Good / bad opinions about Schmap?
September 13, 2008 1:09 AM Subscribe
Good / bad opinions about Schmap?
So, a photo of mine on Flickr has been "... short-listed for inclusion in the fifth edition of our Schmap Brisbane Guide". Normally, this would get a big "meh ... so what?" from me and go the way of all "You may have won $1,000,000!" emails - but, hey, it's nice to be asked. The T&C's seem reasonable and I'm happy enough to let them use it, but not if they have a reputation/history of screwing people over or bad 'net citizenship (e.g. spamming, GPL violations, TOS abuse - that kind of thing). The worst thing a quick Google comes up is people complaining about them using CC attribution-licensed images without asking (although correctly attributed and linked), which I can't see the problem with myself - that's what you get for choosing one of the loose CC licenses.
So, does anyone have any opinion on them? Horror stories? Good stories?
(Funny thing is, I think it's a "meh..." photo. It's nice enough, but really a bit of a gimme - it's the stereotypical photo for that location, I've seen hundreds of others almost exactly the same, and, really, you'd have to work hard not to take almost exactly the same shot. In fact, they've already using one almost exactly the same right now. But if they want to use mine, and they're not evil, I'm happy to let them.)
So, a photo of mine on Flickr has been "... short-listed for inclusion in the fifth edition of our Schmap Brisbane Guide". Normally, this would get a big "meh ... so what?" from me and go the way of all "You may have won $1,000,000!" emails - but, hey, it's nice to be asked. The T&C's seem reasonable and I'm happy enough to let them use it, but not if they have a reputation/history of screwing people over or bad 'net citizenship (e.g. spamming, GPL violations, TOS abuse - that kind of thing). The worst thing a quick Google comes up is people complaining about them using CC attribution-licensed images without asking (although correctly attributed and linked), which I can't see the problem with myself - that's what you get for choosing one of the loose CC licenses.
So, does anyone have any opinion on them? Horror stories? Good stories?
(Funny thing is, I think it's a "meh..." photo. It's nice enough, but really a bit of a gimme - it's the stereotypical photo for that location, I've seen hundreds of others almost exactly the same, and, really, you'd have to work hard not to take almost exactly the same shot. In fact, they've already using one almost exactly the same right now. But if they want to use mine, and they're not evil, I'm happy to let them.)
I've got quite a few photos in Schmap. Doesn't really bother me - they use my photos which are CC-licenced, they've got credit to me on them, I don't think twice about it.
posted by Jimbob at 3:19 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by Jimbob at 3:19 AM on September 13, 2008
I let them use a few of my photos for their Berlin edition, and they haven't spammed me at all. The only message I got from them after their initial message was a notification that they now have a version for iPhones.
posted by amf at 3:20 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by amf at 3:20 AM on September 13, 2008
Best answer: I do have to wonder about their selection criteria, though. They chose blurry photos I took using my camera phone during a trade union protest march in Adelaide as their "Adelaide Festival Theatre" photos. Meh. They can use them if they like them.
posted by Jimbob at 3:33 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by Jimbob at 3:33 AM on September 13, 2008
Yeah, they chose a crappy picture I took with my Holga inside a bar/restaurant near St. Marks in Manhattan for the New York guide. But at least they asked, so I had no problem saying yes.
posted by Venadium at 3:47 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by Venadium at 3:47 AM on September 13, 2008
They've got one of my picture in their Barcelona edition; like yours, mine was a pretty boring photo (the sort of thing you'd find a low quality postcard). I wasn't planning to do anything with it myself, so I figured: Sure, go ahead, as long as you credit me. Which they did. No biggie.
(In reference to Shellycat's comment, I just checked their original email request, and the wording implied it was opt-in. They let me know that my photo had been shortlisted, and invited to to click on a link to find out which photo it was, then "submit or withdraw your photo from our final selection phase".)
posted by hot soup girl at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2008
(In reference to Shellycat's comment, I just checked their original email request, and the wording implied it was opt-in. They let me know that my photo had been shortlisted, and invited to to click on a link to find out which photo it was, then "submit or withdraw your photo from our final selection phase".)
posted by hot soup girl at 5:20 AM on September 13, 2008
A long time ago they asked if they could one of my Yosemite photos. I let them, and that was the last I ever heard from them - so, no spam worries!
posted by chez shoes at 6:46 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by chez shoes at 6:46 AM on September 13, 2008
They've used three or four of mine. I licensed them as Creative Commons - Attribution - No Commercial - No Derivatives. They asked if the could use them. It was definitely "opt-in". Nothing shady. As others have noted, what they chose to use is not what I would have chosen - quality is OK in each of their choices, but the subject matter is meh. I had much more interesting shots from Tuscon and environs than the Saguaro cactus that they chose to use.
posted by johnvaljohn at 7:40 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by johnvaljohn at 7:40 AM on September 13, 2008
Piggyback question -- does anyone use Schmap for anything? Or is it one of those things that just isn't in my "circle" of places me and my friends visit.
As a side, I said "no" on a blurry photo they asked to use -- I mostly don't post blurry photos but this is the only one I had for the particular event but I certainly don't want my name associated with blurry photos -- I'm vain.
posted by amanda at 8:05 AM on September 13, 2008
As a side, I said "no" on a blurry photo they asked to use -- I mostly don't post blurry photos but this is the only one I had for the particular event but I certainly don't want my name associated with blurry photos -- I'm vain.
posted by amanda at 8:05 AM on September 13, 2008
Another site asked to use a flickr photo, and checking them out, it seemed more of a way to drive traffic to their site than it was because my photo was so awesome. From the responses so far, Schmaps appears to be similar.
posted by kamelhoecker at 9:30 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by kamelhoecker at 9:30 AM on September 13, 2008
I said no- I thought the picture they wanted to use was pretty bad. They seem to just search Flickr tags, and not discriminate based on quality.
posted by cushie at 9:31 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by cushie at 9:31 AM on September 13, 2008
They have about 6 of mine, they say.
Like others here, I don't think they're necessarily good photos, either.
I don't know of anyone going to see them except after Schmap mails them about using their photo.
Verdict: Not good. Not bad. Irrelevant.
posted by cmiller at 9:59 AM on September 13, 2008
Like others here, I don't think they're necessarily good photos, either.
I don't know of anyone going to see them except after Schmap mails them about using their photo.
Verdict: Not good. Not bad. Irrelevant.
posted by cmiller at 9:59 AM on September 13, 2008
I have a CC-licensed picture in there, and I don't care about them using it. No spam except to let me know they're still using it when a new version comes out. As far as using them - nah; there are so many better sites. I just went back to check out their "Schmap" of Seattle and it's pretty uninteresting (though I suppose that it might appeal to tourists who've never been here before). I personally prefer Yelp for finding things to do when I travel...I'd rather go to a site that has real-person reviews than another online travel guide.
posted by TochterAusElysium at 11:35 AM on September 13, 2008
posted by TochterAusElysium at 11:35 AM on September 13, 2008
Schmap asked to use one of my photos to illustrate a location in Oxford. The image was of Oxford Road in Manchester.
I don't know what Schmap is for.
posted by BinaryApe at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2008
I don't know what Schmap is for.
posted by BinaryApe at 12:40 PM on September 13, 2008
Thay have one of my photos in the Schamp guide for Edinburgh. I think it's fine.
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:51 PM on September 13, 2008
posted by Medieval Maven at 1:51 PM on September 13, 2008
My photos on Flickr are CC-licensed and Schmap has used them in their guide for my home town. I can't recall if they asked permission but they do email me each time a new edition comes out to inform they have used one or more of my photos. I have no problem with them.
posted by electricinca at 4:13 PM on September 13, 2008
posted by electricinca at 4:13 PM on September 13, 2008
I've gone back and looked for the message they left me but it seems to have disappeared. It may be that it was truly opt-out just badly worded. The more recent messages I've seen via google are longer and better written than the one I remember (I think mine was first edition?) but again, it's gone so I can't see for sure. This is probably a good thing though, if they'd left the comment on my photo there after I withdrew it that would look a lot more like advertising for their service rather than genuine photo gathering.
I do know I clicked on something rather than just ignored the message. It seems weird to me that they ask you to choose to include or withdraw your photo, the withdraw option should be unnecessary in a truly opt-in process. Either I'm specifically including it or they drop the whole thing, no withdraw necessary. So even under the current version I'd be wanting to know very clearly what they will do with photos that aren't withdrawn (which is probably mentioned in their TOS). I'm sure it's fine though.
FWIW the photo of mine they chose also wasn't great, just generally dull and uninteresting and could have been taken anywhere (it was a crowd shot inside the MCG).
posted by shelleycat at 4:45 PM on September 13, 2008
I do know I clicked on something rather than just ignored the message. It seems weird to me that they ask you to choose to include or withdraw your photo, the withdraw option should be unnecessary in a truly opt-in process. Either I'm specifically including it or they drop the whole thing, no withdraw necessary. So even under the current version I'd be wanting to know very clearly what they will do with photos that aren't withdrawn (which is probably mentioned in their TOS). I'm sure it's fine though.
FWIW the photo of mine they chose also wasn't great, just generally dull and uninteresting and could have been taken anywhere (it was a crowd shot inside the MCG).
posted by shelleycat at 4:45 PM on September 13, 2008
Response by poster: Thanks for that everybody - I've ended up giving them permission and if they use it, well, that'll be kinda nice and fun.
Re the ask vs just use and tell you disparity: it seems that, if you've licensed photos under the Flickr CC-attribution license, they use the photo and then tell you; if not, then they ask. Like I said, I've not got a problem with that, because to my mind that's exactly what you should expect under the CC-attribution license. The request I got was definitely opt-in; I use a standard ©, not CC-attribution, license on Flickr.
Re their selection process: yeah, they don't seem very choosy - looks like they just search Flickr for keywords, and pick from that. Probably explains my pic was shortlisted, because it's one of the few photos in my photostream which is titled with the location and subject. It is, however, in focus ;-)
Just for reference, the photo is this one, remarkably similar to this one (taken about 20' to the left of mine) that they're already using.
posted by Pinback at 7:01 PM on September 13, 2008
Re the ask vs just use and tell you disparity: it seems that, if you've licensed photos under the Flickr CC-attribution license, they use the photo and then tell you; if not, then they ask. Like I said, I've not got a problem with that, because to my mind that's exactly what you should expect under the CC-attribution license. The request I got was definitely opt-in; I use a standard ©, not CC-attribution, license on Flickr.
Re their selection process: yeah, they don't seem very choosy - looks like they just search Flickr for keywords, and pick from that. Probably explains my pic was shortlisted, because it's one of the few photos in my photostream which is titled with the location and subject. It is, however, in focus ;-)
Just for reference, the photo is this one, remarkably similar to this one (taken about 20' to the left of mine) that they're already using.
posted by Pinback at 7:01 PM on September 13, 2008
A couple of my wife's photos are used in some UK guides. It's kind of nice to be asked, but the quality of the guides is very suspect. I read the Boston guide (two years ago) and saw that it was full of amateurish and/or lazy mistakes. For instance, on one occasion the Schmap guide confused the South End and South Boston-- which is a big deal that no reputable travel guide should make (trust me if you don't know the area). And that was just one example of six that I noticed. If the Boston guide is so untrustworthy, I can only assume that others are as well.
They may have fixed that stuff since then, but it bugged me at the time I looked.
So the big issue is "do I care if my photos are displayed in a shoddy product?" I don't care that much, but you might and that's reasonable.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:38 PM on September 13, 2008
They may have fixed that stuff since then, but it bugged me at the time I looked.
So the big issue is "do I care if my photos are displayed in a shoddy product?" I don't care that much, but you might and that's reasonable.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:38 PM on September 13, 2008
I have photos on schmap for Oxford UK and San Francisco, they contacted me for my permission and that was that. I don't think they're the best photos, but hey, it's always nice to be asked!
posted by poissonrouge at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2008
posted by poissonrouge at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's a minor quibble and I'm admittedly sensitive about such things so I'm sure others wouldn't see it as a big deal. It was also a while ago, they may have changed how they get permission since then. Read the message they left you carefully and decide how you feel about they way they're going about this.
posted by shelleycat at 2:03 AM on September 13, 2008