I think many hills and mountains on NT land has public access rights. You could check on an OS map. Obviously the interiors of NT houses or works of art would require permission. I’m sure Adobe Stock must have many images taken in national parks.
This is why I'm confused about whether one is needed or not. The park
authority has a policy of commercial photography on their land, but as the
photographs are often taken on land that they've given people permission to
be on - is it enforceable or is it a courtesy?
UK law says that photography is legal in all public open spaces and copyright rests with the photographer.
Have done a little further digging and the countryside rights of way act (
which is the one I assume applies to national park pathways) says that
commercial photography isn't allowed. Which I think answers my question?
I think it depends how commercial photography is defined. Nobody is going to prevent you selling a fantastic sunset photo.
Commercial photography implies being involved in the activities as a commercial photographer, this is likely to involve going to a place to make a commercial or run a shoot with models, stylists, and a pre-defined client.
If there is a policy restricting commercial photography, you must obtain a property release. Selling through Adobe Stock is selling content with a commercial license. Please be sure to comply with any and alll local laws and restrictions for your protection. You can view more information about our legal guidelines at the following link: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/legal.html
Some useful info in the link, thank you!
Having looked through the Brecon Beacons tagged images in Adobe (and
others) stock library and seeing that virtually none are restricted to
editorial use only, I thought it warranted further discussion. The
guidelines are clear on what most see as open access land / mountains /
Sorry, should've said "guidelines aren't clear"