Schmap wants to use one of my pictures, what should I do?

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

Apparently there's a travel-type site (think Fodor's) called schmap (www.schmap.com) that does guides to various cities around the world and also allows users to upload their own content.<br>

I got a message from one of their people saying they would like to use my photo of the Philadelphia Museum of Art in their Philadelphia guide. Cool!<br>

However, the catch is that they don't want to pay for it. They want me to grant them a free, indefinite non-exclusive type license to use the image as they see fit. I see lots of pictures on there that have Creative Commons licenses (which I don't think we can assume they aren't paying for, but I'd be surprised if they are). I mean... at least they asked instead of just taking it I suppose. They sent me this message:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess my beef with this is that they are a for-profit company trying to pass this off as them doing me a favor by exhibiting my work. I'm not too thrilled about that. I mean sure, it's nice to be recognized and maybe I'll get some more traffic, but it's the <em>principle</em> of the thing.<br>

Has anyone else encountered this kind of situation? If they were non-profit, I'd be fine with it, but they are looking to profit and they asked me to donate my work to further that endeavor.<br>

What would you do?</p>

<p>I'd tell them slavery (work for no pay) was abolished two centuries ago.</p>

<blockquote>slavery (work for no pay)</blockquote><p>This is hardly "work for no pay." Someone is trying to obtain the rights to something that someone has. Nobody is telling him he has to work. Let's see your paid work. The original poster is getting publication requests, let's see your paid work..</p>

<p>That's the thing, I'm not even a professional photographer right now and really (at least in my mind) it was just a snapshot. Anyway: <a href="

<p>So you need to decide what it's worth to you. It sounds unlikely that they will pay anyone, so if you want the publication and the credit for your portfolio or just to feel good, then do it. If you don't want it published without payment, let them know and see what happens.</p>

<p>They found my picture off Flickr and it's on their site for University of Texas tower (shameless <a href="http://www.schmap.com/austin/introduction_history/#r=none&mapview=Map&tab=Text&p=29321&topleft=31.95216,-98.5556&bottomright=28.57487,-97.01202&i=29321_9.jpg">plug</a>).</p>

<p>To be quite honest there's nothing appealing, interesting, or unique about my photo so I didn't really care. Sure I'm letting them use it for free, but I'm happy they chose mine (even if their standards are pretty low). :P</p>

<p>They asked for one of <a href=" Philadelphia photos</a> too a couple of years ago, also in the Art Museum area. The terms seemed okay, so I allowed it. I can't imagine why they chose that one, though!</p>

<p>Yeah, I was surprised at the picture they chose too. Oh well. :) Guess I'm not alone.</p>

<p>Oh and H. Ting, we can't be friends if you're a UT fan. I'm a Mizzou grad. ;-)</p>

<p>I didn't see or it was left out. Do you they atleast let you keep the right for your own use and/or do they give the photographer credit?</p>

<p>I would never grant anyone a license to any of my photos to use as they see fit indefinitely. I would put a time and usage limit on its publication. And I would expect payment as well. I make a living through photography, and the "pleasure" of publishing with them and the "wide exposure" they offer won't pay my mortgage.</p>

<p><strong>@Dean,</strong><br>

I understand where you're coming from and that's my primary hangup. I'm not supporting myself with my photography (I'm an engineer) and do this as a hobby. On one hand it's nice to have a little recognition and publicity, and <em>possibly</em> some traffic over my Flickr site (though I'm doubtful it'll make any difference... in fact the schmap users will probably think schmap paid someone for the photo and it's just for schmap!). On the other, I feel that if I allow it for free, then maybe that cheapens the profession as a whole just a little, since companies like this think they don't have to hire a professional or buy stock photos since there are so many amateurs willing to give away work in hopes of getting noticed. I think that's the wrong attitude on the part of a company who is trying to make a profit.<br>

<strong>@Keal,</strong> what didn't you see?</p>

<p>Well, whether or not it cheapens the industry is an entirely different discussion. I personally think it does great harm to the industry to give photos away for commercial use for free and for companies to "borrow" them from Flickr or take from amateurs for no compensation.<br>

But, it's your photo. If you feel the photo credit and exposure is worth it, go ahead and give it to them. Ultimately you're the one who has to make the decision. You have to do what makes you feel comfortable.</p>

<p>Isn't flickr great? It's like corbis, only free! :)</p>

<p>I can understand exposure and credit as a form of payment. How popular is schmap? Dunno. But as you said in your original post, if they were non-profit you would be fine with it.</p>

<p>Wikpedia says that schmap provides free service to customers, but earns licensing revenue from it's commercial customers.</p>

<p>I visited the site and it seems that they are making a killing on all their guides by not having to pay for all those images (I'm sure they run into the hundreds or even thousands). So, what's just one more?</p>

<p>I'm reminded of the story of the old man on the beach tossing silver dollars back into the ocean. When questioned by a young boy as to what he is doing, he answered, "I'm saving them from hot sun and birds."</p>

<p>The boy took to laughter and replied; "There's litterally thousands of them everywhere! You can't save them all."</p>

<p>The old man looked at him briefly, picked another one up and gave it toss. Then turned and answered; "Well, I made a difference for that one."</p>

<p>That's my take.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For as long as I've been a professional photographer I have never given away work for free. There seem to be some sort of scam-school all these people go through. You'll hear words like "great publicity opportunity for you", "we can't pay you this time but we will next time" and so on for a few eons. I've never been able to pay the mortgage with "great publicity" and when they tell me they'll pay next time my reply has always been the same: "Pay me in full for this time and I'll make sure you get a hefty discount next time".</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, these are the bottom-feeders of the publishing industry. Are they going to print the printer for printing their guide? Is the layout dude/dudette getting paid? Then why on earth shouldn't you be?</p>

<p>But as Jeff has stated very clearly, it comes down to you and what you want to do. If you are happy with giving your work away for free go for it. Would you do engineering work for free for me if I promised you "great publicity"?</p>

<p>I dunno, maybe I've just been at this for too long (almost 20 years now) but to me giving away my work for nothing has never ever been an issue. Sure, I do pro bono publico work for my local Child Advocacy Center (for abused kids) and I work many long hours in church but to me there's a world of difference. Especially since the people wanting to use your image for free is a for-profit organization. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you do engineering work for free for me if I promised you "great publicity"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that's an interesting question. I spent two hours a couple weeks ago fixing my neighbor's network. A professional would have done it in one third the time and made at least a hundred dollars. I had some interesting discussions with my neighbor, figured out how to work with something I didn't know about previously, and got an invite to dinner at a nice restaurant for my wife and I, the last of which I didn't expect. On the other hand, for me, photo publication is always for money. In other words, I expect to get paid for photographs and not for network administration. This same type of situation is facing Tim. If he isn't going to be making money from photography, it may not matter.</p>

<p>I don't see this as "cheapening" photography any more than the local computer repair shop or the Geek Squad sees me as "cheapening" computer repair.</p>

<p>One thing to consider is barter. These days, I do a fair amount of barter, although I will not do it for publication or advertising clients. I do it for other types of shooting and get things like event tickets, classes, clothing, and alcohol, all things that I would spend money on anyway. With a travel publication like Schmap, if you want the photo published and they are definitely not going to give you money, you should see if they have tickets or hotel nights they can trade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see this as "cheapening" photography any more than the local computer repair shop or the Geek Squad sees me as "cheapening" computer repair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Jeff, you were doing a favor for a neighbor. It was one person. These companies take photos from hundreds, maybe thousands of photographers for little or no money. That is different than doing something nice for a friend. That affects the entire neighborhood. If you were to offer your services to the entire city for free, how long do you think the Geek Squad would be able to stay in business. When clients expect to get something for free, the person who comes along asking to be paid doesn't have chance in that market.</p>

<p>Jeff you bring up an interesting point, and I intend to write them a letter at least explaining my position and perhaps I'll ask if they can compensate in some other way. I need to take the honey over vinegar approach though, so it may be next week before I get to it. :) I do see that many, many people online have one (or several, or dozens!) of pics up there and they are all happy as clams to have been selected. I'm reminded of a certain Steve Martin movie.</p>

<p>Good publicity for engineering work? <em>Hell</em> no. I didn't pay for/toil through school and my work experience just for a kind word. And I'm sure you who earn your living through your photography work feel exactly the same way.</p>

<p>And besides, it's not like it's National Geographic saying "Hey if you give us this image free, we'll run it on the front page for a week!"<br>

--Edit--<br>

For the sake of yuks, I looked up what Lonely Planet does for photos. You may find it interesting.<br>

http://www.lonelyplanetimages.com/prospectivephotographers.html<br>

I read that Schmaps is catching up to Fodors, LP, etc. and I have a feeling a large part of it is that they don't have to pay for some of the most important content of their site!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For as long as I've been a professional photographer I have never given away work for free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree with this with a few caveats:</p>

<ul>

<li>I have never "knowingly" given work away to commercial clients. I have gotten ripped off once or twice, mostly early in my career. Learning experience everyone goes through.</li>

<li>I have given my work and time away to local charities. I just spent 10-20 hours over the past month shooting photos at a therapeutic horse riding program for disabled kids taking images of all the riders so they and their parents could have photos at the end of the 7 week program. I see this as no different than an accountant offering to do the books for his local food bank or a handyman fixing a broken window at his church. I think volunteering is a good thing and photography is the greatest skill I have to offer.</li>

<li>I have done some legitimate favors for people, even if those people happened to be running a decent sized business and could have afforded to hire someone. But in a very logical way, this is more of the 'barter' that Jeff talked about. These are people who I fully expected would pay me back by doing a favor for me in the future. And, as much as you can count on your friends to do anything, they have done so.</li>

</ul>

<p>Now, everyone has to make up their own mind as to what stance they take on stuff like this. I'm not saying that there isn't a single situation where I would sign away my work for the promise of "publicity". But, for me, the number of those situations is very small and probably involves a guest spot on Oprah or something.</p>

<p>Hi Tim-</p>

<p>I had Schmap contact me about one of my Flickr photos last year for the online Orlando, FL guide. I think when you are starting out it is good to occasionally let a photo get used for free in order to gain some visibility, so I let them use it. They gave me proper credit and the photo linked back to my Flickr page, but the size of the photo they displayed was tiny and I really didn't gain any recognition from it so I wouldn't let them use any more of my work. In the whole year, that photo got viewed on my Flickr page from that link a total of two times. On the other hand just back in April the EPA had an Earth Day photo project through Flickr, same kind of deal except non-profit. I entered three photos, one in each category, and had two selected for display. One of those they are using regularly on their main website. I get full credit and that has drawn <strong><em>lots</em> </strong> of attention to my work on Flickr and even to my new website so I am happy, even though I didn't get paid. Just in those few months, I have gotten hundreds of hits on my Flickr page from the EPA project. That also opened the door for me to have a nice email exchange with the lady at the EPA who put the photo project together. She ended up joining my mailing list and forwarded my site link to some colleagues. At this stage in the game I am just starting out and would probably not have had the guts to go knock on the "door" of the EPA. Letting them use just two of my photos for free opened up some good potential opportunities.</p>

<p>I guess the point of me boring you with my long story is this... 1. Letting a photo get used for free isn't always a bad thing. 2. It is a good idea to check out the publication that wants to use the photos first. Then decide if letting them be used for free w/ credit is really going to benefit you in the way they say it will. Honestly, if I had looked at the Schmap website beforehand, I probably would not have bothered.</p>

<p>Good Luck!<br>

Katherine</p>

<p>I have given quite a few photographs to wildlife shelters with permission to use them in promoting their work for as long as they need them. They take care of the birds that I photograph and i think it's worthwhile. I recently gave an afternoon to photograph lots of animals and birds for one place and felt good about it. I do specifically retain the copyrights to my pictures.</p>

<p>Before you even consider to accept this offer, free or for pay, you need to find out if the museum is covered under the copyright laws. Many public buildings hold their own copyrights and photographs of them may not be published without permission of the owners/trustees of the architectural/commercial use property.<br>

This website is probably trying to find a quick, easy way to publish a photo which they might not be legally able to obtain or afford, and you could be legally liable for allowing them to publish it.<br>

This needs to be kept in mind with all buildings that might be classified as historical, having a trademark visable on them, advertising posted somewhere, even everyday travel destinations we take forgranted...check first to see if the building itself comes within the copyright laws. If so, do not publish it except for personal use (such as a forum or crit). These laws hold for domestic and foreign properties.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But Jeff....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dean, your analogy is flawed. Tim is only being asked for one photo and he is making money somewhere else. If I was fixing networks full-time, I would have to be making money because I wouldn't be doing anything else. And, a lot of people's networks might never work quite right, but that's a different problem.</p>

<p>I do think there is something that people aren't accepting which is that the value of most stock photography is rapidly approaching zero. This is due to changes in distribution and availability. Everyone blames the stock agencies, which is a big mistake because it allows anger to replace any kind of reasonable evaluation. Twenty years ago, stock photos had to be obtained by agencies as slides, converted and published in stock books. Producing slides was something a lot of people couldn't do at the time. With the ability for anyone to distribute over the internet, the game changed. Also, a lot of print publication, which requires a certain quality level, has been replaced by internet publication, which requires a significantly lowered quality level. The stock agencies aren't responsible for this.</p>

<p>It's just a changing market and whining about it, which I see a lot on the forum, is the worst response. Instead, photographers who want to sell stock have to find some way to rise above the crowd. For me, it's been continually photographing a specific subject with access that most people don't have. If someone wants Muay Thai kickboxing photos from the US, I've got a huge library. Most people don't shoot close enough or have client restrictions that I don't usually have. I don't advertise and I don't use agencies, when someone goes out looking, they find me. Anyone who wants a long-term stock business has to look for work that is a) high quality, and b) somewhat unique.</p>

<p>I was wondering if they atleast gave you credit and do you keep the rights to the image.</p>

<p>There are close to 16,000 photos of the Philadelphia Museum of Art on Flickr. I'm sure they'll find one if you say no. </p>

<p><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure they'll find one if you say no.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point exactly. Distribution is easy, so there are plenty of photos out there. What's the value of one out of 16,000 (and that's just flickr)? I'm not knocking Tim's photo, it may be the best of those 16,000, but twenty years ago there might only be 20.</p>