Schmap Guides Short-List, Schmort-List
I got a message in my Flickr account from Schmap, saying that one of my photos had been “short-listed” for inclusion in their upcoming edition of their Hawaii travel guide. Sounds cool, right? Then there’s this:
While we offer no payment for publication, many photographers are pleased to submit their photos, as Schmap Guides give their work recognition and wide exposure, and are free of charge to readers. Photos are published at a maximum width of 150 pixels, are clearly attributed, and link to high-resolution originals at Flickr. [Emphasis mine.]
Uh, no. I hit the enclosed link to withdraw my photo from consideration so fast, it should have made their web site spin.
Schmap is an ad-supported, for-profit venture, and this is true even though they do not charge end users for their service. They are clearly counting on photographers’ ignorance of their rights in order to avoid having to pay anyone to use their photos in a commercial context. To quote from this exchange that Vidiot had with Schmap,
The question of ‘commercial’ or ‘non-commercial’ seems to be not so well defined, which is why we have asked individual photographers to submit or withdraw their photos, based on an understanding of our usage.
Some consider usage to be primarily non-commercial if the resulting product/service is free to its end-users, while other short-listed photographers consider our usage ‘commercial’, but decide to submit their photos nevertheless.
To be polite, this is completely disingenuous. To be frank, this is utter bullshit. They are Schmap, Inc. for a reason. Google doesn’t charge you to search the web or set up an e-mail account, but no one in their right mind thinks Google is a non-commercial venture.
The other part of this notice that raised my hackles was the assertion that Schmap offers “recognition and wide exposure.” First, “recognition and wide exposure” does me no good. I am not a professional photographer, and even if I were, people don’t use Schmap to find photographers. If Schmap users click through to look at the full-size photo on Flickr, I don’t see a dime. Beyond a little ego-stroking, I get nothing out of this arrangement while they are making money off my photo.
Second, this “free publicity” argument is often used by blatant copyright violators to justify their actions. I am not going be entering into any arrangements with a company that cribs lines from people who make a habit of violating other people’s intellectual property rights.
I’d like to encourage anyone who receives a similar notice to withdraw your photo from consideration. Schmap needs to put its money where its mouth is, set up proper licensing agreements, and pay people for the privilege of using their photos to support its business.
Chipanglish
CogKnition
Gustatory Circuit
Great entry. This is the second time I’ve been asked by a third-party to use one of my photos that they found on flickr. I found your entry while doing some research before deciding on an answer. Your entry confirmed my initial gut-reaction and I’ll be answering “No”.
BTW, the first time was for a SF based ad agency working for Daimler-Chrylser. I ultimately said “Yes” after exchanging emails with them. They (the ad agency) did not pay for the photo (even though they were clearly paid shitloads from Chrysler). However, they used 3 photos, thumbnail/postage-stamp sized in a full-page JEEP ad that ran in the WSJ, USA Today, and LA Times. The final size of the images (super-small) was the deciding factor in agreeing. It was basically a collage with no particular image (of the 700 or so) being featured.
Yes Schmap’s is clearly in the business of making money.
I declined, but it was a toss of the coin. In Schmap’s defense, they don’t steal your content. They only ask for a license (albeit perpetual) to use your image. You retain the copyright. People put their images on Flickr to be seen, and I think most amateur photographers have nothing to fear.