Schmap and a photo on Flickr....

[cannedheat]

Hi people,

Just after a bit of advice...

I've just had an email from someone on Flickr who's informed me that one of my pics has been shortlisted for inclusion in an online travel guide called 'Schmap'...

Now obviously I'm rather pleased that one of my pictures has even been noticed:




Has anyone ever heard of this company or had previous dealings with them? I've already checked out their terms which are...

Schmap terms said:

TERMS OF SUBMISSION

THESE TERMS OF SUBMISSION (THE “TERMS”) REPRESENT A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU, EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR A SINGLE LEGAL ENTITY (“YOU”), AND SCHMAP, INC. (“SCHMAP”). BY CLICKING THE “SUBMIT” BUTTON, YOU CONFIRM YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS.

1. PHOTOS
The term "Photos" refers to one or more photographs and/or images licensed by You to Schmap pursuant to the Terms.

2. LICENSE GRANT
Subject to the terms and conditions herein, You hereby grant Schmap 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.

3. FAIR USE RIGHTS
Nothing in these Terms is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.

4. LIMITATIONS
The license granted in Section 2 above is made subject to and limited by the following express limitations:

(a) Schmap may only distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and/or publicly perform the Photos pursuant to the Terms.

(b) Schmap shall be required to keep intact all copyright notices for the Photos and provide, reasonable to the medium or means of utilization, the name of the original author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, and a credit (implemented in any reasonable manner) identifying the use of the Photos in any derivative Photos created by Schmap.

(c) Schmap shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, provide Internet link(s) to your Photos.

(d) Schmap shall not sublicense the Photos.

(e) Schmap shall indicate to the public that You reserve all rights with respect to use of the Photos.

(f) Schmap shall continue to make its destination/local guides available at no cost to end users.

(g) Schmap shall display the Photos at a maximum width of 150 pixels.

5. RIGHTS
You confirm that You own or otherwise control all of the rights to the Photos and that use of the Photos by Schmap will not infringe or violate the rights of any third parties.

6. NO OBLIGATION
Schmap shall have no obligation whatsoever to reproduce, distribute, broadcast, or otherwise make use of the Photos licensed by You to Schmap hereunder.

7. NO AFFILIATION
While the Flickr website and/or Flickr API have been used to short-list your Photos, Schmap claims no affiliation or partnership with Flickr.

8. MISCELLANEOUS
If any provision of the Terms is ruled unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the extent permissible, and the remainder of the Terms shall remain in effect. The Terms constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Photos licensed hereunder. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Photos not specified hereunder. If there is any dispute about or involving the Terms or the license granted hereunder, You agree that such dispute shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict-of-law provisions. You agree to personal jurisdiction by and venue in the state and federal courts of the State of California, City of San Francisco. The license granted in the Terms may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of You and Schmap.

...so basically I'm signing away the pic for them to do as they please?!?

Should I go ahead and accept their terms? I have very little experience in this sort of thing so want to make sure I'm not signing upto anything particularly punitive...

[Simpo Two]

I'm not a lawyer but I think it could be re-written as:

Schmap terms said:

Schmap will help themselves to your photo at no cost to themselves and pay you not one penny

In other words, theft by permission. Or you could ask yourself - what's in it for you?

Was I close?

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 3rd March 21:30

[andy-xr]

I'm guessing it was a message from an Emma Williams? There's plenty of discussion on the Flickr Forums about Schmap, mostly by wannabe photograpers wanting payment for their work or they wont submit it.

I've got at least 1 image in their thing, it was a pleasant request, pretty straightforward and to be honest wasnt my best work anyway. Suppose it fitted what they were after.

You get a credit next to the photo and they use it for whatever they use it for.

I was quite surprised not to be asked if I wanted to buy my photo that someone else had printed and bound, this seems fairly common with other "selection processs"

--

ETA - the next step is that you confirm you accept their terms, and notice that your photo has already been rehosted by Schmap for review. If it's not your thing, just decline it

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 3rd March 21:44

[cannedheat]

andy-xr said:

I'm guessing it was a message from an Emma Williams? There's plenty of discussion on the Flickr Forums about Schmap, mostly by wannabe photograpers wanting payment for their work or they wont submit it.

I've got at least 1 image in their thing, it was a pleasant request, pretty straightforward and to be honest wasnt my best work anyway. Suppose it fitted what they were after.

You get a credit next to the photo and they use it for whatever they use it for.

I was quite surprised not to be asked if I wanted to buy my photo that someone else had printed and bound, this seems fairly common with other "selection processs"

--

ETA - the next step is that you confirm you accept their terms, and notice that your photo has already been rehosted by Schmap for review. If it's not your thing, just decline it

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 3rd March 21:44

Yeah, that's her.

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about any kind of payment. The fact that the pic has been recognised and someone wants to use it is enough for me...

[Yellabelly]

I had the same thing for a photo of Notre Dame, it was Emma Williams who made contact. She was very pleasant in the correspondance and regularly kept me up to speed with what was happening. I had no problem wih allowing it's use, again not one of my best photographs.
HTH

YB

[bashful]

Just to back up the rest, really: I had a contact from them about a fairly average picture I'd taken in Toronto. I read the terms very carefully, and didn't see anything that bothered me as an amateur - nothing I saw limits *my* use of the photo in any way. FWIW, I don't expect that they'll make me famous; I looked at the link they sent me for the page where they used my photo, and they have one page for that area of Toronto with a small rotating gallery of ten or fifteen shots from that area in one corner - one of the pictures is mine.

[cannedheat]

Well I've accepted.

Thanks for the advice people.

[furtive]

They seem to contact everyone and choose the worst photos they can find. They're using one of mine - it's a really bad scan of a really bad photo taken with an APS compact camera

[havoc]

cannedheat said:

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about any kind of payment. The fact that the pic has been recognised and someone wants to use it is enough for me...

Don't want to sound rude, but that's the problem nowadays - people expect pics for nothing...which is costing those who are either semi-pro or amateurs using micro-stock sites money. And people like you are so flattered that they go "ooh, wow, yes take my photo!!!".

If they want your pic, they should pay for it. 5 years ago they'd have had little choice. 10 years ago they'd probably have had to approach an agency or an actual 'tog directly.


Now if there's some quid-pro-quo going on in place of cash payment (e.g. I got pitside access at a couple of Group-C races, and in return gave them a few dozen photos of their car, asking only to be credited in the event they used them publicly rather than as a private record), fair enough...but here it's just some second-rate travel-guide trying to set-up on the cheap...

[Kermit power]

havoc said:

cannedheat said:

To be honest, I'm not too fussed about any kind of payment. The fact that the pic has been recognised and someone wants to use it is enough for me...

Don't want to sound rude, but that's the problem nowadays - people expect pics for nothing...which is costing those who are either semi-pro or amateurs using micro-stock sites money. And people like you are so flattered that they go "ooh, wow, yes take my photo!!!".

If they want your pic, they should pay for it. 5 years ago they'd have had little choice. 10 years ago they'd probably have had to approach an agency or an actual 'tog directly.


Now if there's some quid-pro-quo going on in place of cash payment (e.g. I got pitside access at a couple of Group-C races, and in return gave them a few dozen photos of their car, asking only to be credited in the event they used them publicly rather than as a private record), fair enough...but here it's just some second-rate travel-guide trying to set-up on the cheap...

That's an interesting position to take. I can see why it would be frustrating for a pro to have their market eroded by amateurs who just enjoy the knowledge that people are enjoying shots they were taking anyway, but surely if the pro is good enough, then the quality of their work should be enough to justify paying them for it?

I certainly don't see why anyone should have to charge for their images to be used if they're happy for them to be used for free.

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

I certainly don't see why anyone should have to charge for their images to be used if they're happy for them to be used for free.

Fair point, and I can see how the flattery 'wow they want to use my photo!' angle works, but it still means they can set up much of their business for nothing.

I don't shoot stock so it doesn't bother me financially, it just seems a bit 'off' that they use generous people to get stuff for nothing. I could ask Nikon for a new lens but I doubt they'd be sufficiently flattered to post me one! (I could put a credit on my website: 'free lens by Nikon'...)

[andy-xr]

I've said it before on one of these threads but Schmap seem to do most of their sourcing from Flickr. If you've seen Flickr's t's and c's it's not the best place for anyone to host photos and expect to make money from them

[Kermit power]

Simpo Two said:

Kermit power said:

I certainly don't see why anyone should have to charge for their images to be used if they're happy for them to be used for free.

Fair point, and I can see how the flattery 'wow they want to use my photo!' angle works, but it still means they can set up much of their business for nothing.

I don't shoot stock so it doesn't bother me financially, it just seems a bit 'off' that they use generous people to get stuff for nothing. I could ask Nikon for a new lens but I doubt they'd be sufficiently flattered to post me one! (I could put a credit on my website: 'free lens by Nikon'...)

The difference there though is that there is an actual production cost in Nikon creating a lens, which there isn't for an amateur photographer who had already taken the shot and done any post-production for their own enjoyment.

Maybe a more accurate comparison might be some of the expertise provided by various people on PH for free. I happen to speak fluent French & Spanish, and on a couple of occasions I've translated stuff for people on here. You could argue that I'm taking business away from professional translators, but I doubt many people would see it that way, and that's despite the fact that the translation, unlike simply agreeing to an existing pic being used, does actually take me some time.

[havoc]

Chris,

Fair point...but the people on here are private punters, (usually) with private needs for the translation, not a business seeking to generate a profit.

I guess that is the crux of my complaint...businesses can afford to pay for your work (and if they can't then they need to revisit their business model), a private individual may not be in the position to...

[cannedheat]

Hmm, some interesting points raised which I hadn't really considered...

I suppose I could of emailed back and requested, say £10 for use of my picture?? I'm guessing I would of had a polite email back saying 'no thanks, we'll use someone elses pic' and I would of ended up back at square one.

[CVP]

cannedheat said:

Hmm, some interesting points raised which I hadn't really considered...

I suppose I could of emailed back and requested, say £10 for use of my picture?? I'm guessing I would of had a polite email back saying 'no thanks, we'll use someone elses pic' and I would of ended up back at square one.

True, I guess they would have moved on quite quickly. Whilst it's quite flattering to have your images used by a business, I personally think they should pay something for them.

Some folks are just too cheap, I've had a similar approach for an image I shot of a ship in NY harbour. The ship is now a boutique hotel and I was asked if I would quote to provide a poster sided (3 foot by 2 foot) print for them to use. I was quite flattered to be honest, did the processing and then quoted using my favourite printing firm and then added the huge sum of $20 on top as profit for me. Needless to say it's all gone very quiet but hey ho that's the way it goes I suppose.

Chris

[paul911]

I’ve been approached by Schmap (Emma Williams) 3 time now. 1st time I was very flattered and allowed them to use my pic. 2nd time I asked for a small monetary contribution (no figure mentioned) I though no harm in trying eh! She sent the following polite – but seemingly automated reply.

"Dear Paul,

Thanks for your email here.

I should say that all photos in our guides are low resolution copies of originals, provided by photographers (such as yourself) on the understanding that the use is non-exclusive, and that we credit these low resolution copies clearly and link to their high resolution originals. We're unable to deviate from this with payments to individual photographers, even when high resolution images are offered.

Kind regards,

Emma Williams
Managing Editor, Schmap Guides"


I got the feeling after I gave permission on the first pic, she had me down as an easy target. So I declined on the 3rd request and haven’t heard since.;)

[fixedwheelnut]

I've got one of the Thames Barrier in their schmap, I'm not in it to make money so I was flattered they used it.The same pic was used in Geo Science magazine and I just asked them to donate some money to a charity.

If somebody wants one for a publication then it is a different matter, a friend of mine is a photographer and he sent me a link to advice for what to charge for use of your photo's.

---

[what he said]
A good place to start enquiring on what pros are charging the Photolibraries/magazines would be here :

londonfreelance fees guide see their recommended rates for magazine publishing and also the link lower on the page titled agreements!!

Infact, most of the information you might need if you are approached to sell photos could be found here and on the following site
Freelance uk

The question will always be...what is the purchaser intending to do with your image. After all, if you sold them the exclusive copyright for £50, and then saw the image on the front page of the Sunday Times mag, you would deservedly be pissed off, not to mention if they then sell the licence to 500 other magazines worlwide at £500 a time!!!
Extreme example I know, but thats what its all about.

Now..the big question is this...why are magazines using non pro image galleries to find their magazine stock when the norm is to approach people like www.istockphoto.com and the numerous other stock libraries?

---

Edited by fixedwheelnut on Saturday 7th March 00:58

[BigMans197]

They asked me if they could use a couple of photos of Seattle. I said yes, as to be honest they were not great photos (one was a branch of Starbucks!) and theres no way anyone would ever pay for them.

Happy just to have it linked to my Flickr account, where I might get a few more views.