Short listed on Flickr??? (Semi Urgent)

[j-digg]

Thanks for all the insight and information everyone! Its cool that you all look out for others like that, especially a random like myself. I am indeed a hobbyist, in fact the picture in question was actually taken within a week after I got my first dSLR, which was my first camera period.

 

[hourglass]

It won't be. That's the issue. If this is good enough to be published it's good enough to be paid for or at least good enough to be cited. I would not ever have an image of mine published without my name being attributed, and I very much doubt that would happen in this case.

So read these words carefully. There is NO recognition here. You won't be famous. No one will even know it was you who took it. And while you may feel smug now I'm sure when you see some random photo plastered in some guide with no attribution you won't feel that good.

Just to clarify: if you submit the picture, you're in fact asked to provide a name they can attribute it to, and they also link the image back to your flickr page - just as the terms of submission state under 4.b and 4.c. I've downloaded one of those guides to check, and personally I really can't complain about the implementation either.
It's just that they don't pay you, and still I doubt you can get famous via Schmap (I hadn't even heard of this service before, but maybe that's just me).

 

[manaheim]

This is kinda like these "Who's who in X" books. (Look me up! I'm published in Who's Who in Music 1989... there's a caption under the 2 lines of text about me that reads as follows: "SUCKER!"

In my defense, I was like 17 at the time.

Standard rules apply here: If it seems to good to be true, it is. If you wonder if it is a scam, it is. If you give something valuable and get nothing valuable, you've done something wrong.

 

[Garbz]

Just to clarify: if you submit the picture, you're in fact asked to provide a name they can attribute it to, and they also link the image back to your flickr page - just as the terms of submission state under 4.b and 4.c. I've downloaded one of those guides to check, and personally I really can't complain about the implementation either.
It's just that they don't pay you, and still I doubt you can get famous via Schmap (I hadn't even heard of this service before, but maybe that's just me).

Ok thanks for the correction. This is just my standard response to these kind of things of which there have been quite a few posted on this forum in the past. I have yet to see one where it is attributed, but if it is then by all means it's up to you.

 

[GeneralBenson]

It's completely ridiculous. Things like this are what is killing the photography industry. It's not so much your fault for being an amateur with some decent skills, and for thinking i would be cool to be "published". It's companies like this that prey on you and people like you. They want you to think that you're getting something cool by being "published" and that people will know who you are now. Meanwhile, they're getting free photography, and professionals who are trying to pay bills are getting less work. Well, you're won't be famous, you're not getting any recognition that matters, and you won't get known. What they know, and most of us know, is that all this will do is be a nice little stroke on your ego, and the only people that will know about it, are the peopel you already know, to whom you say, 'Look what I did!'. Do you want to know how many regular people see a picture they like in a magazine/publication and desire to know who took it? Even if the name is right underneath it, no one looks. Images are worth money. You created it, you own it, it has value. It's about that same as if you had a $100 bill, and I said that if you gave it to me for free, I would put your name on it, and that you would get exposure and people would know about you. Bad deal. They're getting something valuable for free, and you're getting something worthless whie giving away something valuble.

 

[KmH]

The explosion of digital images is changing the photography industry, not amature photographers giving away images.

Any working photographer fretting over the changes in the industry is wasting time better spent on figuring out how to adapt and survive.

 

[craig]

The explosion of digital images is changing the photography industry, not amature photographers giving away images.

Any working photographer fretting over the changes in the industry is wasting time better spent on figuring out how to adapt and survive.

That statement is cute and was partly true about 5 years ago. At this moment in time the market is simply flooded with images. Photographers have adapted. Problem is clients are looking for the cheap or free route, because way to many photographers are willing to give their work away. The bigger problem is that people are ok with looking at crummy photos. I mean as long as it shows the product who cares? Again; in this case Schamps is acquiring beautiful images with worldwide and unlimited usage for free. They are saving close to $5,000 per image. Photography as a business is a complex field that people think they can just dabble in. Truth be known; you can dabble in it, but do some research and figure out what your work is worth before giving it away.

Love & Bass

 

[Guido44]

Your photo is great you shouldn't give it away.

I did it once, and I'm so sorry I did. It was the first time someone wanted to "publish" one of my photos.

money would be awesome, but I'd be extremely happy to just have my stuff recognized some

They are trolls, just looking for a free meal. You have a gift, don't throw it aside, and let someone else profit from it.

They're in business, why shouldn't you be?

JMO

dan

 

[ANDS!]

Oh please people. I've said yes to everyone of these fools who request a photo; why - because it does generate, albeit small, traffic and interest in a photo, and you are NOT giving away the rights to the photo. As someone pointed out, they get free use of the photo in their guide. Thats it. You still retain copyright and ownership.

Schmap is a great idea if you think about it: give hobbyist photographers the chance to have their work seen, and maintain low overhead due to liscensing and photographer fees, thereby staying in business. A lot of this hate is no doubt just the "Omg - how dare they ask for anything free!!!!1! How rude!" For the majority, those photographs are just going to sit on a Flickr/SmugMug account, with an occassional view and a rare comment. Serious earning potential there!

Problem is clients are looking for the cheap or free route, because way to many photographers are willing to give their work away.

Then change the clientele set you cater to. Move higher up the foodchain and you'll find people WILLING to PAY for quality. Of course that makes the fallacious argument that just because you have more experience means you have better quality - it doesn't.

 

[Mystwalker]

I doubt "Schamps" type operation will ever affect professional photographers.

They can stay in business (I'm guessing they are a business) because they ask for "free" usage of images. If everyone said no, I bet that will destroy their business model, making them charge more (for whatever they "sell").

If you already have your shots available to public, I see no problems with a little more coverage. However the word "perpetual" in their agreement/contract would worry me - does that mean you can not change your mind in future?

Personally, for myself, I would say "no" because I shoot for myself and family plus I would question how they were even able to see my flickr because I have everythign set to private. "Free" is not enough incentive - "$5000" is an incentive ... but this is just greed speaking

 

[tsaraleksi]

Perpetual is one of the big scary points-- that does mean that as soon as you agree, then they can use the picture as long as they wish.

 

[DScience]

Two sides to the story: Photography as a business, and photography as an art/hobby.

I take pictures not because I want to become famous or rich, but because I enjoy it and I want to create art. I like to share my art with people, and allow them the same enjoyment I get when I look at good photographs. For me, I wold love it if some of my pictures I had up on Flickr were asked to be put into something like we are talking about here. Why? Because more people would see my photos, and possibly more would gain some sort of enjoyment out of it.

Now coming from a professional photographer, there is no way I would just 'give' away my 'work'. However I think it is simply poor logic to think that the business of photography is actually being negatively effected by amateurs who choose to give away their own photos. What I wold say, is if you fear for your photography business based on people giving away pics on Flickr, you may want to reconsider your own ability to be competitive in this line of work.

 

[In2daBlue]

The best bit of business advice I have ever received about photography was this: If you are OK with giving your photos away for free you will never sell your first one.

It's so true. I don't care if you're an amateur with a Mickey Mouse camera, if a for-profit business is interested in using one of your photos it should pay you for it.

How many tax accountants give away their services for free? How about doctors? Real estate agents? Teachers? Police Officers? etc. etc. etc.

If someone values your photo enough to use it in their for-profit venture than you should value it enough not to give it away for free.

Plus, you keep talking about exposure. Let's get real. This is not the kind of exposure where people are associating your name with the photo. It's not like TIME magazine or the NY Times are asking for free use of the photo for credit only. It's a mapmaker who wants to use the image as a thumbnail.

Get real. That's not exposure. That's just devaluing your work.

 

[In2daBlue]

Two sides to the story: Photography as a business, and photography as an art/hobby.

I take pictures not because I want to become famous or rich, but because I enjoy it and I want to create art. I like to share my art with people, and allow them the same enjoyment I get when I look at good photographs. For me, I wold love it if some of my pictures I had up on Flickr were asked to be put into something like we are talking about here. Why? Because more people would see my photos, and possibly more would gain some sort of enjoyment out of it.

Now coming from a professional photographer, there is no way I would just 'give' away my 'work'. However I think it is simply poor logic to think that the business of photography is actually being negatively effected by amateurs who choose to give away their own photos. What I wold say, is if you fear for your photography business based on people giving away pics on Flickr, you may want to reconsider your own ability to be competitive in this line of work.

This is true and not true. It's also a very narrow-minded way of looking at. If you are a wedding shooter, portraits, news photographer, etc. (basically someone who is shooting events live) you're right, Flickr is not going to put you out of business. But, if you make your living selling stock photography to businesses, photo books, publishers, calendar makers, etc. than it will have an effect and is already having a major effect.

With people selling images on photobucket for 5 cents, the bottom is falling out.

So, your comment about a pro not being affected by this is true only to an extent. Some are able to work around it. Others, extraordianarily talented shooters, are being affected.

And, to my last point: Don't give away images for credit only to for-profit ventures. If they value your image enough to want it, you should value your image enough to ask for a purchase price.

 

[GeneralBenson]

I think the people are going to get sick of looking at crappy images sooner or later, and things will swing back towards people wanting to see compelling work. I was at a Will Crockett seminar the other day, and he had a good point. He said, 'So you're worried that a bunch of folks with cameras are digging into your business, then guess what; dig deeper."