Stonewalling Stonehenge
October 19th, 2010
by Gwyn Headley
Managing Director
We recently received the following email from English Heritage:
We are sending you an email regarding images of Stonehenge in your fotoLibra website. Please be aware that any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any commercial interest, all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.
It’s kind of them to think of us, but this raises a number of questions.
Firstly, what legitimacy do they have for this claim? Is there any law that states that it is illegal to use images of Stonehenge for any commercial interest? Can someone direct me to it?
Secondly, if an image of Stonehenge is so used, how could they possibly police the usage? A quick browse through a number of rights-managed and royalty-free online picture libraries produced the following:
iStockPhoto (a US owned company) has 513 images of Stonehenge
Fotolia (US) has 648 images of Stonehenge
Dreamstime (US) has 670 images of Stonehenge
Shutterstock (US) has 737 images of Stonehenge
All the above sites sell images on a royalty free, unrestricted usage basis. If anyone buys a royalty free image from one of these suppliers then he’ll be using it as, where and when he likes, without asking English Heritage’s permission. How will they stop that?
Alamy (UK) has 1130 images of Stonehenge
GettyImages (US) has 860 images of Stonehenge
Corbis (US) has 426 images of Stonehenge
fotoLibra (UK) has 223 images of Stonehenge
Photo 12 (FR) has 114 images of Stonehenge
These are mainly rights managed. Rights managed images are essentially designed for a specific and time limited usage, and they’re more controlled and controllable than RF images.
Has every picture library with images of Stonehenge received this email? If we really are breaking the law by selling images of Stonehenge to be used for any commercial interest, then of course we will cease and desist immediately. However nothing in the National Heritage Acts (1983, 2002) which brought English Heritage into existence refers to their right to prevent the sale of images of any of their properties. In any case it must be legal to display them for sale if we intend to sell them for non-commercial (i.e. editorial) rights-managed usage.
If English Heritage wants to stamp out the unlicensed, unregulated, unlimited usage of RF images of Stonehenge they will have to talk to the people who hold those sorts of images for sale. In a large number of cases they will find that the picture libraries or stock agencies who hold these images are owned by foreign nationals who are not subject to British jurisdiction, who are based overseas, who have no connection, emotional attachment or even necessarily fondness for the United Kingdom.
Why the hell should they listen to a powerless quango which wants a slice of their profits? English Heritage is the current custodian of Stonehenge. It has been their responsibility for 27 of the monument’s 4,500 year old history. And they want to own the image rights to the site. (BTW It’s well known in the Headley family that our great x 170 – grandfather Elfis carved the stones for Stonehenge out of the Presley mountains in Wales, so our claim to the site is far longer than English Heritage’s nano-ownership (o.oo6% of the lifetime of the henge)).
In a recent blog post I noted the plight of a property owner in San Francisco who took the HSBC Bank to court for using a photograph of his house in a promotional leaflet without his permission. He lost, seven times over. That doesn’t set a strong precedent for EH or the National Trust or indeed any owner whose property can be seen from public land. Google Earth and Google Maps have pretty clear images of the place, as well.
OK, English Heritage’s email did not ask us to remove the images of Stonehenge from fotoLibra. But they did use imperative, urgent words like ‘can not’ and ‘must be’. I am ready to be proved wrong, but I don’t believe there is any legal substance behind the request. How can there be? Look at this:
Photo © Clive Morgan / fotoLibra
What if we photograph the place from the air? What law can we possibly be breaking here?
While we’re looking at Clive‘s photograph, who built that ugly tarmac footpath cutting through the sacred ring?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well looks like English Heritage are now turning into the National Trust banning the commercial use of all of their property, unless sold by them via their image library…. hmmmm?
Thank you for this post and for standing your ground. Please do not let these faceless organisations impose their fake laws upon you. The National Trust are as bad. As far as I am concerned, English Heritage should mow the lawns and prevent people taking carvings from the rocks and that’s it.
I was having a related conversation with my partner recently, about an ancient monument in Ireland that is now used a way of obtaining large amounts of revenue for the local authority.
My questions are: Who owns these monuments anyway? Who gave the authority the authority to stake a claim in them? Don’t they belong to all of us – or at least those born in the same country?
Good on Fotolibra for defying the bullies – I’ll see what I can do to help (must take more shots of “protected sites”.
Stonehenge is located in England. My English Ancestors constructed it. Stonehenge and every square inch of England, including Stonehenge, is owned by the Freemen of England (that is effectively all English Folk) and no one else! English Nature is a Marxist Quango and have absolutely NO rights whatsoever to decide who may or may not capture images of Stonehenge.
Ask them for details of the piece of legislation that they are relaying on and if there is any case law to back up there claim.
Oh, by the way, English Nature ceased to exist from October 2006 being integrated with other Quango`s and is now part of Rural England.
What complete nonsense – they are trying it on without any test case to back it up. Stand your ground – National Heritage as far as I can tell from a brief reading of the act are Stewards not owners.
What next – The National Park Authority?
I saw a spoof news article recently about Terrorists complaining that they are being treated like photographers – this is just another step in the government’s efforts to licence photography.
English Heritage (as well as The Nation Trust and others) should remember that it is images of their property and sites in the public domain, that stimulate interest and demand for people to visit there sites in the first place. This provides not only revenue but status as well.
English Heritage appears to be attempting to protect what they believe to be one of their major sources of potential revenue. Hmmmm. Could this be coincidence, or is it as a result of the deregulation of the so-called CWANGO’s announced by the Government as a result of the strategic spending review announced last week?
It appears to me that English Heritage, like most other former CWANGO’s, now cosider themselves free to pursue commerial interests in the name of ‘ring fencing’ monuments that they see as being under their jurisdiction, whether this can be done by copyright of images, or other means. In short, their moeny from Governmen has been cut, so they must find themselves other avenues of potential revenue in a bid to raise much needed funds. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as it were, for if this approach is successful then it paves the way for all manner of copyrights issues; Ane Hathaway’s Cottage, Shakespear Globe Theatre, etc, etc. The potential is vast. So, I see it that this is an issue which must be fought and the rights by other commercial entities must be defended. Stonehenge does not belong to English Heritage, it belongs to us all, especially being a world heritage site. So, I argue that battle must commence to get English Hetitage to change this policy forthwith, otherwise when you are spending a weekend in the Lake District, do you serously want to see signs posted everywhere, ‘Image subject to copyright’? It’s got to stop and immediately, otherwise we face a world where people like me and you cannot even go outside our fornt doors and take a picture without first paying fee to whover just happens to own the surrounding landscape.
Hmm. I heard rumblings about this a few weeks ago. I can’t remember where. I am not surprised. With all the government cuts happening, all organistions will be looking to rip off us photographers. Hold fast and resist!
I am glad to see your positive stand on this issue. I just wish all agencies would follow suit and tell these organisations where to go. English heritage is slightly different to National trust where NT own the property, and English heritage are custodians of the property and are acting on behalf of the public. Therefore, by definition, I think there is a strong argument that Stonehenge is public land and therefore photography there is allowed under current UK law.
This is an absolute joke!
I agree with you Clive, anyone photographing and selling images of Stonehenge are in fact promoting the landmark and helping to make money for English Heritage!
I am pleased to have sold an image of Stonehenge on the Fotolibra website which was used in a book about Stonehenge. I am so pleased that the image sold was one that I took through the fence and I didn’t pay English Heritage a penny!
I work for a National Heritage Organisation (not in England, but hence my lack of providing a full name, sorry) and I’ve worked for many museums.
As I’ve always understood the law on controlling photographs of objects and property, you can control the use of images if it is entirely within a private space, not if it is in a public space. Thus a museum can control copyright and image use of a sculpture within its collections displayed in the building but a statue in a public street or park (for example) can be photographed and the image published by anyone. Similarly, Google Street View can photograph the front of my house as they pass but not my kitchen cupboards (for weird example). There is a difference between what is privately owned and can be controlled and what is simply ‘the view’ in a public space.
Stonehenge is merely a building in this context and therefore photographs of it are outside of the control of English Heritage. In the same way that they can’t stop you viewing it from your car as you drive past (or your helicopter if you are as fancy as Clive Morgan!) they can’t stop you photgraphing it and printing those pictures. What EH could do is prevent you from taken photographs from within the perimeter fence when you pay to visit the site (I don’t believe they do, or that there is any instruction not to take pictures) but they can’t stop you from taking or publishing anything from the outside.
In my humble opinion. I am no lawyer. But I think you should tell them where to get off.
English Heritage charge the pubic for the privilege of walking around, not in and among, the stones of Stonehenge. They operate from rather tired premises and sell overpriced souvenirs. I cannot believe that they also believe they own the rights to any images of an Ancient Monument and have asked you, without a shred of evidence to support their ludicrous claim, to stop selling images. They are merely custodians, and nothing more, of a site that belongs to the nation. Ignore them.
I do not Visit national trust Sites if I can help it, on moral grounds i.e. no photography and the support of fox hunting and I will have no desire to visit English Heritage sites in support of the above.
I am an ex- volunteer of Heligan Gardens and in the early days they refused the help of the national Trust because of what they stood for, do not let the bullies beat you.
The National Trust is already getting into a real muddle over who is and who is not allowed to take photographs. One hand says yes and the other says no! English Heritage have always been the more obstructive of the two, particularly regarding Stonehenge, where they take great delight in preventing visitor access.
I’d personally love to see the rights of both organisations curbed by law. This is pure greed. It’s actually counter productive because it creates a groundswell of ill feeling and as the NT has already discovered is unenforcable without costly policing.
National Trust has been throwing it’s weight around for some time. With some success I’m afraid. Alamy capitulated to the NT’s demand to remove images of Bodiam Castle and other NT sites.
Concerning EH, I fail to see how this can be legal. Copyright cannot apply, surely, if the item in question, in this case Stonehenge, was made by EH. No. Owns it. No. The monument belongs to the country.
The way things are going, there will be very little left to photograph. How long before we are banned from photographing National parks like The Peak District, Dartmoor, The Lake District, The South Downs Way, The Cairngorms. Such a situation would be intolerable, and could lead to a tremendous shortage of photographic evidence of the early 21st Century onwards, apart from the work of a few chosen photographers such as Charlie Waite and others like him, who are signed up exclusively by NT, EH etc.
I feel that EH’s bluff must be called. Otherwise the death knell of photography is well and truly sounded. Allowed to win, EH and other arrogant organizations top heavy with officialdom, will destroy the photographic industry from top to bottom. Sales of cameras and equipment plummeting, manufacturers going bankrupt, sites like FL, Alamy etc going to the wall, and for what?. The greed of these custodians, who are trying to prevent us, co-owners of the national treasures, from sharing in the benefits of that co-ownership.
I beg FL to call EH’s bluff.
I’m an American with Italian ancestors so have no ties to the place, but agree that some government entity shouldn’t be able to regulate some amazing British landmark that has been around longer than most structures on earth. Good for you for standing your ground!
It’s a tough enough environment for photographers as it is. Glad you’re not caving in!
And though the couple of times I was in England, I’ve wasn’t able to get to Stonehenge, I’ve always wanted to see it. Why? Because of all the pictures I’ve seen! It’s certainly a case where a picture is worth 1,000 words–a pile of rocks in a circle no matter how well described would never get someone excited to make the trip-but look at a photo and that wanderlust kicks in.
If they can’t direct you to the Act of Parliament which gives them the right to threaten you, then formally notify them that you think their email constitutes an attempt to restrict your right and ability to trade, and if they don’t “cease and desist” you reserve the right to seek damages from them at a future date. Then ask them to acknowledge recipt of your communication.
I note that English Heritage has some 300,000 images for sale. They have purchased many of these images from professional photographers. In fact Dr Barry Senior FRPS past president of the RPS has an image of Fontwell Magna in Dorset, viewable on their site but it states that he owns the copyright. I cannot see how English Heritage could mount a legal case in isolation, there are many demands on English Heritage to repair building not to spend it on bringing a case to the Courts which they would have little chance in winning.
Fotolibra should call EH’s bluff and let them take what action they think fit, all they will do is to alienate the very people that keep them going in the first place. What would EH do if everybody stopped going to their places of interest because of their hatred of photographers, especially if nobody bought their images.
Fotolibra – how about publishing that English Heritage email address so that we can complain directly to the same address? This reminds me of the two officious PCSO’s trying to stop someone videoing in a London Street (It’s on YouTube and good to see their ignorance of the law exposed by the photographer). Petty minded officials throwing there non existant weight around. Well done for standing your ground!
This is utterly illegal, EH is making itself a laughing stock just as the National Trust has done. We cannot accept that our heritage is stolen from us in this way. Stonehenge is an international icon, and this nonsense must be faced down. The picture libraries have a duty to act in such cases and not buckle in the cowardly way that Alamy has done.
Seems to me they are not fussed about google ‘promoting’ the site for commerical purposes –
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2583837/Google-Street-View-is-caught-on-camera-photographing-Stonehenge.html
It’s about time that things got sorted once and for all, English Heritsge and Trust are stepping over the line. What is to become of photography and all the associated trades that rely on it. Can you imagine a book of the future telling us about our glorious country and only containing words beacause pictures were banned. Un fortunately this is the way of the world at this time everybody trying to make a quick dollar. Well done Fotolibra for standing up to anybody who denys us our right to photograph what we own in our own country.
I visited Stonehenge 6 or 7 years ago and was appalled to discover that I was expected to pay for myself and my wife to see this national monument. When I asked why I should pay to see something that is part of UK heritageI was told that the entry fee was used for the upkeep and security of the site. I pointed out that the monument had been around a long time without upkeep and security but that fell on deaf ears.
It’s very clever if you think about it. Put a fence around it, and make the public pay to go inside the fence. Control this by security guards that were not needed until that fence was up. Then claim, that entrance fees are used to pay for security
A few months later we visited Blenheim palace and discovered that you cannot take pictures inside there either. But, of course you don’t find this out until you have paid entry fees. Anyway, I photographed Stonehenge from outside and told them to stick entry fees .
At the end of the day, it is all about money. Stonehenge and Blenheim want you to buy their books and pictures, and at Blenheim you’ll see hordes of pathetic female attendants going hysterical whenever anyone gets a camera out to take a picture.
It’s plain daft to start issuing dictates about Stonehenge. EH the National Trust etc appear to be getting
a bit too high and mighty in relation to places the manage. They forget that without public support at many sites, a lot of officials would be out of a job.
Of course with NT sites, a select few will be allowed unrestricted access to this or that. This will have the effect of creating a degree of myth and exclusiveness when articles/photographs are published, thus encouraging the public to go and see these treasures……….. at a price of course.
BULLSHIT!
MMM .. interesting subject, I personally would ignore this until such time as a photo was requested by a publisher.. I would point out that the publisher wants it for goodwill not evil intentions.. which should always be a plus factor to them.. I always think positively and that all buildings, reserves,animals, etc are for the public domain.. I have strong reservations on photographing and using children without permission.. and it has been my culture experience that many people in foreign countries do not like been photographed without permission.. but HISTORY AND HISTORICAL PLACE BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.. so Stonehenge should accept this philosophy and we photographers should continue to enhance the world..
I visited Stonehenge in 2004 on an a pre-booked “out of hours” small group visit at around 6am one very cold April morning. The bookings were available at a premium via their website, and allowed me access onto the grass over the small rope fence that rings the stones. I could walk amongst the stones, provided I did not touch them. Security of course were present as always. I’ve never seen such secure sheep! As it was everyone else that was booked on our hourly slot never showed up and so we had the place to ourselves apart from the ever present sheep who are obviously there only to keep the grass short.
My sole intention of visiting was to take photographs of our ancient monument at sunrise and that I did and I was very happy with what I got. I did have to sign an agreement (in other words a “contract”) with EH that any photos taken would not be used for commercial purposes. Now of course being there at 6am on a freezing cold morning just as the sun is rising is likely to get you some nice images, but I would have to question my sanity now as to why I bothered in the first place. Apart from a single image which adorns my living room wall, the rest have just taken up space on my hard drive ever since. So, with regard to the images on your database, it should be the responsibility of the photographer to ensure that they have obtained an appropriate location release when shooting subjects in private grounds. The one from the air, I would have to say I think they would have trouble with enforcing, though with no doubt there will very soon be a stonehenge “no fly zone” established.
I won’t be going back to stonehenge and I’ve given up on being an NT or EH member in favor of supporting causes that welcome and encourage photographers such as wildlife reserves which I find much more rewarding, not forgetting that our Natural History has been around much longer than any man-made kind. They fully appreciate that people who take photos contribute a significant amount to their annual income…. Take note NT and EH.
I seem to recall the people who lit the Eiffel Tower coming out with similar nonsense some years ago. Does anybody know if they’ve ever successfully sued a photographer or agency for selling a picture of the said tower?
As the French say: “Va t’en…….!!!”
Since Sir Winston Churchill “We will fight them —just about any-place”, we British Citizens had earned a sort of family fellowship in the future of Great Britain. To be proud of ones own country is vital, and that includes our heritage, places to see and visit. To record our visits or to show others we take photographs.
To charge for a visit or encourage membership of say the National Trust is to help fund maintenance and further publicity.
To place restrictions on photography of external views of Heritage buildings and gardens is well taking a liberty.
If this is a statute law (“However nothing in the National Heritage Acts (1983, 2002) which brought English Heritage into existence refers to their right to prevent the sale of images of any of their properties.”)… then there is no FORCE …of LAW unless you consent to be governed by it… under common law jurisdiction, you have done nothing wrong.
English Heritage presumably think that r set to lose money unless they prohibit publication of photographs of Stonehenge. Therefore they have employed STATUTE law to protect their profit and enforce their wishes. But, publishers (of these pics) will not have broken any common law — as per my present understanding…
I have been photographing Scottish Castles for 30 years and was told by Historic Scotland if I wanted to publish or sell any of my photographs of castles under their care I must first pay a fee! Who do these people think they are? My advice is to ignore them, after all did they build them?
Heard a similar thing about Trafalgar Square, think the gen is at http://www.london.gov.uk/trafalgarsquare/ but it’s not working at the moment. Don’t you have something about property releases somewhere on your site?
[…] Stonewalling Stonehenge […]
[…] Stonewalling Stonehenge […]
Wouldn’t this be in the public domain?
I seem to recall that Bill Gates or Microsoft purchased the internet rights a number of years ago for various classic images (such as Leonardo Da Vinci paintings etc.).. Who can you you purchase that from?
utter nonsense.
I’m going to secure the rights to the letter ‘e’.
P
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by MagnusApollo, Jeremy Knope, Kevin Rockall, dirk franke, Taras Young and others. Taras Young said: Greedy and baseless? English Heritage claim they own rights to every photo of Stonehenge http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=445 […]
I hope FL told EH to “get stuffed” in no uncertain terms, these people should realise that historical monuments, stately homes etc. under the umbrella of EH are actually owned by the people of the UK and Do NOT belong to a private enterprise. If they wanted to use any of my images I would be more than happy to let them, I just wish they wouldnt try to bully photographers into withdrawing great shots available as prints from various sites like FL, lets face it its not going to make any of us millionaires now is it?
Small point: the percentage calculation is wrong.
To calculate a percentage of A within B you would do 100*A/B (because percentages are out of 100)
NH has owned Stonehenge for 0.6% of Stonehenges lifetime.
Not that this detracts from the point of this article. 0.6% is still very small.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ a really useful download, references public works of art, buildings, landscapes etc
I work in English Heritage, which is why I am going to point out for few some information. Firstly, English Heritage, the governmental agency and custodian of Stonehenge. Which means, the care, possession, and control, the retention, inspection, guarding, maintenance, or security of a thing within the immediate care and control by lawful authority or process. The information was not completely given. Essentially, all buildings not just stonehenge of any kind in the world if it is used for commercial use, are charged by its custodians, owners, etc a small license fee, which is infact legal. Stonehenge aerial shot was taken with permission and payment of license. Firstly, permission by the MOD, national trust, and English Heritage. We are not stopping people taking images of Stonehenge at all, this is in regards to images to be used for commercial purposes ONLY.
In regards to why we charge for you to enter to stonehenge or any of the buildings that are protected – it is not only for security, but for the maintenance of Stonehenge. Before EH had taken over to protect Stonehenge many people were chipping away the stones, lichens (which are extremely rare and need protection) were being destroyed by the natural acids of the human fingers. People were putting graffiti all over it, which most has been washed away and cleaned out by English Heritage. Stonehenge is the most architecturally sophisticated prehistoric stone circle in the world, unrivalled in its designvand unique engineering. The grounds were in very poor state, the stones were slowly being destroyed by people passing. EH have done alot to improve the lands in and around stonehenge and continue the hard work to do so. The tarmac cutting the bit of the landscape, agreed awful! which is why with the new suggested improvement and building of a new visitor centre can change this, and EH are working hard to return Stonehenge to its original way, while making sure its protected and preserved for another 3500 years. However, doing this takes money and it is why there is a fee to go in. Also, are many of you aware of findings, so called mini- stonehenge a mile away, and another found late this year? It is extremely hard to go to all stock websites, however slowly we do try and make them aware, such as fotolibra and many others. All commercial interest and uses have gone to EH and have paid the license fee, but this is not just EH but all places of national or world interest, i.e pyramids, the famous image of Princess Diana on a bench and behind the taj mahal was commissioned and a license fee paid. If organisations such as English Heritage, National Trust, World Heritage Organisation did not exist where would our information of our past be? How would it be preserved?
I think Rob Lewis No29 will find that the RSPB have also become very precious about images of “their” birds photographed on one of their reserves being sold for commercial use. It seems that all these member, charity, donation reliant associations are getting a bit to big for their boots and probably a bit top heavy in their organisational set up
The National Trust have done the same thing. I posted a message on the ephotozine web site and ended up with 260 replies, some of which is very good legal advise.
http://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/the-national-trust-72150
I think we should all get together and cancel our membership of these organisations if they don’t allow us to take pictures………we the members own the organisations and we the members paid for the upkeep and purchase of the buildings they now prohibit us from photographing
I wonder whether this includes the images of Stonehenge in this year’s Doctor Who? Or the wallpaper image of Stonehenge included in Microsoft Windows? They’re both commercial properties, after all.
These fascist organisations which try to prevent publication of images of “their” (really our) properties make my blood boil. Does it never occur to any of these jobsworth morons that the more photos there are published of these places then that serves as free publicity for them which will attract more visitors to the sites. I used to be a member of the National Trust, but no more. Until they stop all this pathetic and stupid protectionism then a plague upon their houses and all those of their ilk. By the way, I have heard that there can be no restrictions on photographing from outside of the premesis, as this is a “common view” visible to everybody.
From the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. NB, I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if this is relevant to the discussed situation, or if some other law overrides this.
62 Representation of certain artistic works on public display
(1) This section applies to–
(a) buildings, and
(b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.
(2) The copyright in such a work is not infringed by–
(a) making a graphic work representing it,
(b) making a photograph or film of it, or
(c) broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it.
(3) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.
What about pictures that individuals have agreed to share with a CC licence that allows commercial use?
For example, lots of nice pictures on Geograph.org.uk:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/gridref/SU1242
I wonder whether this includes the images of Stonehenge in this year’s Doctor Who? Or the wallpaper image of Stonehenge included in Microsoft Windows? They’re both commercial properties, after all.
Answer – Yes. They paid the license fee for it. Microsoft and also Apple for their use of the images.
Everyone has misconstrued the information about not using images, which Jacqui seems to have done it purposely. In regards to wanting images for family, using flickr, sharing with the public their visit to sites owned, managed, custodial, etc. If you are to use these images for commercial purposes you must pay a fee. I did a wedding a couple of years ago in a stately home and decided to use for commerical use. Although not stated in their visit, however I did come up to them using it for commercial use, asked for their permission and if possible would their be a fee. As it cost money to keep up the stately home they aske for £50.00 license fee, in which i gladly paid.
Everyone tends to forget these are organisations that need to make money either charity in order to support, and maintain the buildings and structures that are part of our history. Where would all these structures be if there were no organisations such as National Trust, English Heritage, World Heritage Organisation? Look at the pyramids…alot of it was stolen and destroyed and degraded before organisations took over and try to conserve it, Stonehenge, Salisbury Cathedral, Old Sarum, Wardour Castle, Blenheim Palace, the list goes on. All own by organisations, in which all the preservation and conservation takes money. Sadly nothing in life is free.
Did you know movies, and shows like come dine with me, when shot at homes also pay fees for filming as well as renting the places out from the owners. It all has to do with commercial use, that is all.
apologies for grammer and sentence hard to juggle 4 things at the same time, but I do hope people get a different perspective of why things like this is done.