Instagram Greed

Hoopdriver

People who use Instagram might want to know that the company's new policy gives them ALL rights to you photos, including the ability to sell them to anyone they please without paying you a cent, or even notifying you. Your pictures become theirs to do with as they please with no recompense to you. The only way you can 'opt out' of thus draconian deal is to delete your account and photos by the 16th of January.

I never post any of my photos on anything but my own website, but I know plenty of photographers who use Instagram so I thought I would point out this new policy of theirs if anyone here is interested.

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

There are more stories about it on CNN etc. Apparently it is already generating quite a backlash

daviesee

I posted similar to this on my Facebook page.

The response?

Who cares?

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

Cleat Eastwood

REading that it seems they will also own any profile images of you and any personal details you've entered.

Its not a great artistic tool, its more a fun utility - easy to replicate, i'm sure a few developers will be looking to follow their lead but stay true to the indie cause.

thegreatdivide

There are plenty of free apps out there that will 'retro' your photos.

ddraver

Yeah but I need Instagram to make all my photos look exactly like everyone elses who uses Instagram! What am I to do?!?

bompington

ddraver wrote:

Yeah but I need Instagram to make all my photos look exactly like everyone elses who uses Instagram! What am I to do?!?

Buy an old polaroid camera, take pics, crumple up the edges a bit, then scan them in and post them on facebook. Job done.

GiantMike

The digital world is changing massively and giving up your privacy and rights seems to be at the very heart of this new ethos. And most users really don't care.

Hoopdriver

Here's something that might - or ought to - make them care: one of the sweet things 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.

Remember these can be used in advertising, and I happen to know from personal involvement in some very large stock agencies, that for security's sake in these legalistic days they often want model releases even if a person's SHADOW is in a photo that is being used in advertising. And here's Instagram rushing in with your pictures, while you have no say in their use and probably don't have model releases...

rolf_f

Just replace all your images with duplicates of one that says "Facebook is sh1t" and let them use it for whatever they want!

GiantMike

Interesting point about the model release form.

Rolf F wrote:

Just replace all your images with duplicates of one that says "Facebook is sh1t" and let them use it for whatever they want!

I'm not sure you understand advertising.

GiantMike

Instagram Ts&Cs wrote:

1.Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services.

From HERE

Is this a change of mind or misreporting of the original story?

snoopsmydogg

ddraver wrote:

Yeah but I need Instagram to make all my photos look exactly like everyone elses who uses Instagram! What am I to do?!?

Take each photo through a pint of lager (or guiness if you want the black and white effect)

Hoopdriver

GiantMike wrote:

Instagram Ts&Cs wrote:

1.Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services.

From HERE

Is this a change of mind or misreporting of the original story?

You didn't read far enough down. Read a little further down that paragraph and you get to the interesting bit.

I have heard reports that they may be re-thinking this whole thing.

GiantMike

[being thick]Where does it say they can sell your photos to an advertiser? I might be wrong but I think it says they can post adverts on/near your photos, that the photographer has to own the photos they post and that the photographer is responsible for ensuring that any fees are payable.

I'm not sure that I would read that as Instagram are selling my pictures to advertisers, owning the rights to them, not paying me any money and making me responsible when somebody sues for having a photo of them in Vogue magazine.

I'm not trying start an argument and I know that it is widely reported that Instagram want to own and sell your photos, but I don't see it in the T&Cs.[/being thick]

Peddle Up!

Instagram, Facebook and, sadly it appears, Twitter next.

See you next Tuesday.

Hoopdriver

GiantMike wrote:

[being thick]Where does it say they can sell your photos to an advertiser? I might be wrong but I think it says they can post adverts on/near your photos, that the photographer has to own the photos they post and that the photographer is responsible for ensuring that any fees are payable.

I'm not sure that I would read that as Instagram are selling my pictures to advertisers, owning the rights to them, not paying me any money and making me responsible when somebody sues for having a photo of them in Vogue magazine.

I'm not trying start an argument and I know that it is widely reported that Instagram want to own and sell your photos, but I don't see it in the T&Cs.[/being thick]

I believe what you are seeing is their (already) updated, backtracked, and-re-worded 'new' policy. Their CEO says it was all just a bit of misunderstanding caused by a bit of mis-wording on their part in their initial contract.

Miswording? Hmmm - it was pretty specific...

GiantMike

Hoopdriver wrote:

I believe what you are seeing is their (already) updated, backtracked, and-re-worded 'new' policy. Their CEO says it was all just a bit of misunderstanding caused by a bit of mis-wording on their part in their initial contract.

Miswording? Hmmm - it was pretty specific...

Ah, that explains it then.

Hoopdriver

A commentator in the US yesterday described their new policy, as originally laid out, as the equivalent of 'a suicide note'

colsoop

Im not an instagram user but when i saw the article i went and had a look at the T&C's and the way i interpreted the wording it was fairly obvious what they had in mind.

Here is the original wording, judge for yourself. Misworded or seeing what they could get away with :evil: :

"You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the content that you post on or through the service."
"a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

GiantMike

colsoop wrote:

Here is the original wording, judge for yourself. Misworded or seeing what they could get away with :evil: :

"You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the content that you post on or through the service."

Doesn't Instagram need this to be able to post your pics on their website around the world? Surely you have to agree that they can use your photos on their website when you upload them? Otherwise a user would be able to post a pic via Instagram and then claim that they want a royalty payment every time it is viewed. I don't understand the 'sub-licensable' element though, TBH.

colsoop wrote:

"a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Is this any different to BikeRadar putting adverts next to your posts? I don't get 'compensated' for my witty banter and insight even though I know that Mr BikeRadar is making a mint from PC World.

Even looking at the former wording I'm struggling to see where the 'Instagram owning all the rights to your images and selling them to advertisers' storyline comes from.

Guess where this wording comes from.....

quick quiz wrote:

If you upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content to the Website, you automatically: (a) grant other users of the Website and the Website Service the right to access the same and use it in accordance with these Terms, and (b) grant Future and its group companies a non-exclusive, royalty free, sub-licensable, perpetual, world-wide licence to use, modify, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Content: (i) on and through the Website and the Website Service and in all promotional materials relating thereto; and (ii) in any other form or medium (including but not limited to other Future publications) provided that We have obtained your prior permission to do so. You continue to own the Content after it is posted to the Website.

daviesee

GiantMike wrote:

colsoop wrote:

"a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

..........
Even looking at the former wording I'm struggling to see where the 'Instagram owning all the rights to your images and selling them to advertisers' storyline comes from.

The bits in red are what people are objecting to.
Some people think "My photos are being used in ads - cool!"
Other people think "Someone should have been paid for that, and as it is mine, it should be me".

GiantMike

IF Instagram was planning to sell photos to an advertiser to use outside of the website then that is clearly wrong. However, if it's putting advertising next to your content (which is how I read the condition highlighted) then that's the same as every website that allows advertising, including this one.

rolf_f

GiantMike wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Just replace all your images with duplicates of one that says "Facebook is sh1t" and let them use it for whatever they want!

I'm not sure you understand advertising.

You don't know how right you are!

Hoopdriver

GiantMike wrote:

IF Instagram was planning to sell photos to an advertiser to use outside of the website then that is clearly wrong. However, if it's putting advertising next to your content (which is how I read the condition highlighted) then that's the same as every website that allows advertising, including this one.

Their idea of use was open ended, involved their earning money from your images without any compensation to you, and what's more left you with the legal liabilities should things go pear-shaped - if that is your idea of fair and reasonable...wow

APIII

You have the option to delete everything before it comes into effect, so I don't really see the problem?

Peddle Up!

This debate confirms the wisdom of my approach to uploading anything, accepting T&Cs on software etc. I always let the cat press "Enter", so if there are any disputes, it's the moggie's fault. Any would-be Lionel Hutzs has better bone up on their law.

Hoopdriver

APIII wrote:

You have the option to delete everything before it comes into effect, so I don't really see the problem?

No problem - as long as you are aware of the changes and the forthcoming deadline.

there is the matter of the work and effort - now lost - that one may have put in on developing a profile. And as far as a contention by earlier posters, that professional photographers do not or would not use Instagram, that's just plain wrong. Photographers for magazines such as Time and National Geographic have been using it quite a bit - believe me, I know.

GiantMike

Hoopdriver wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

IF Instagram was planning to sell photos to an advertiser to use outside of the website then that is clearly wrong. However, if it's putting advertising next to your content (which is how I read the condition highlighted) then that's the same as every website that allows advertising, including this one.

Their idea of use was open ended, involved their earning money from your images without any compensation to you, and what's more left you with the legal liabilities should things go pear-shaped - if that is your idea of fair and reasonable...wow

Bikeradar earns money from your opinions without any compensation to you. They get advertising income by putting adverts next to your thoughts. So does facebook etc. Are you suggesting people cancel all these accounts? No, of course you aren't.

So, your issue seems to be about your liability from things going 'pear-shaped'. What are you expecting to go pear-shaped from an advert next to your picture? I'm not looking for an argument, I just don't understand all the furore.

marz

GiantMike wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

IF Instagram was planning to sell photos to an advertiser to use outside of the website then that is clearly wrong. However, if it's putting advertising next to your content (which is how I read the condition highlighted) then that's the same as every website that allows advertising, including this one.

Their idea of use was open ended, involved their earning money from your images without any compensation to you, and what's more left you with the legal liabilities should things go pear-shaped - if that is your idea of fair and reasonable...wow

Bikeradar earns money from your opinions without any compensation to you. They get advertising income by putting adverts next to your thoughts. So does facebook etc. Are you suggesting people cancel all these accounts? No, of course you aren't.

So, your issue seems to be about your liability from things going 'pear-shaped'. What are you expecting to go pear-shaped from an advert next to your picture? I'm not looking for an argument, I just don't understand all the furore.

So you would be ok if Instagram sold a picture of your face to Viagra to use in their next ad campaign?

Bikerader depends on the traffic created by us when expressing opinions, but they don't own the words/pcitures we post.

alihisgreat

I can't see celebrity users getting on with the change in T&Cs?

GiantMike

marz wrote:

So you would be ok if Instagram sold a picture of your face to Viagra to use in their next ad campaign?

Step away from the rhetoric. I can't see where it says that Instagram will sell photos for use by advertisers. I've seen a lot of internet hatred about it, but I haven't seen the bit in T&Cs where they say they will do that. If they say they will do that, then I agree with the OP (as I have stated).

Could you show me where it says they could sell my photo to Viagra? I think the T&C....

"a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

...refers to internal content, not external.