.


> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using it
> to promote a product?

Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
the course of your business.

--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
To err is human. To really screw up it takes a computer!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:e5zghzpepav3.1p8ts0doalby1.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
> <news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:
>
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>> however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.
>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>> maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>
>
> It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody" and
> their land is still private).
>
> And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
> about the things you can do on their property.
>
> If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
> along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
> photography, if they wish.
>
>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>> it
>> to promote a product?
>
> Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
> the course of your business.

Take photos. Then make sure nothing in the background is easily
identifiable as that area. (no landmarks just a field). Then say bollocks
never saw Mr X or his property in my life.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Derek *" <usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.
Only because your country is not packed with A.H's like we have here in the
US........:^)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> wrote in message
newsLrme.157543$Cq2.156347@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Alex Heney" <me8@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:e5zghzpepav3.1p8ts0doalby1.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:52:13 +0100, Russell in message
>> <news:I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>>> however,
>>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>>> without permission.
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
>>> and
>>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>>
>>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>>> maybe,
>>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>>
>>
>> It is almost certainly private property. Most of the land in this country
>> is owned by somebody (and the local council still counts as "somebody"
>> and
>> their land is still private).
>>
>> And any landowner can make more or less whatever restrictions they want
>> about the things you can do on their property.
>>
>> If it is a public footpath, then they cannot obstruct you from walking
>> along that path. But they can disallow photography, or just commercial
>> photography, if they wish.
>>
>>
>>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>>> it
>>> to promote a product?
>>
>> Any usage whereby you make a commercial gain from the photo or use it in
>> the course of your business.
>
> Take photos. Then make sure nothing in the background is easily
> identifiable as that area. (no landmarks just a field). Then say
> bollocks never saw Mr X or his property in my life.
>
Or digitally add a small red outhouse (portable toilet) in the background of
all your photographs. Then in court you could say, "This photo couldn't have
been taken on their property, your honor, because they don't have a red
outhouse there."

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:


> Or digitally add a small red outhouse (portable toilet) in the
> background of all your photographs. Then in court you could say, "This
> photo couldn't have been taken on their property, your honor, because
> they don't have a red outhouse there."
>
>
>

Outhouses are portable where you come from? I remember that in college it
used to take at least six of us to carry one onto the Dean's front porch
<g>.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

Derek * wrote:
>
> In UK we have very many "Public Footpaths"
> that run through private land, nearly all of them in fact (In the
> U.S. I don't know). It is an important right we cherish dearly. It
> is important to us because our population density is 16x that of
> the USA so it is important for us that we who live in crowded
> cities can get at least some access to the countryside. For an
> example google for "Pennine Way". Our ancestors had to fight and
> went to jail for these rights.
>
> Public Footpaths extend sometimes across fields full of growing
> crops (Usualy mitigated by negotiation by going round the edge of
> the field), sometimes right through the farmyard across the
> farmhouse windows. The rights to walk the public footpaths are
> inaliable ancient rights and that's fine. But there is no ancient
> right to photograph the farmer and his family as they eat their
> Sunday Dinner. So those wishing to take photographs on private
> property still have to ask first, it's only good manners in any
> event. For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.


If there is a long established public path on private land, it is
possible to secure that legally as an easement. Coastal access is a big
issue and there are folks who spend a good deal of energy securing
public access.

This gets more into rumor & urban myth but I've heard that tresspassing
is not really enforceable without a tall fence & locked gates. Certainly
no farmer or rancher has the right to shoot, harm or arrest anyone for
tresspassing on their land. They can come out & yell at you and will do
so. Breaking & entering is one thing and vandalism or any sort of damage
is illegal but simply walking through open private land is not illegal
whether posted or not.

People can squat on another's land and if the owner is aware and objects
but fails to remove them for a certain number of years, the squatter can
claim "ownership" of that land. Although that's quite rare. People can
still stake mining claims on government land and if they work and make
improvements for a certain number of years, they can claim title to that
land. I've seen people still doing this in Nevada way out in the desert.

Ugh, sorry, I try not to get into these off-topic things but this one is
interesting. I didn't know the history of this issue in the UK, thanks
for relating it.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d043230dd9e976098ab65@news.supernews.com...
> In article <I-ednSqxk6XAkgffRVnysA@pipex.net>, Russell says...
> > I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
however,
> > there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
> > without permission.
> >
> > Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by,
and
> > they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
> > therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
> >
> > What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
maybe,
> > as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
> >
> > Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
it
> > to promote a product?
>
> The answer is simple: don't travel to countries which restrict
> photography.
> --
>

As is clear from the OP's post, it isn't the country, but the landowner who
has imposed restrictions, and those only on commercial photography. That is
very common everywhere in the world.


Peter

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

On 30/5/05 12:09 am, in article jOGdnauSzusq1gffRVn-1Q@comcast.com, "William
Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "Derek *" <usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> For recreational walkers wanting to take photographs of the
>> landscape or each other, it does not present a problem.
> Only because your country is not packed with A.H's like we have here in the
> US........:^)


You should get around more, as there's no 'jobs-worth' like the council's.
;]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

john boyle wrote:
> In message <MPG.1d0448079ce667aa98ab66@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
> <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> the Sistine chapel. Essentially they are greedy and,
>> not being satisfied with the entry ticket, they want you to purchase
>> their postcards and publications.
>> --
>
>
> Its not anything to do with it being a religious place then?
>


Wha..? God has an exclusive for marketing images of His house? If that
was so, the postcard kiosk would be next to the collection plate. I
think the photo ban has more to do with shutter noise and strobes. The
fact that the postcards aren't free has more to do with a revenue stream.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip Homburg) wrote:

>I think that the most recent revision of the Dutch copyright law (as a
>result of the most recent EU copyright directive) sort of makes it legal
>to photograph just about everything you can see from public roads.


That brings the Netherlands in line with the UK, where it is perfectly
legal to photograph anything from public roads, footpaths, other
rights of way or your own property.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:429A52F7.BAFC8A8C@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Russell wrote:
>>
>> I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>> however,
>> there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>> without permission.
>>
>> Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>> they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>> therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>> What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property
>> maybe,
>> as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>>
>> Also, what is defined as 'commercial use'? Selling the photo, or using
>> it
>> to promote a product?
>
> To answer another poster in this thread, Australia and New Zealand are
> two countries where restrictions on photography do exist, but are
> minimal.
>
> But, now a general contribution to the thread, I tend to agree with the
> local laws about commercial photography. Commercial/professional
> photographers aren't like amateurs, even advanced amateurs. A
> commercial/professional shoot can involve many people, take considerable
> time, and deny access to legitimate persons who wish to visit the
> facility. I ran into this twice during a visit to Melbourne, Australia,
> and both were in the Public Gardens there. The first was a begonia
> house, full of exotic plants and flowers that I was very interested in
> photographing. But when we got there, there was a wedding party in the
> house, using the interior for the wedding shots. If there was one
> person there, there were at least thirty of them, and we just couldn't
> get into the house or get any shots. They were there for long enough
> that we finally left without seeing the begonias.
>
> The second was in the same gardens, at a reconstructed historic house
> that was removed from England, originally the home of Captain Cook's
> parents. Another shoot was going on there, obviously commercial,
> cameras, models, etc. all over the place. I didn't get any decent shots
> there either.
>
> Whether or not these groups had arranged for these shoots I don't know.
> I do know that for visitors like ourselves, probably never to be there
> again, they were a right PITA.
>
> We also visited Phillip Island, where there is a penguin colony that
> each evening marches up the beach in single file after spending the day
> in the water. A viewing platform has been built for viewing this
> nightly performance, and it's very popular with tourists. But,
> photography is strictly prohibited, even though the penguins are wild,
> not captive. The reason given, on several notices in the area, is that
> "camera flashes may hurt the little penguins' eyes" - despite that they
> are about a hundred yards away from the platform, and despite that there
> is a tall multi-kilowatt stadium light illumunating the beach.
>
> So there is a definite element of Big Brother in these bullshit
> restrictions on amateur photography.
>
> Colin

Here in the US they sometimes restrict flash photography in art museums
because (they say) the uv light from the flashes will cause premature
destruction of the paintings. - I personally find it hard to believe that a
few 2 microsecond flashes every day will cause more destruction than
continuous sunlight coming in through the windows 10 or more hours a day,
but who am I to argue with them? In our new country called, "Photographia"
we would conduct government sponsored experiments where we measured the
destructive effects of strobe lights on paintings.....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:i4pk91l96s0g4nfamt27uc58dgel6piq1q@4ax.com...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I recently visited a public footpath along a coast line of the UK,
>>however,
>>there were signs saying that commercial photography was not permitted
>>without permission.
>>
>>Strangely enough, I also visited a Monkey rescue centre very near by, and
>>they also had signs up saying that their monkeys were celebratory, and
>>therefore the photos could also not be used for commercial use.
>>
>>What law is this governed by? Is it classified as private property maybe,
>>as it could possibly be owned by the local council?
>
>
> You have probably seen the National Trust signs, which are slightly
> controversial. This issue was widely discussed in the photo press, I
> think last year and the year before.
>
> As a registered charity, the National Trust is more than a little
> unhappy that photographers are making money by selling photos of
> National Trust properties without allowing the Trust to benefit in any
> way. The Trust owns a sizeable proportion of the UK coast, including
> many areas of outstanding natural beauty, so has presumably decided
> that these areas should be treated in the much same way as the Trust's
> bricks and mortar.
>
> I cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue because I have
> done a lot of work for the National Trust over the years, usually at
> much less than commercial rates. But I can understand people's
> disquiet at being asked to avoid selling any photos they may take of
> the coastline and other Trust-owned areas of scenic beauty.
>
> The new rules do not affect amateur photographers, or anyone taking
> photos for personal use. However, I believe the use of *all* cameras
> inside National Trust properties (bricks and mortar) is now banned.
>
>
I can understand the restrictions that prevent setting up tripods that might
restrict the movement of tourists at public places, but it is not the proper
use of public monuments to provide funds for the government. They are
supposed to be non-profit. They have no business restricting photography for
commercial purposes. That should be the public's right. I should be able to
take a photograph either inside or outside any public building and sell the
prints that I make from it, IMO.....

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.legal (More info?)

William Graham writes:

> Here in the US they sometimes restrict flash photography in art museums
> because (they say) the uv light from the flashes will cause premature
> destruction of the paintings. - I personally find it hard to believe that a
> few 2 microsecond flashes every day will cause more destruction than
> continuous sunlight coming in through the windows 10 or more hours a day ...

You're correct, and experimental research has proven this. Even the
effets of the light of flashes popping all day long pales in comparison
to the effects of ordinary natural light illuminating the works in
question.

In other words, unless the works are being kept in the dark to begin
with, flash photography doesn't make any difference. So the real
reasons for prohibiting photography have nothing to do with protecting
the works of art.

> In our new country called, "Photographia"
> we would conduct government sponsored experiments where we measured the
> destructive effects of strobe lights on paintings.....

Such experiments have already been done, and it has been shown that
flash is far less damaging to paintings than ordinary natural light;
even diffuse natural light is harmful (and of course direct sunlight
would be a disaster).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.