Photo shortlisted for Schmap

run_Forrest_run

Hi Folks,

I received an email this morning from www.schmap.com
Apparently one of my photos on Flickr has been shortlisted for
inclusion in the Schmap New York Guide, to be published at the end
of this year. I have to give permission for my pic to be included in the
shortlisting obviously.

Now they state clearly there is no payment due etc..
Does anyone know who/what Schmap is? I really don't care about money etc and I'd be chuffed if my pic was used.
I was reading their T&Cs and this one popped out:

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.

As long as Schmap are not making money on such images I have no problem offering my photo for free. Otherwise, show me da money

Opinions?

homerun_homer

They do this a lot on flickr. I've been asked a few times early into my time using Flickr and just said yes. Nothing comes of it so it's harmless to say yes to.

Thecageyone

They contacted me through Flickr last year some time. They wanted a shot I'd taken of a penguin in Dublin zoo. I let them use it, why not. They only show a thumbnail of your image to the right of the map, with your name underneath, and it links to your Flickr page when clicked.

I've checked since and I can't find my image among the 100s they use for the zoo, so if they ask again they can &*(^off

run_Forrest_run

cool, I've given them permission so. Can't see any reason not to.

magicbastarder

it's a common issue which crops up here - the practice of companies harvesting images from users on facebook in return for 'exposure'.
personally speaking, i would not allow a company to use an image of mine royalty free for an endeavour they intend to profit from.

Thecageyone

People go a bit OTT on that front. If you dont let them, they'll find another image almost identical to yours anyway. It's usually plain shots of areas they want to add to their map. Mine was merely a boring image of a penguin, not worth anything. At least you're credited and the image links back to your Flickr [don't know where you got Facebook] so there's the chance people will click and discover your photostream. Better than being stubborn and gaining nothing for your nothing image.

PCPhoto

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I received an email this morning from www.schmap.com
Apparently one of my photos on Flickr has been shortlisted for
inclusion in the Schmap New York Guide, to be published at the end
of this year. I have to give permission for my pic to be included in the
shortlisting obviously.

Now they state clearly there is no payment due etc..
Does anyone know who/what Schmap is? I really don't care about money etc and I'd be chuffed if my pic was used.
I was reading their T&Cs and this one popped out:

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.

As long as Schmap are not making money on such images I have no problem offering my photo for free. Otherwise, show me da money

Opinions?

ok...so you are ready given them permission ? "chuffed that your pic will be used"

and then say you want money if they will be making money !!

Regardless of what you may think ...there is not a business out there that will ask you for a pic - unless they intend using it - by giving them permission they can use it whatever way they want and as often as they want.... without the need to inform or even pay you !!

there are tonnes of companies out there that want images for free - theres tonnes of photographers and enthusiasts only too happy to give it to them for free.... this is one of the problems genuine professional photographers face.

Thecageyone

Professional photographers will not be bothered by people allowing their image to be linked to a site rarely heard of [I'd never heard of them until they contacted me]

Besides, amateurs have every right to gain exposure all they want. Self proclaimed pro-photographers don't have any more right.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

Besides, amateurs have every right to gain exposure all they want. Self proclaimed pro-photographers don't have any more right.

you have every right to give all your photos for free true.

I guess its just professional practice. I used to be of your mindset, realised after a while your only fooling yourself, your being taken for a ride everytime a company offers you 'exposure'.

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

People go a bit OTT on that front. If you dont let them, they'll find another image almost identical to yours anyway. It's usually plain shots of areas they want to add to their map. Mine was merely a boring image of a penguin, not worth anything. At least you're credited and the image links back to your Flickr B]don't know where you got Facebook[/B so there's the chance people will click and discover your photostream. Better than being stubborn and gaining nothing for your nothing image.

Because there are companies other than Schmap who have similar business practices.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

there's the chance people will click and discover your photostream.

which would be very limited traffic, to be fair, and to what advantage to you?
if someone liked what they saw on your page, you've helped create a market where if they wanted it and you didn't give it for free, they'll just go elsewhere.

PCPhoto

Thecageyone wrote: »

Professional photographers will not be bothered by people allowing their image to be linked to a site rarely heard of [I'd never heard of them until they contacted me]

Besides, amateurs have every right to gain exposure all they want. Self proclaimed pro-photographers don't have any more right.

you might not have heard of Schmap ...but who is to say there is not another company behind it - frommers, lonely planet, etc .... the images could even be sold on to these companies as by giving them permission you are giving them rights to use the image whatever way they want....for all we know whatever company is behind it could be creating a database of images which they could sell on to travel companies, websites, hotels, etc etc.

the long and short of it is ..... if you don't value your images - give them away, if you do then ... by all means accept their "exposure" offer.

its similar to someone asking you to do a job for free for them.... would you do it ? it would be great exposure for you if you take photos for free - you'll meet businessmen/women and get the opportunity to network.....funk that !!

* note = just to add that I'm doing a job for free tonight .... because a friend asked me to .... the images will be sent out to the papers - and if I get any hits I'll make money, if not...then I will simply be doing it...for a friend.

EDIT: Just to add I think you misunderstood my comment - RE: one of the problems for pro photographers - the problem professional photographers have is that you have people "offering" their images for free and companies looking for someone to "work" for free.

professional photographers cannot offer to work for free - unless it is a once off (or rare occurrance) - a decent amateur can do this because they have an income from another source and generally don't have the expenditure that a professional will have.... like I said ..it comes down to how much you value your work and how much you value your worth ...if an image is worth anything .... then its down to negotiating a fair price....no offence to anyone trying to build a reputation but if you give your work away for free you will only be taken advantage of.

EDIT2: If anyone wants to work for free they can join me sometime or do a job for me (after they have proven they can do the job) ..... I'll make money from the job - but you'll get great exposure !!! ...just to add, ANYONE who has done a job for me from Boards has ALWAYS been paid.....I'm not the kind of person who takes advantage of anyone - but people offering to work for free in exchange for "exposure" REALLY is a sore point with me

magicbastarder

to reiterate what i said - i've heard the defence of exposure used by people as 'it's a way of getting exposure which means i'll be more likely to be able to charge for my work at some point in the future.'

not if you've collaborated in creating a market where photography has no value, you won't.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hmm, well nobody's arguing that people are entitled to give away what they produce for free I think. Also, to be fair, it's up to people asking for money for what they produce to distinguish themselves from the free people in some way.

But, and there is a but, this 'exposure' crap is nonsense (as in fame, not shutter/aperture/iso ), you will never, ever, make money unless you ask for it, and if you allow someone to profit from your efforts, when they refuse to share with you some of that profit, you are an absolute sucker.

That's not coming from an angry 'pro', I've had one paid job in my life, that's a simple statement of fact.

If anyone disagrees, I've got a bag full of magic beans looking for a new home...

melekalikimaka

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm, well nobody's arguing that people are entitled to give away what they produce for free I think.

i did.

PopeBuckfastXVI

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i did.

Actually - yes you did!

Hmm - read above as 'nobody's asserting that you are not entitled to...' or something less ambiguous!

melekalikimaka

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually - yes you did!

Hmm - read above as 'nobody's asserting that you are not entitled to...' or something less ambiguous!

lol, its a tough topic, people starting out strive for exposure, and over look the undercutting they inadvertently carry out.

run_Forrest_run

yikes, sorry I posted this now

Kintarō Hattori

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

yikes, sorry I posted this now

Don't- you've no reason to be.

Paulw

A few things come to mind -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY

http://rising.blackstar.com/photographers-excuses.html

and

http://www.graham-mitchell.com/blog/?p=96

The very very best to watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

Thecageyone

The likes of schmap are a simple way to gain exposure. So what if it doesn't come to anything? End of the day, that image you let them use was probably just going to gather virtual dust and rarely be seen anyhow. Just my opinion, , you have yours, good on yis. It's like this, you can chose to either let them use your image, or ... not! And you should NEVER worry that it might be taking away from actual pros, as they certainly would not give a fiddler's about the likes of schmap.

There never was/is/will be anything wrong with allowing someone to use the 'odd' image for free, it's completely down to the individual, never let anyone tell you different.

I'm clever enough to know what to charge for and when to do a freebie, I would have thought at least some of you had the same cop on

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

lol, its a tough topic, people starting out strive for exposure, and over look the undercutting they inadvertently carry out.

undercutting who exactly? As I said, no real pro would touch sites like schmap, they just wouldn't be bothered. Do you mean undercutting wannabe pros? Or people who just imagine every image they allow usage of should be worth something? The usual bitter brigade like? [And by that I mean the kind that have a full time job, do weddings in their spare time, charge €3000 and moan and groan when they here some 'amateur' is doing weddings for 1/3rd of that]

There is no such thing as under cutting, there is such thing as deciding to do whatever you please with your own images. It really has nothing to do with anybody else. The only time I would hate to see someone's image used for free is if they didn't give permission. That's th only time it should get messy.

run_Forrest_run

Thecageyone wrote: »

The only time I would hate to see someone's image used for free is if they didn't give permission. That's th only time it should get messy.

good point, and in this case they are being up-front and and clear. Requesting permission whilst never saying you may get paid, so I'm OK with it, they can have it. Anyone could have taken the pic (the Ferris wheel in Toys R Us - Times Square).

Paulw

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

good point, and in this case they are being up-front and and clear. Requesting permission whilst never saying you may get paid, so I'm OK with it, they can have it. Anyone could have taken the pic (the Ferris wheel in Toys R Us - Times Square).

If the image was taken in Toys R Us, did you get commercial release for the photo? While you may give away the image for free, make sure you have the commercial rights to use the image or have the image used.

Thecageyone

I get that some people have a hard time with handing over images for free, but that's just it. A site like this is only after generic images, and you can always say feck off But what harm? It's hardly going to be used as a book cover, they don't print their maps far as I know, they have 1000's of images across their maps and if they don't use yours, they'll get someone who will let them use one similar.

In most cases I'd agree, you should ask for payment, but that's when they specifically want your image, a great one you may have. And it'll be used to push something, like an advert. If you were asking should you do a free shoot for some people specifically, I'd say hell no, get paid! Unless it'll definitely bring you more future work.

And when that happens don't worry about 'under-cutting' because you aren't if they specifically asked for you I've never come acros anyone who has purposely undercut someone else, much as some like to imagine it goes on regular.

Anyway, that's my input, basically: Up to you, you won't lose anything by allowing it's usage.

run_Forrest_run

Paulw wrote: »

If the image was taken in Toys R Us, did you get commercial release for the photo? While you may give away the image for free, make sure you have the commercial rights to use the image or have the image used.

oh sh*te! the plot thickens! I'll say nothing and never ask for a penny...we're all happy! My head hurts now

PCPhoto

Thecageyone wrote: »

undercutting who exactly? As I said, no real pro would touch sites like schmap, they just wouldn't be bothered. Do you mean undercutting wannabe pros? Or people who just imagine every image they allow usage of should be worth something? The usual bitter brigade like? [And by that I mean the kind that have a full time job, do weddings in their spare time, charge €3000 and moan and groan when they here some 'amateur' is doing weddings for 1/3rd of that]

There is no such thing as under cutting, there is such thing as deciding to do whatever you please with your own images. It really has nothing to do with anybody else. The only time I would hate to see someone's image used for free is if they didn't give permission. That's th only time it should get messy.

As a professional photographer I would happily sell an image to schmap....I wont give an image to them because they claim it will give me "exposure" .... anyone who wants to earn money from photography does not NEED exposure - they need someone to pay for their work, which DOES NOT happen if people give away images to companies like schmap.

Like everything else in life - would you do your job for free because the boss says it will lead to great exposure and you will have the opportunity to network with top business people in the industry ? ...simple answer ...NO

if no - my point is proven - just because you are not working professionally does not mean you can't earn money from photography - even if the OP only charged €5 - its better than nothing.

if yes - then be prepared to work hard and earn nothing !! (and get no thanks)

jpb1974

The OP has given permission, ffs get over it and move on with your life.

TinyExplosions

Some very good posts on the whole undercutting /working for free thing came from Zack Arias, Chase Jarvis and David Hobby

Thecageyone

I'm doubting any of those moaning about undercutting are actually true pros. And do get over it as that man said. There can't be a thread around here without some elitism involved.

Surprised at Paul W, none of what you posted bears much relevance to someone simply allowing a company use one image, which they clearly stated from the off they wished to use for no fee. Some old guy mouthing that he won't work for free on youtube, fair play to him but, who cares? Doesn't mean people who just do this for the enjoyment can't share their images wherever the hell they want to without all this begrudgery.

He could have told them where to go, sounded to me like he wanted to allow them payment or not.

Doing it simply for the money isn't getting anyone anywhere fast is it?

jpb1974

The likes of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt probably acted in some corny soft porn movie early in their career and we're told to bring along their finest underwear and a packed lunch as payment to themselves.

Thecageyone

I suppose nobody here ever heard of work experience either? Man, I remember doing a hell of a lot of that in college [catering] and never getting so much as a thank you. You never hear pro chefs moaning that some kid is undercutting them by gaining experience ...

Paulw

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

oh sh*te! the plot thickens! I'll say nothing and never ask for a penny...we're all happy! My head hurts now

It's not about earning from it, it's about giving permission for something you don't have the rights to commercially use (Schmap are using it commercially, even if they're not paying you). You, as copyright holder, are still legally liable for the image use, even if you license it to someone else.

Just be careful about that, especially if the image was taken within a private premises.

Thecageyone

He's already said it's a nothing shot that would probably never see light of day otherwise. I know my penguin one wouldn't have, it still has only 1 comment and it's been up years [on Flickr, not Pix, where no comments are common because most only care about their own stuff on there] Schmap don't make anything out of your image. I would state when telling them they can use it that they cannot have rights to it, that i would be free to use it myself, otherwise they could F right off.

Kintarō Hattori

Feckin elitism, tsk.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

There is no such thing as under cutting, there is such thing as deciding to do whatever you please with your own images. It really has nothing to do with anybody else. The only time I would hate to see someone's image used for free is if they didn't give permission. That's th only time it should get messy.

all photographers cater to the same market, by one charging less than another, you are undercutting, maybe you have another job in another industry and can afford to devalue the profession of photography to the point where its unsustainable as a full time job, every little freebie cuts away at this for the career togs.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

I'm doubting any of those moaning about undercutting are actually true pros. And do get over it as that man said. There can't be a thread around here without some elitism involved.

given that a friend of mine has just lost his main source of income because of something very similar to this, i'll add his voice by proxy to this.

anyway, call me greedy, but i don't like the idea of someone making financial gain out of my work with no financial gain to me. and 'exposure' is not something i would consider gain; i suspect the amount of clickthroughs would be negligible, and i'm not sure where that exposure is meant to lead.

i'd be interested to hear if any up-and-coming musicians allow big corporates to use their music for TV ads for free, in order to gain exposure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

melekalikimaka wrote: »

all photographers cater to the same market, by one charging less than another, you are undercutting, maybe you have another job in another industry and can afford to devalue the profession of photography to the point where its unsustainable as a full time job, every little freebie cuts away at this for the career togs.

Well pro's should offer something more, tbh.

You shouldn't complain, only adapt, same in a lot of industries, like open source software or whatever.

Give someone a reason to pay you and they still will.

I do still think that allowing someone else to profit from your work by giving you worthless 'exposure' is a mugs game, but it's up to the individual involved to be a sucker or not.

jpb1974

It seems to me that people who make money from photography want to influence others into their way of thinking.

What you do with your photographs is your business and not really anyone else's... well, unless you post on the internet and tell everyone you're giving them away for free, in that case you're going to end up with countless opinions and 'supposed' advice that you probably don't want to hear.

You have the right to choose, and not be told, what you want to do.

Anyone who wants to make a living from photography must have made this choice knowing the market conditions they were entering, otherwise it possibly may not have been a very sensible decision.

At a guess I would assume that the ratio of hobbiests to professionals is quite high, so I don't see why professionals should dictate what photography should be to the masses... I think the masses already do this in a natural fashion.

Personally I agree with MB when he says "I wouldn't give away a photo for free to a profit making organization". But at the same time I won't type in bold text suggesting what you should do because I believe it's your choice to do whatever you feel is right and what you feel comfortable with.

I am passionate about photography in the context of producing and viewing photographs but I can't tolerate this moral high ground that professionals want to take, when all they're really concerned about is not you; but cementing their own income by attempting to influence others into their way of thinking.

magicbastarder

jpb1974 wrote: »

But at the same time I won't type in bold text suggesting what you should do because I believe it's your choice to do whatever you feel is right and what you feel comfortable with.

the main reason i'm sticking around in this argument is that i find this notion of exposure which seems to be what drives this sort of scheme to be very wrong-headed, and people are being conned into contributing for illusory reasons.

you are getting no benefit, and they are getting all the benefit, on the back of your work. that's my beef.

photographers do have to adapt if the work that was once their preserve is easily accessible to amateurs now.

jpb1974

I do agree with you in many respects.

To be honest I would be the type that would cringe when people announce that they had a photo published in the local paper as if it's some sort of lifetime achievement that they need to share with the world.

Or when people are sending stuff into Martin King and then sit in front of TV3 for the next 6 months hoping for that special moment to arrive.

But at the same time I'd be also thinking.. well that's just me and everyone is different.

For some people the thrill of announcing to the world that their photo is on Schmap and the kudos that goes with it is on a par with the birth of their first child. Again... I would cringe, but again we're all different.

When you give things away for free it has it's benefits and it has it pitfalls and personally I think that the pitfalls will eventually outweigh the benefits.

But I think that people need to find their own way in life and make the right choices that suit them as opposed to have the moral axe dropped upon them by those who quite often want to standardize the way everyone does things in their own best interests.

If pros aren't moaning about someone doing something for free, they're doing it too cheap, and if it's isn't too cheap it's too expensive and if it isn't too expensive the quality wasn't good enough... you can rarely win.

Just get on with it.

magicbastarder

i've a nice photo of my mum's dog i'll sell you for a fiver.

jpb1974

i've a nice photo of my mum's dog i'll sell you for a fiver.

If it's against an industrial/factory background we have a deal.

PCPhoto

Thecageyone wrote: »

He's already said it's a nothing shot that would probably never see light of day otherwise. I know my penguin one wouldn't have, it still has only 1 comment and it's been up years [on Flickr, not Pix, where no comments are common because most only care about their own stuff on there] Schmap don't make anything out of your image. I would state when telling them they can use it that they cannot have rights to it, that i would be free to use it myself, otherwise they could F right off.

Do you have proof of this ?

Like I said earlier - Schmap (if given permission to "use" image) can sell the image to whomever they want and make money from it.....if they want the image why not counter offer with specific instructions - explaining they can use the image on a website only - no permission granted to sell, adjust, give away or print the image...without prior consent and payment.

if they only want the image for a website -which they will link back to your flickr...then give them permission for that....and that only !!

as regards the other topics floating around ..... think about this..... if suddenly people started to offer to do your job for free ...would you be working in 6months time...in 12months time ? Would you be happy with it ?

Yes - people "giving" away images for "exposure" impacts on professional photographers - in the same way that amateurs offering to do jobs for free has SOME impact.....I'm not trying to tell other people what they should or should not do with their image (well...its not my intention to do that)

I'm trying to make others aware that companies are out there and are only too happy to take advantage of an amateur or innocent photographer....how many of you out there can say that it cost you nothing to take the photograph ?

1. your equipment
2. your travel to and from the area
3. time spent getting the right angle/exposure(multiple shots...which devalues your camera)
4. processing (some of you have paid for versions of post processing software)
5. image hosting (Flickr charge ...dont they ?)
6. your learning - plenty of you have been watching tutorials on the internet or reading books...so you learn more about how to post process, frame an image etc etc.
(Optional) 7. Insurance - some of you have your equipment on house insurance - some have dedicated photo gear insurance - some have no cover whatsoever.

It all adds up... people have the right to do whatever they want with their images - the OP asked for opinions on if he/she should give the image away - but doesn't want to if they will be making money from it ..... I have no proof but from experience companies like this will use the image in another form - in another country where the likelihood of the OP seeing it is extremely remote.... so they profit and the OP gets nothing.

jpb1974

I hear what you're saying.

PCPhoto

jpb1974 wrote: »

It seems to me that people who make money from photography want to influence others into their way of thinking.

Not true - I personally do not want others to be taken advantage of...if a company wants your image why not negotiate a fee - however small - and negotiate rights of usage.....why not question why the company want the rights to do so much with the image ?

jpb1974 wrote: »

What you do with your photographs is your business and not really anyone else's... well, unless you post on the internet and tell everyone you're giving them away for free, in that case you're going to end up with countless opinions and 'supposed' advice that you probably don't want to hear.

You have the right to choose, and not be told, what you want to do.

True - to a degree .... you have the right to do whatever you want with your images - if you choose to give them away for free...no problem .....but if you give them away and someone uses it to make money.... you have to accept that also.

jpb1974 wrote: »

Anyone who wants to make a living from photography must have made this choice knowing the market conditions they were entering, otherwise it possibly may not have been a very sensible decision.

Not sure where you are going with this - market conditions change - people who got into professional photography 15-20years ago were not able to predict that photography would become so "easy" to recreate with the digital age.

jpb1974 wrote: »

At a guess I would assume that the ratio of hobbiests to professionals is quite high, so I don't see why professionals should dictate what photography should be to the masses... I think the masses already do this in a natural fashion.

Ratio where ??? on boards ? ...on the streets ? ..... Photography has been made easier and affordable in the last 15years or so...camera's nowadays are extremely complex and cameras are more capable of dealing with difficult lighting conditions that in the past a "professional" would have had to use their experience to overcome....these days a few clicks on photoshop and you've manipulated the image to get it the way you want it.

I dont think professionals are trying to dictate what photography should be - I'm sure there are purists who think digital is evil and film is what photography is all about (not looking at anyone ) .... the only person who can tell you what to do with your images ...is you !! .... I will agree that some photographers are upset at people being taken advantage of (at their expense) ..... if a company wants an image .... why shouldn't they pay for it ...I dont care if you are amateur or pro .... nothing is free in this world - if you get something for free it means someone else suffers.....FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION !!!

jpb1974 wrote: »

Personally I agree with MB when he says "I wouldn't give away a photo for free to a profit making organization". But at the same time I won't type in bold text suggesting what you should do because I believe it's your choice to do whatever you feel is right and what you feel comfortable with.

I agree with you .... The op stated at the start that he/she think's Exposure...great...then says I dont want to give them permission if they are going to make money from it

jpb1974 wrote: »

I am passionate about photography in the context of producing and viewing photographs but I can't tolerate this moral high ground that professionals want to take, when all they're really concerned about is not you; but cementing their own income by attempting to influence others into their way of thinking.

Sorry - I have to agree and disagree ....
yes there will be photographers who only have their interests at heart,
but
- I believe the vast majority will be more concerned and express the opinions that I have ..... if a company wants to use an image ...let them pay for it.... regardless of if they are pro or amateur.

Any company that is not offering payment for use of an image is attempting to take advantage of the person who took the image.

magicbastarder

what is schmap's business model? i assume they exist to make a profit?
if they exist to make a profit, they are thus using your photo to achieve that aim; they may not make a profit directly from selling the photo, but they use it to help turn a profit.

jpb1974

Sigh... I'm not in the humour today for those "I'll quote every paragraph you type and try to invalidate it" exchanges. It takes too long and it gets boring.

But I suppose one won't hurt

what is schmap's business model? i assume they exist to make a profit?
if they exist to make a profit, they are thus using your photo to achieve that aim; they may not make a profit directly from selling the photo, but they use it to help turn a profit.

At this stage if anyone hasn't established that Schmap exist to make a profit then they should give their photos away for free and the tooth fairy will leave them a surprise under their pillow tonight.

DougL

Paulw wrote: »

A few things come to mind -
The very very best to watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

+1

PCPhoto

Jpb1974 ...I was addressing your individual points - you made several points in your post.... and I wasn't trying to invalidate your opinions - I was agreeing to some and giving my opinion as to whether I agree or disagree.

the problem we are having is that some people only see their own agenda (like you mentioned claiming pro's only want to protect their interests) .... but sometimes you have to accept that some people look out for other people and don't like to see others taken advantage of.

as I said - if people want to give images away - well and good they are entitled to - but if the person then uses the images to make money - the original photographer has no reason to complain.

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Feckin elitism, tsk.

forever the great contributer ... :rolleyes:



PCPhoto. You need to get out and about before cabin fever kills you! Seriously ... this is SCHMAP we're talking about ... lolz. I'd hate to see you lot argue over someone offering images for the cover of a bestseller for free!