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?
EH does not own the right to all images of Stonehenge per se. They may be able to exercise rights over images as a condition of allowing photographers onto their property, but that is the only way, via copyright, that they can gain this right.
Therefore, if I were to do a sketch of Stonehenge at my desk there in the U.S., EH could not claim I owe them a licensing fee if I sell it or otherwise use it for commercial purposes.
Similarly, if I take a photo of Stonehenge through a telephoto lens while not being on their property, then EH cannot claim I owe them a licensing fee.
Absent a separate, non-copyright law by the U.K. parliament, EH’s understanding of their rights is flawed and based on a misunderstanding of copyright law.
Whether or not EH does valuable work (which I believe they do) is irrelevant.
I discuss it more on my blog here: http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2010/10/21/does-u-k-heritage-own-all-stonehenge-images-no/
– John
I wonder if Aggy (93) would care to cite the law which, he thinks, says that a property owner owns copyright of images taken on their premises?
I say he ‘s wrong, and challenge him to prove what he claims.
My experiences with National Trust go back 10 years or more, before the digital age. At that time I was producing 6×7 transparencies and had several exterior shots of NT properties which I sent to the Trust asking if they could use them at their standard rate. They were indeed interested but wanted to purchase them outright “for inclusion in their library”. Naively I accepted a derisory fee of £10 per image’
The point is that at no time was I admonished for taking photos without permission and in fact I was encouraged to take more ” for their library” which I never did. Had a precedent been set for me?
Since the dawn of digital I have regularly taken photos of NT exteriors and will continue to do so. At one stage, before taking photos at one of their properties, as a matter of courtesy I asked the custodian if it was alright to take photos. His reply was that a rule of thumb was ” if you look up see the sky you may take photos, whereas if you look up and see a ceiling then you may not” I have followed that principle ever since.
At the root of this whole argument is ‘where was the photograph taken from?’
If it was taken from a public place, such as a street, then there can be no restrictions placed upon its use.
If it was taken from a private place, such as someone’s garden or a train station or the enclosed area surrounding Stonehenge, then they can control what you do with it.
There are a number of exceptions to the public places rule when that place is a sensitive location from the point of view of the security services but the general rule applies in most locations.
Heard Fearless Leader on Radio 4 tonight, sounded like English Heritage don’t know when they’ve lost.
From the discussions I heard driving home this evening EH have scored an own goal.
Thanks for standing up for us!
Very good interview on Radio 4 this evening.
Keep up the good work Gwyn
Hwyl fawr
Sid Frisby
[…] http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=445 […]
See http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/8398550/
As an archivist I work with intellectual property rights on a daily basis and have undertaken legal training in this area, also I have had lots of dealings with the National Trust and as mentioned above they are just as bad as English Heritage. If you use a picture taken by English Heritage of Stonehedge (or wherever) without permission they can claim breach of their rights but if it is not their picture they cannot. Above someone refers to buildings being covered in the copyright etc act, you may be able to claim design rights on a building but they expire and those for Stomehenge would have done so many 100’s of years ago! Someone also mentions the difference between public and private space, in fact any work of art out of copyright can be photographed legally by anyone without infringing rights. The museum (organisation) does not have a renewed/moral copyright over a work of art where the copyright has expired just because the work is in their institution. What they do have is the right not to allow photography in their private spaces, this is how they get around the problem eg British Museum allows photography, National Gallery does not both have (mainly) out of copyright works but clearly take a different organisational attitude to their own right (and postcard sales!).
I doubt English Heritage would want to test all this in a court of law because I cannot see how they could possibly win. The knock on effect of loosing would be huge as many heritage organisations claims rights they do not in fact have……witness high res images going online from the National Portrait Gallery, the Gallery complain their rights have been breached but they do not take this forward in a legal sense. Why? Because although they may have a right to the photograph of the art work they have no right to the work itself and also possibly not the the photograph of the work of art either (as for a copyright to exist you must be able to prove effort, this is highly subjective).
The tranquility and peacefulnee and historic importance for all has now definetly been blown by AGGY!
I will have to return and photograph the winter solice for all to see and for peace of mind.. AND TRY TO SELL THE IMAGES!
I cancelled my subscription to the National Trust as a result of their churlish and ‘short sighted’ stance on photography. I shall now studiously avoid English Heritage properties, as my passion is to take photographs unhindered by bureaucracy, petty and short termist restriction, and make them available for the public to see. Do these organisations not have the capacity to realise that photography of such sites lodged in photographic libraries such as Fotolibra, will actually encourage visitors and assist in publicising their properties and improving their visitor numbers, sales and profits? I would urge all amateur and non commissioned photographers to avoid sites and organisations operating in this restrictive fashion. I also find it most annoying that Fotolibra has been singled out in this way, when there are hundreds and thousands of similar images lodged elsewhere without penalty, prejudice and bureaucratic intrusion.
Legislation says that English Heritage has no right to ban commercial photos of Stonehenge. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
Thank you everyone, whatever your viewpoint, for contributing to this debate. I had no idea it would spark such a storm of interest.
I will eventually address each point in turn but you’ll have to grant me the weekend in which to do it.
But for the moment suffice it to say that English Heritage has sent fotoLibra a note of apology, which is very good of them. Few companies or organisations are that brave or honest. It is much appreciated.
One last point — many people have assumed that because Jacqui Norman pointed fotoLibra members to this blog posting, she wrote it.
She didn’t; it was written by me, Gwyn Headley, the bloke wot founded fotoLibra. I write the majority of the fotoLibra Pro Blog and the fotoLibrarian posts. Jacqui writes your Picture Calls and Newsletters.
Summary: English Heritage are in their rights to allow you onto “their” land, under their conditions. One of those conditions is not to take photos for commercial gain.
If you do take photos of Stonehenge on English Heritage land, then your break your contract with English Heritage. You break no copyright laws. If you happen to sell your images commercially, then all EH can do, is refuse you access to their property. They have no copyright claim.
This is purely an issue of access, and it seems reasonable that EH could charge a commercial fee for allowing a photographer unhindered access to a property. Beyond that, they have no control.
[…] the email and a strongly worded response was published to the FotoLibra blog, the story was picked up by Boing Boing, which then published a story titled “English […]
[…] few days ago, the photography marketplace website Fotolibra revealed that they had received an email from English Heritage telling them: …any images of Stonehenge can not be used for any […]
With Regards this Issue Stonehenge is listed not only as an Ancient monument under the protectorate of English Heritage and The national monuments act It also has world Heritage Status which places it into a much higher protection status. All such Ancient monuments are covered under the Schedule of Ancient monuments act of England and Wales and once listed become Crown copyright material and you may find its the Crown copyright rule E.H are invoking here. Having said that there has been a huge commercial interest and usage of the Stone henge site even before the birth of Photography with hand painted pictures and prints so where E.H would stand on legal President i don’t know.
The image I have on fotoLbra of Stonehenge was taken long before the fence was there, long before the tarmac path was there and long before the law was passed about images taken in our countryside.
Therefore I think I’m right in saying, as the law stands, that my image is O.K. But then what date was this law passed? I remember driving a car around the roads before the M.O.T. was brought in. The police didn’t go round arresting every body for no M.O.T before that date.
[…] which is based in Wales, responded in a blogposting, listing four stock agencies that sell […]
[…] fotoLibra Blog « Stonewalling Stonehenge […]
We the people of the United Kingdom declare that we pay the wages of the quango’s who are there to manage the heritage of the lands on behalf of the people. If we the people own all these historical sites and so on then we can photograph our own property. The same problems arise here in Scotland. I was asked by a jobsworth if I had my city permit (Edinburgh) when doing a photoshoot from Calton Hill. I was also told that I needed written permission to photograph Edinburgh Castle…………………. what a load of volcanoe’s – I stated to the jobsworth that I was photographing a sunset to the west of Edinburgh and that the Castle and the City were obstructing my view ……. I never take these people seriously as I often remind them that as a UK taxpayer who is heavily burdened by the encumbent government paying far too much tax for the upkeep of these jobsworths and contributing each year to their over inflated salaries and pension funds that I own part of these sites and have no intention of ever paying for the opportunity to photograph the said sites……………….. Long live fotolibra
I don’t see what the fuss is about. English Heritage aren’t saying all images are their copyright. And what’s the problem with commercial photographers paying if they go onto the site?
And as for all the points about legally forcing people to comply, surely that isn’t the point. There is also a moral obligation. Reminds me of a time in a cathedral when a man with a camera and a big bag of accessories strongly objected to paying £2 for a photo permit. He looked down at the old woman who asked him for it and told her in no uncertain terms he wasn’t paying and there was no way she could force him to. I’m pleased to say that when those people who overheard came over he decided to pay up.
Google have been getting bad press again for harvesting emails, passwords, personal details from unprotected wifi setups while they were collecting for Street View. That was straight-up wrong of them and it’s becoming more difficult to understand what they mean now by ‘do no evil’…
Hudson, especially as EH never said they owned all the rights to the photos only said if there were any commercial interest that they were to contact them. And now everyone knows who and what fotolibra is, because of the publicity it’s got… A very very smart play from fotolibra I think… Wonder if EH can get a cut of the sales of the subscription, lol!?
[…] hasn’t convinced recipients that English Heritage actually have a case. And as one of them (fotolibra) noted : A quick browse through a number of rights-managed and royalty-free online picture […]
[…] amusing example of bureaucratic hubris has reached me. A post here on the fotoLibra blog – a commercial picture library – reveals an email from English […]
well then if they come to America then they have no right to sell pictures of our National Parks! If the New World Order can declair U.S. SOIL ie’ National Parks, wilderness areas… “world heritage sites” and “International biospheres”… Stealing america right out from under the nose of the ignorant, passive to the point of stupidity to the point of BRAINWASHED BRAINDEAD American public, then WE should be able to do the same thing! Stonehenge is a World heritage site!
Until English Heritage decided to fence Stonehenge and make money by charging admission, the site was free to visit and totally “unprotected”. Apart from the occasional splash of paint, which time took care of, the stones seem to have suffered very little.
Which makes it very clear to me where English Heritage stand. It exists purely to sell Stonehenge to tourists and does next to nothing else. Is the fencing in fact legal? Who decided that it was legal to restrict access to the site and has it been challenged in court?
I well remember the expensive and stupid confrontations between the police and Solstice celebrators caused for no other reason than English Heritage deciding that the Druids and other carefully selected groups were “persona non grata”. It caused major local disruption and cost a fortune for no logical reason.
http://www.hrp.org.uk/hamptoncourtpalace/ (who look after but do not own) Historic Royal Palaces is an independent charity that looks after the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, the Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace.
I sent them an email to find out what the rules are regarding non-commercial photography in Tudor Dress..
…. I was wondering if you could help. I’ve been checking over the website to understand the rules regarding photography at Hampton Court Palace.
The website photography section is aimed at commercial ventures. Which we are not.
My question is would we be allowed to photograph on the grounds, with Hampton Court Palace in the background, with two ladies in full tudor dress?
I have two friends who sew and make these stunning outfits, and we would like to photograph them in a fitting enviroment. I’ve attached a pic of one of the dresses.
These will never be used in a commerical way, nor profit made from them, or ever be sold.
THe response
** High Priority **
Hi Angela,
Many thanks for contacting Historic Royal Palaces.
Unfortunately we are not able to accommodate your request on this occasion. As part of the interpretation we provide visitors at Hampton Court Palace, we use actors in authentic tudor clothing. Therefore, we do not allow members of the public to come on site in period clothing, nor to have their photographs taken at Hampton Court Palace.
I hope you understand the reasons for why we cannot accommodate your request on this occasion.
Should you wish to discuss this further do contact me direct,
Kind regards,
So you are now banned from dressing up in outfits of our ancestors, visiting locations which are public property, and not allowed to take a photo… this is becoming beyond ridiculous..
What a lot of hot air! This question of who can photograph what and where has been ventilated ages ago. You can snap anyone, anything, anywhere, without permission (except a few hush-hush places such as GCHQ). Tell the jobsworths to go to blazes.
Fees paid to people whose homes are used as film/tv locations are fees for the *hire* of the premises and have nothing to do with copyright. Only if you take a picture of Joe Bloggs and put it in an advert would you need his permission. Cricketer Dennis Compton won a landmark case when his image was used to promote (I think) a brand of hair cream
See MacNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, or the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, for more detailed discussions and information on this topic.
Picture postcards, showing for example “High Street, Henley-in-Arden,” used to be popular. Imagine if the law said the owner of every building in the photo had to get a share of the proceeds from the sale of such cards.
For those who are interested in returning the Stonehenge Ancestors,
I am sharing my new machinima film
Stonehenge Is Our Temple
Please sign the e-petition in link below film and share the film so others will get the message, thank you ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlPHNuQTCjE
We just got back from Stonehenge tonight. It was great except for the fact they have a bunch if nazi’s patrolling it ! We tried to take a picture at nighttime and a lady security guard nearly but our head off ??? What’s up with that??? She kept flashing her torche on us like we were there to steal on of the blocks. She kept yelling to light ? So I turned my car lights on high beam and she swore/made threats that id we didn’t turn it off she would get the dogs onto us !!! Are they hidding something ? Why no light or photos ? Why wouldn’t you light it up so everyone can see it ? I understand the security but not the response to some harmless photography.
Can someone explain ? iaaron.nida@gmail.com
Ответ на загадку Стоунхенджа! Вопрос, сама причина его появления. Сегодня мы воспринимаем данное сооружение с окультуренным сознанием, а не своим сердцем, как это делали те люди, которые его воздвигли и пользовались им. Мало его иметь, нужно им правильно пользоваться. Стоунхендж был построен с определенной целью. В своё время он являлся вспомогательной частью определенного процесса. И выполнял функцию правильной настройки и ориентира в пространстве и времени. В своем роде это магическое сооружение, но оно остается таким для тех, кто его таким воспринимает. При применении в его расположении определенной программы или разработанной техники, оно перестает быть мистическим и становиться реальным, своим, таким знакомым. Стоунхендж был построен очень продуманными людьми, так как с его помощью люди могли общаться с Богом, а точнее с его Оком (Душой). И просить у Бога здоровье, защиту для себя и своих близких, а также, чтобы Бог разрешил их проблемы с определенными людьми по справедливости. Но нельзя было обращаться с меркантильными мыслями и просьбами, а также просить материальные блага. Так как это противоречило духовности и её развитию в нас. Духовность – это дар Бога людям. С её помощью люди становятся более открытыми, они становятся духовными личностями, у которых исчезает негатив, зло, зависть. Если человек не развивает в себе духовность, то дух покрывает душу. Нужно развивать качества совести в себе: сочувствие, сопереживание, любовь к ближнему и не делать другим того, чего себе не желаешь. Если человек того не выполняет – он живет во тьме. Только Дух- огонь духовности в человеке может изменить его и привести к Богу. Только Дух Бога может, научит нас стать духовной личностью, изменить мир, который нас окружает. Программа, которую предоставляли просвещенные, заключала в себе следующее: тот человек, который с помощью сооружения Стоунхенджа хотел обратиться к Богу. Помогала ему настроиться и раскрыться стать другой личностью. Далее человек осмысливал свои желания и намерения, и формулировал свою просьбу. И заочно знакомился с данным сооружением. Где находится в процессе, что делать и говорить. Описание процесса. При входе в данное сооружение, человека сопровождали несколько людей, они являлись свидетелями его желаний и намерений, о которых он собирался просить Бога. Данный человек в их присутствии озвучивал свою просьбу, или личное желание которое он хотел направить к Богу. И эти люди поддерживали его намерения, придавая этому человеку веру – что это именно так и будет, чего он желает. Далее человек входил в сооружение, выражая свои чувства и настрой по отношению к Богу. Доходя до указанного места, человек знал заочно о происходящем процессе, в котором он находился. За счет его внутреннего настроя, возбуждения и осмысления о том, что он загадал, обязательно сбудется. Далее человек оглядывался к западу, куда посылал свое желание и мысль. Это служило подтверждением в выполнении данного процесса. Далее, если всё было угодно Богу, то от Ока Бога приходил бирюзовый луч, который возмущал пространство в данном сооружении. Далее, шесть кругов убирали грань времени и пространства, человеческая Душа Ока выдвигалась клином в данном пространстве пирамиде к Оку Бога. И там человеческая Душа общалась с Богом наедине, то есть Око Бога было большим зеркалом, с которым говорила человеческая Душа. Невозможное возможно. Хотите попробовать? Для этого нужно восстановить Стоунхендж или построить новый. Обязательно ознакомиться с учением Каббала. Ваши желания могут заменить потоки. Уверяю Вас, если Ваша духовность соответствует качеству и свойствам той духовности, которую хочет видеть в Вас Бог, то ваше желания станет реальным. Если вы не хотите доказывать правильность своей жизни, хотите почувствовать себя по-настоящему духовной личностью, то вы должны следовать данным указаниям. И ваше сознание очиститься. И, по-моему, мнению, всё это очень необходимо каждому человеку, поэтому желаю Вам скорейшего духовного развития. С уважением, Ваш Константин
Thank you Konstantine. For the benefit of me and others who may not be Russian readers, here is a Google translation of Konstantine’s comment:
The answer to the mystery of Stonehenge! The question itself is the reason for its occurrence. Today we take this structure with a cultured mind, not your heart, as did the people who erected it and use it. Few have it, you need to use them correctly. Stonehenge was built for a purpose. At one time he was a minor part of a process. And served as the proper configuration and oriented in space and time. In a way, it is a magical building, but it remains so for those who perceive it so. In applications such as its location or a specific program developed technology, it ceases to be mysterious and becomes real, its so familiar. Stonehenge was built by a very sophisticated people, because people are using it to communicate with God, but rather with his eye (Soul). And ask God for health, protection for themselves and their loved ones, and for God to solve their problems with certain people to justice. But it was impossible to deal with materialistic ideas and requests, and to ask the wealth. Since it was against spirituality and its development in the us. Spirituality – God’s gift to people. With it, people are more open, they become spiritual personalities who disappears negative, evil, envy. If a person does not develop a spirituality, the spirit soul covers. We need to develop a quality conscience: compassion, empathy, love of neighbor and do not do to others what you yourself do not desire. If a person that does not – he lives in darkness. Only the Spirit-fire spirituality in a person can change it and lead to God. Only the Spirit of God can teach us how to become a spiritual person, to change the world around us. Program that provides enlightened, containing the following: the person who, through structures like Stonehenge to God. Tune in and helped him to open up to become another person. Then people contemplate their desires and intentions, and to formulate their request. And absentia familiar with the structure. Which is in the process of what to do and say. Description of the process. When you enter this building, the man was accompanied by several people, they were witnesses to his desires and intentions, which he was going to ask God. This person in front of them voiced their request, or a personal desire that he wanted to send to God. These people supported his intentions, giving the man the faith – that this is and will be, what he wants. Then people entered the building, expressing their feelings and attitudes toward God. Reaching the designated place, people knew about what was happening in absentia proceedings to which he was. By its inner spirit, excitement, and thinking that he put forth, will come true. Next, people looked to the west, where they send their desire and thought. This was a confirmation in the implementation of the process. Further, if it was God’s will, then the Eye of God came turquoise beam that troubled space in this building. Next, clean the face six laps of time and space, the human soul Oka put forward a wedge in the space of the pyramid to the Oka God. And there is the human soul to communicate with God alone, it is the eye of God was a large mirror, which said human soul. Impossible is possible. Want to try? To do this, you need to restore or build a new Stonehenge. Be sure to read the teachings of Kabbalah. Your wishes can replace flows. I assure you if your spirituality matches the quality and characteristics of the spirituality that wants to see you God, your desires become reality. If you do not want to prove the correctness of their lives, want to feel like a truly spiritual person, then you should follow the instructions given. And your mind is clear. And, in my opinion, view, this is very necessary for every person, so I wish you a speedy spiritual development. Sincerely, Your Constantine
[…] ago when they told us to take down images of Stonehenge we were selling. You can read about it here and here. So I looked on Stock Free Images for photographs of Stonehenge. I got 34 results, not all […]
Stonehenge is part of our national heritage, and as such belongs to all of us. I am quite happy for English Heritage to use any of my photographs royalty free. However, they can take a running poke at a rolling doughnut if they expect me to pay them royalties.
They may have had a change of policy, these images were made for a show at Southampton City Art Gallery, English Heritage liked them so much they bought a licence to produce posters. No argument about my copyright and a polite letter thanking me for letting them use the work.
http://timothysoararchive.co.uk/project/projects/stonehenge