« Diluting commitment to Open Access (OA) | Main | Our tax levels cause disasters like HMRC »
Exploitation 2.0
I got a smashing email the other day from a fellow Flickr user. Apparently, they'd shortlisted a picture of mine. How exciting.
Well, turns out, not that exciting. The Schmap shortlist was for a so-so picture taken in Brighton to be published in their online guide to Brighton. So far, so good. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be paid, and Schmap, and I'm presuming its owners, get perpetual worldwide rights to the image. Free. If, like me, you love free stuff, that's great news. Except when you're giving stuff - free - to a company that will make money from it. Because although Schmaps are free at the point of consumption, the company makes money by selling advertising off the back of them.
Of course, to look at the web, this is great; Schmaps has clearly got its messaging spot on, and there are tons of Flickr users who think that being published - albeit without being paid for their work - is about as exciting as it gets. Some professional photographers are particularly excited, of course.
What Schmap is doing is completely legal, as far as I can see. On the surface, it looks very Web 2.0 and all that I can see why people are happy for Schmap to use their photos. But it's also symptomatic of the skeptical view of Web 2.0: we provide the content, they collect the revenue.
This is a pretty cynical view. Frankly, I'm more than happy to trade a little creativity or demographic data for a lot of service, and so far, Facebook is pretty well balanced in this respect. Additionally, the benefits of working within Flickr - and getting and giving advice, comment and praise - embody Web 1.0 as well as Web 2.0. There is, however, a bit of a difference between making commercial gain from something and the not-for-profit spirit in which much information is shared amongst the user community.
And there's the rub. On the surface, it's apparent that most services that collect personal data are benevolent, and on the surface, it appears that were not giving away too much data in the process. But there's a big difference between appearance and reality. Of which more soon.
PS: I did contact the Schmap representative who sent me the original email and offer a right of reply; I've yet to hear anything.
PPS: Did I mention Schmap seems to be worth a look? Honestly, it's pretty interesting, despite how some of the content is gathered.
Daniel Griffin, IWR Deputy Editor
Peter Williams, IWR Editor
Post a comment