Instagram

Hoopdriver

People who use Instagram might want to know that the company's new policy will effectively give them ALL rights to your photographs, including the ability to sell them to whoever without paying you a penny, or even seeking your permission. And this in perpetuity. The only way to 'opt' out of this outrageous set up is to delete your account, and photos, by the 16th of January.

I do not use them myself, but I thought I would point this unpleasant new policy out to those who do.

Here's a link to a BBC story on the Instagram policy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

meanredspider

Yup - deleted my account today. Only used them for the quite photo editing tools but, whilst I don't really value my pics, I'm baggered if I'll sign them over the Farcebook

First.Aspect

Is this their Gerald Ratner moment?

EKE_38BPM

First Aspect wrote:

Is this their Gerald Ratner moment?

Nah. Far too many people don't give a damn about their rights, only convenience.
Press one button and share your pictures with the world.

daviesee

As per on your other thread, and reflecting Eke's point -

daviesee wrote:

I posted similar to this on my Facebook page.

The response?

Who cares?

You just can't help some people. :roll:

I think it is a serious issue but I appear to be in the minority.
Just wait till a major corporation use someone in their ads (here - it has happened elsewhere). The suit will ensue and the result? Tough cookies.

Hoopdriver

daviesee wrote:

As per on your other thread, and reflecting Eke's point -

daviesee wrote:

I posted similar to this on my Facebook page.

The response?

Who cares?

You just can't help some people. :roll:

I think it is a serious issue but I appear to be in the minority.
Just wait till a major corporation use someone in their ads (here - it has happened elsewhere). The suit will ensue and the result? Tough cookies.

And there will undoubtedly be some people who think it is really cool that some big multinational uses their image - regardless of the fact they don't get a brass razoo for it. And so the rights, and in some cases livelihoods, of others are eroded away.

daviesee

Hoopdriver wrote:

And there will undoubtedly be some people who think it is really cool that some big multinational uses their image - regardless of the fact they don't get a brass razoo for it. And so the rights, and in some cases livelihoods, of others are eroded away.

That was one person's response to my Facebook post.
This is a disposable society that doesn't know what it is throwing away.

Stag on

A good time to launch an 'ethical' competitor to Instagram? After all how hard can it be to automatically photo shop an image?

bompington

They claim that's not what they're doing, apparently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20777616

Anyway, their real crime is all those cheesy filters.

daviesee

Stag on wrote:

A good time to launch an 'ethical' competitor to Instagram? After all how hard can it be to automatically photo shop an image?

As a simple App, Snapseed does a decent job and is free. Then there are the various PC programmes......

meanredspider

I use Snapseed on the iPad and really like it.

CiB

Danny Baker retweeted something yesterday to the effect that everybody knows what file-sharing is nowadays. They're happy do it with other peoples songs, films & tv shows so they can't have too much concern over this.

Hoopdriver

Well, consider this: Another sweet thing about the new Instagram policy is if there are any legal troubles associated with using the photos they have appropriated the troubles go straight back to the photographer who took the images. By agreeing to the conditions, or not opting out, you essentially indemnify Instagram. In other words, they get all the money while you assume all the risk - and given that you have no idea where, when or how these pictures, your pictures, are going to be used, those risks could be quite substantial and come at you from out of nowhere.

il_principe

I've deleted my account. The writing was on the wall as soon as Facebook acquired them. The new Twitter app editing options etc that are just the same as Instagram's anyway.

Bustacapp

Don't know what the fuss is about?

If you value pics you take then keep them private and don't put them in the public domain.

Simple.

meanredspider

Bustacapp wrote:

Don't know what the fuss is about?

If you value pics you take then keep them private and don't put them in the public domain.

Simple.

The point is that you should be able to put them in the public domain WITHOUT somebody claiming rights to them

Simple

Bustacapp

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that you should be able to put them in the public domain WITHOUT somebody claiming rights to them

Simple

You want rights? Then copyright them.

Standard practice.

Simple.

mtb-idle

I usually copyright the pics i post on facebook or on my own site. I don't use instagram

asprilla

Bustacapp wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The point is that you should be able to put them in the public domain WITHOUT somebody claiming rights to them

Simple

You want rights? Then copyright them.

Standard practice.

Simple.

Copyright is just proving that you own it. With image this is fairly easy, especially as Instagram will be able to show that you actually took the picture, or at least it first existed in your account and nowhere else. Instagram's Ts&Cs are saying that you own the rights but by uploading an image are licensing it to them to do with as they please. Copyright doesn't come into it.

sketchley

Meanredspider - I'm with Bustacapp on this, I think the key difference here is intagram is a "free" public website, in this circumstance I think it is no problem instagram claiming the rights as they provide the site for free and are a commercial organisation after all. Furthermore if you want to protect you property then put it somewhere safe. Fomr what I understad this no different to youtube who have right over all content. Correct me if I'm wrong on this?

Also are they really going to sell millions of baby photos and pictures of cats, we are not exactly talking real high quality photos here are we..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

asprilla

If there is any professionally produced content on YouTube then YouTube pay the rights holders for the usage. Certainly for music they pay a percentage of any advertising revenue created from the clip.

meanredspider

Sketchley wrote:

Meanredspider - I'm with Bustacapp on this, I think the key difference here is intagram is a "free" public website, in this circumstance I think it is no problem instagram claiming the rights as they provide the site for free and are a commercial organisation after all. Furthermore if you want to protect you property then put it somewhere safe. Fomr what I understad this no different to youtube who have right over all content. Correct me if I'm wrong on this?

Also are they really going to sell millions of baby photos and pictures of cats, we are not exactly talking real high quality photos here are we..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

They provide a service that drives traffic and, from that, they hope to make money through advertising and selling other data. If, as it seems they have, they want to use my intellectual property as part of that deal, I'm not prepared to accept that. I'll just post them elsewhere. What I don't accept though is the argument that I shouldn't post them at all. That's like the police inspector who said to me "if you don't feel safe cycling on the road, don't cycle". I don't actual think my pictures are "worth" anything but I object to someone else laying commercial claim to them. It's not a big deal - there's plenty of other ways to post pics on the web. It's Farcebook that will lose out as people delete their Instagram accounts.

daviesee

Sketchley wrote:

..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

Friends of friends who are professional have done, under the old T&Cs.
Photo sharing with friends and family. Advertisement of their services etc.
Maintaining copyright is exactly what the new T&Cs were going to do away with.
Ironically enough, I first read the story on the BBC news website. The very same website that asks for your photos and hidden in the BBC T&Cs is exactly the same thing. If you post to the BBC, they take ownership. Always read the small print.

That said, I imagine that some people are now re-evaluating how they use "free" services.

anti_podean

Bustacapp wrote:

Don't know what the fuss is about? If you value pics you take then keep them private and don't put them in the public domain. Simple.

Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.

meanredspider

daviesee wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

Friends of friends who are professional have done, under the old T&Cs.
.

Yup - a friend sent me a Twitter link from some professionals complaining about this. I think it's fine for Instagram to try to do this (provided they are "up front" about it) but they shouldn't be surprised by the response.

rick_chasey

You lot seen the forum T&C's?

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

You lot seen the forum T&C's?

Yes - not aware they've changed since I signed up

Bustacapp

Asprilla wrote:

Copyright is just proving that you own it. With image this is fairly easy, especially as Instagram will be able to show that you actually took the picture, or at least it first existed in your account and nowhere else. Instagram's Ts&Cs are saying that you own the rights but by uploading an image are licensing it to them to do with as they please. Copyright doesn't come into it.

Regardless, if you value something that much, then don't put it somewhere where other people can access it.

Anti_Podean wrote:

Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.

Nope, not trolling. If you are the creator of an image and someone else claims credit for that, then it is either:

a) Your fault for not copyrighting it.
b) Your fault for signing your copyright over to instagram by virtue of using their website. Isn't it in their t&c's?

asprilla

It is now. That's why people are closing their accounts.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

You lot seen the forum T&C's?

So *that's* why Future tolerate the Girls In threads

rjsterry

Bustacapp wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Copyright is just proving that you own it. With image this is fairly easy, especially as Instagram will be able to show that you actually took the picture, or at least it first existed in your account and nowhere else. Instagram's Ts&Cs are saying that you own the rights but by uploading an image are licensing it to them to do with as they please. Copyright doesn't come into it.

Regardless, if you value something that much, then don't put it somewhere where other people can access it.

Anti_Podean wrote:

Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.

Nope, not trolling. If you are the creator of an image and someone else claims credit for that, then it is either:

a) Your fault for not copyrighting it.
b) Your fault for signing your copyright over to instagram by virtue of using their website. Isn't it in their t&c's?

There is no verb 'to copyright' - it's not something you do to an image or other artefact after its creation. As someone pointed out above, you can retain copyright, but give or sell a license for limited or unlimited use.