Full Feed RSS
Schmap Wants to Make Money Off My Photos and I Won’t Let Them
Last month, I received an email from a travel guide company called Schmap. They wanted to use a couple of my photos, including the one at the right, for an online Vancouver travel guide. I was pretty happy about this, until I examined their ‘agreement’ further.
They wanted to use my photos without paying me. I’m not immediately opposed to this; I’ve been published in not-for-profit publications previously. However contrary to the BS they attempt to sell you, Schmap is very much a for-profit company.
When quizzed about their business status, Schmap claims that not everyone would consider making money from advertising a ‘commercial venture’. This is such a blatant self-serving lie it makes my head hurt.
Another example of a sketchy company trying to fleece amateur photographers who are looking for exposure. It’s one thing to ask for free content, it’s another lie to people about the nature of your business when asking for freebies.
Other Photographers’ Opinions
I saw a lot of reactions in the blog-o-drome from photographers who were happy to get their work shown. I also saw some bad reactions and after thinking about it all week, I have to side with the negative folks.
One of the first sites I stumbled across on Schmap’s shady business practices talks about how not only do they attempt to get permission to use your images for free, their terms violate the terms of your Creative Commons license (should you use one):
…Schmap’s proposed use doesn’t qualify as a legit use under the Creative Commons license I’ve chosen. Despite Schmap’s saying that the question of commerciality is undefined, this strikes me as a wholly commercial use. And, Schmap is not going to distribute its guides under a Creative Commons license, thereby not following the terms of the ShareAlike license.
NowPublic
I also had a similar encounter with citizen journalism site NowPublic. They’re not making ad money off my content directly, but they have been accepting millions in venture capital. Millions that I’m sure would not have appeared had the business plan said anything about paying photographers for their hard work. Instead, there was probably some bullshit along the lines of ‘leveraging the power of crowd-sourced media.’
NowPublic has attempted to justify it in a couple of ways. They use a ’secure’ flash housing to prevent photo theft and a few photos have allegedly been purchased by the Associated Press. So I should give them my work for free and hope someone else pays me in the future? I don’t think so, we already covered what a poor idea that is with my satirical article on photography career tips.
While I don’t agree with their reasoning and chose not to let them use my photos, I thoroughly enjoyed the frank and open discussion I had with Kaitlin from NowPublic. I appreciated the time she took to address my concerns and provide a counterpoint to my arguments.
One Simple Rule - If you’re making money by using my photos, it’s only fair that I make money from my photos as well.
Matt Simpson Said,
September 5, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Interestingly, they are not looking at just CC images. Alll my images are marked “all rights reserved” and they asked for it anyway, and in the process copied my image to their servers, which basically means they’ve adopted a “copy first, ask questions later.” policy.
If they were linking my photo and saying “hey, can we use this?” I wouldn’t be so annoyed, but they aren’t so I am.
Andrew Ferguson Said,
September 5, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Yep, they just pick whatever shows up in the search. My images are marked ‘All Rights Reserved’ and the same thing happened :/
Ian Runkle Said,
September 6, 2007 @ 12:21 am
I had something similar–and they went a step further, they wanted to own the rights to the picture. The deal seemed to be that I give them the copyright, and in exchange they print it in a book and earn cash on it.
I was a little baffled by the audacity of that move.
Kenya Said,
September 6, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Schmap realizes that their usage violates Creative Commons which is why they contact the photographer in the first place. However, their terms actually do not violate the CC license because they are relying on this part of the license agreement:
If you don’t give them permission to use your photos, they are not going to violate the license because they don’t want to be sued and they have a bunch of other eager amateur photographers waiting to have their pictures “published”. I think the reason they waffle on whether their enterprise is commercial because they don’t want to us to expect payment from them. To some degree, I think they also expect the “photographers” to publicize their site. I noticed on several blogs of who had been Schmapped that they provided a link back to the photo and thereby the actual guide in which Schmap used their photo. Ridiculous.
My suspicions were raised because for me they picked photos that I honestly don’t think are all that great. Also, I had never heard of Schmap until this and it’s not like they are Frommers, Fodors or Lonely Planet, all of which I respect. Perhaps they are advertising to the photographers as well by “selecting” our photos.
Ron Beaubien Said,
September 12, 2007 @ 5:32 am
We had a similar discussion on Flickr where companies have been taking advantage of photographers in much the same way.
http://flickr.com/help/forum/47355/
justin Said,
September 12, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Damn. I said yes to them cos I thought it was non-profit. Even then only because it’s a photo I don’t feel too precious about.
I don’t regret it really having read your post but if they ever contact me again, I’ll probably say No.
Andrew Ferguson Said,
September 15, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
@Kenya: Both of the photos they picked from me were also most definitely NOT my best work, that was part of why I got suspicious.
It seems I exagerrated, they aren’t *technically* violating the CC license but they are tricking people into waiving their CC rights. It amounts to the same thing and it’s just as sleazy.
@Ron: Thanks for the link! It’s made for some good reading. I’m surprised by how many people in the Flickr community are eager to give their work away for free, but I guess that’s what happens with amateurs and hobbyists. They’re not expecting or attempting to make money, so the money becomes irrelevant.
Ron Beaubien Said,
September 15, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Andrew — I guess so.
What surprises me is how many people will give up their work for free when it is obvious that someone else will be making a profit on them. They never stop to think about how much time, effort, and money they put into their pictures. Then there is also the cost of digital storage, a computer, software, camera upgrades, lenses, travel expenses, etc. It is shocking really. With desktop publishing these days, anyone can publish their photos without much effort or cost.
Even forgetting about making a profit for a moment, it seems that many photographers are not even thinking about getting a few extra dollars just help with their next photo trip, even if that is just a bit of change to put gas in the gas tank. It would even be nice just to break even once in a while.
julie Said,
September 25, 2007 @ 7:55 am
They want to use one of my all rights reserved photos. I’ve decided to decline.