Sunny afternoon at Pere Lachaise, Paris, originally uploaded by WritingTravel.com. Currently "short listed" for the 7th edition of the Schmap Paris Guide. © 2008 Lanora S. Mueller. All rights reserved.
I was surprised and a bit flattered to receive an email through my Flickr account the other day from Emma Williams, the managing editor of Schmap. The message began thusly:
Hi WritingTravel.com,
I am writing to let you know that one of your photos has been short-listed for inclusion in the seventh edition of our Schmap Paris Guide, to be published late April 2009.
I'd never heard of Schmap, so some research was in order. A quick Google search uncovered reports from numerous other Flickr photographers who had received similar notices, some of whom reacted with the same questions I was beginning to form.
Before I could develop any opinion about this opportunity, however, I had to learn more about the company. From a quick view of the About page on Schmap.com, I learned that Schmap is a publisher of more than 200 "phenomenally successful" digital travel guides that have been downloaded more than 90 million times since going beta in March 2006.
The guides are "free to users," a point which Ms. Williams underscored in her email:
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.
Such a well-mannered request, it seems, has met with mostly positive response from other photographers, especially from those who have chosen to allow use of their images with attribution via Creative Commons licensing. Some of these photographers, even some whose Creative Commons terms specify noncommercial usage, went on to comment that Ms. Williams's request was superfluous, as Schmap could have just gone ahead and used their photos without making a formal request.
And not only are many photographers happily giving free use of their images to Schmap and publicizing Schmap's guides via blog posts about the thrill of being published, quite a few are providing free ongoing marketing through use of Schmap's widgets on the photographers' websites.
Wait a minute, I thought, after reading yet another post by a flattered photographer. Just because the guides are free to users doesn't mean Schmap has no revenue model. It's a commercial venture. They must be making money somehow.
I read the fine print again.
The photography terms of submission include "a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license to include the Photos in
the current and/or subsequent releases of Schmap's destination/local
guides" in return for which Schmap will provide attribution and copyright notice "reasonable to the medium or means of utilization" and "indicate to the public that You reserve all rights with respect to use of the Photos." In addition, the contract specifies that "Schmap shall continue to make its destination/local guides available at no cost to end users."
Still no answer to my question: how does Schmap benefit other than
through the same "recognition and work exposure" it offers to
photographers?
A visit to the Schmap website's terms of use page yielded a clue as to how Schmap will gain from giving away millions of copies of their guides. Advertising sales. Duh. "Schmap reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions" while you, as a user, "agree that Schmap has the right to
run such Promotions without any compensation to You."
But wait. There's more to ponder. Photographers are assured that Schmap
guides will be available at no cost to end users, seemingly in the same
spirit as photographers provide their images to Schmap at no cost. In their terms of use, however, Schmap says that "although there will always be a free version of Schmap 2.0 for
non-commercial use, Schmap may introduce a premium version in the
future. Schmap reserves the right to charge fees for any future
versions of Schmap 2.0 and/or the Services and for any additional
modules and/or content."
Does this mean a photographer's freely submitted work would somehow disappear from Schmap's premium content and services? I would guess not.
What say you about this publication opportunity? I have until March 31 to decide.
Try checking in at this site http://www.photoattorney.com/
They often cover this type of topic, and the blog author is an attorney who works a lot with photographers and photography rights issues.
nice photo, but I wouldn’t give it away to these dudes.
Unless you are going to sell the photo yourself, why not let them use it? It’s free content for goodness sake. Putting travel guides together from thousands of individual contributors is kinda cool.
You can technically ask google/yahoo to remove your website or blog from their free search results, too – after all, they run advertisements all over the place. But why? Don’t search engines benefit us all, even if they are commercially driven (they have to pay their employees, who don’t work for free)? Why not the same for travel?
Nice adverts on the right-hand side of this blog, btw. 🙂
I’ve been debating this general question for a while. Whether to hold my photos under close wrap until I get paid an appropriate sum for my work or whether to share freely. In the end, with all the competition from all of you talented photographers, its going to be a long time before I get rich off my photography. So – as long as I grant permission and get properly attributed – I’m happy to share my work and get the exposure.
I ended up letting the deadline pass without making a formal reply. Guess that was decisive enough.
I respect your argument, James. However, I do see a difference in how Schmap presents itself as perpetually “free” and the transparently commercial drive behind search engines and affiliate marketing programs.
I agree with James… This is a great website and a very good tool to use so submitting a photo would only help a lot of poeple.. They are free so they don’t charge for their service or for others to view your photo.
Another thing that you might not have known. While they use your photo for one of their guides… It’s probably going to be one of several photos in the subject. For example, while your photo of Pere Lachaise, Paris is great, there would probably be about 25 photos of Pere Lachaise in thumbnail format and the viewer would have to scroll through all of them to see yours. They’re not using them in a format that puts your photo in a big spotlight.
I submitted a couple of photos because the approval process was as easy as clicking “yes” and because it doesn’t hurt anything. It’s a photo that probably wasn’t going to make me money and would help others see the location they could potentially visit, so why not? I know I would hope someone would submit photos to a place I was researching…
I think you put a little too much thought in to it and I think that people could have used your photos when researching that destination. Without people like this we would never have had tripadvisor.com or googlemaps or any other website/application that relies heavily on user submission.
On another note: For some reason when someone wants to post something in your “Reply” box, all of your ads come on top of the box so y you have to type up a response somewhere else and then paste it in because you can’t see what you’re typing in your reply box.
Thanks for your thoughts, Pablo.
There aren’t any pop-up or pop-over ads on this site, so I’m wondering what was causing your trouble.
Have you tried changing your browser settings?
Just read an interesting discussion of Schmap’s interpretation of Creative Commons licensing, dating back to June 2007:
http://www.epuk.org/Blogs/613/one-hand-schmapping?commented=1#c000984
You can find an analysis of Schmap’s contract on attorney Joe Gratz’s site: http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2006/02/23/schmap/
Yet another helpful discussion of Schmap and Creative Commons licensing: http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/03/01/creative-commons-noncommercial/
Did you Schmap or didn’t you?
No, Kaoa, I did NOT Schmap. Thanks for asking!
Ill read the links
But if subsequent versions are charged for and have my photo I’ll request its removal and if it isnt ill sue.
If they are making money through advertising – good luck to them – its a tough business and maintaining the travel guides is an effort and a cost. They are entiteled to charge for that certainly but not the end users while using my pictures. technically they can argue ( i suppose ) that they are being paid for association with thier creative effort by the advertisers – where as an end user is paying for the direct access to my photos and unless I get a cut – thats not on.
Schmap is a commercial venture. They are making money from publishing travel guides that are illustrated using your photos.
Here is another illuminating discussion entitled One-Hand Schmapping on the blog of the group Editorial Photographers of the UK and Ireland: http://www.epuk.org/Blogs/613/one-hand-schmapping
I wrestled with these questions myself. In the end I decided they could use my photo, largely because of the 150 pixel limit. Since the original was over 3000 pixels, it really doesn’t feel like I’m giving much away, and with the link to a larger image may well come the opportunity to sell prints or other, larger but more limited rights. In my case it was a reciprocal relationship. They’ll get nothing if their link leads to revenue for me. I’ll get nothing if they include my image in a premium edition.
And I understand your decision as well.
I gave permission for them to use mine. I think, as you pointed out, that they kindly asked for the photo to be used and you had the right to reject the offer.
I dont see why we should be paid for an image that is being posted to a site for all to view and copy as they see fit.
I think the prestige of being asked to the statement of “not being paid” has made a few think….”if its good enough for that then why shoudlnt I be paid”.
I like the thought of a creative guide using creative free thinking contributors where the word “commercial” doesnt even enter our thoughts. This is what the WWW should all be about.
I got an email recently from Schmap asking permission to shortlist for one of my photos for their Antwerp, Belgium guide. As an 18 year old, who has yet to undergo professional photography training (I start University next year) I am quite flattered that anybody has recognised my work.
Yes, Schmap are somehow making a profit from this, they wouldn’t function as a non-profit business, despite the fact we are providing our photos royalty free. I’m just happy that I have recieved recognition so early in my life, despite how insignificant it may be.
I just turned down Shmaps request. It just didn’t sit well for me. A travel site is a monetized entity, a professional company in business to make money, otherwise they would not survive.
Professional publications have always either hired pricey photographers or purchased pricey photos from professionals. Cutting corners is fine, however, expecting to furnish all photos to your site for ‘free’ without sharing in those profits is just wrong.
You all should read Ayn Rand’s book ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
I let them use my photo. I am a novice photographer and it’s free advertising for me too!
If I did let them use my photo, could I still sell it myself to a third party in the future? In other words, do I keep copyright?
@George, you retain copyright, absolutely.