Heads up: Instagram plans to own you

Richard

Unless you delete your account now, Instagram is claiming perpetual rights to your pics. No notification, credit or payment, forever: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

Now this is so utterly outrageous, that I suspect they will have to back off, but who knows? :rolleyes

novicesnapper

I'm glad you posted this, I was just coming to start a thread on it. Google tried this on YT and after many deleted their vids and complained, they back off and said it was a misunderstanding, but didn't change the TOS. I myself, deleted over 1K videos of the Sun, cme's, flares etc, and abandoned my account.

“Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, 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, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service’s Privacy Policy, available here:http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.”

http://fstoppers.com/instagram-can-now-sell-your-images-without-your-knowledge

GraphyFotoz

Glad I never got started with em!
I installed it on my iPhone but just dumped it.

mercphoto

I deleted my account today.

ian408

Ballsy move on Instagram's part. There are a lot of folks who are decent shooters and use the app. Wouldn't surprise me to learn they (instagram) had already cherry picked their potential sales

ZBlack

This is also worth taking a look at if you're debating cancelling your account and such.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean

ian408

It's an interesting article. But it doesn't really change the fact they are using work without remuneration.

ZBlack

ian408 wrote: »

It's an interesting article. But it doesn't really change the fact they are using work without remuneration.

I definitely agree. I was never a big user, but started to use it more recently. This morning I did go ahead with canceling my account.

**Edited to add the response from Instagram just posted a short while ago.**

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

ian408

By the way, any agreement which you have no control over, like the one referenced in the original story, isn't such a good thing either.

How are they going to deal with copyright issues (buildings) that aren't a problem until the image is commercial?

Or model releases for something that falls in the "lifestyle" category for example?

ian408

ZBlack wrote: »

**Edited to add the response from Instagram just posted a short while ago.**

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

Interesting reply. But one wonders why, if this was their intent all along, why they chose the language they did?

Richard

ian408 wrote: »

Interesting reply. But one wonders why, if this was their intent all along, why they chose the language they did?

Good question. But it's good to see that they backed down so soon. Hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Internet community .

ian408

They haven't really backed down yet. We haven't seen the language

Wonder how many people closed their accounts never to come back?

Richard

Obligatory xkcd take on the whole thing:

novicesnapper

Glad to see this thread as a sticky, thanks. New developments on this.
Instagram furor triggers first class action lawsuit


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook's Instagram photo sharing service has been hit with what appears to be the first civil lawsuit to result from changed service terms that prompted howls of protest last week.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court on Friday, a California Instagram user leveled breach of contract and other claims against the company.
"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/instagram-furor-triggers-first-class-181048764.html?l=1

VanishingAmerica

I cancelled my instagram account the day I read the news on the WPO newsletter.

Facebook tried this several years ago (claiming ownership to all content), but users went nuts and FB supposedly changed their terms. Now they're trying it again with the instagram buyout.

I did, however, notice that they are re-wording the terms, but they're still vague (from what I've gathered). I've also read from some of the big photo news reports that the terms are still being modified and aren't even official yet. Regardless of what's going on, I don't want to take the chance and simply don't use instagram anymore. As a matter of fact, since I found other apps out there (like Snapseed and MagicHour) I haven't even used instagram since the first day I downloaded it. For a creative like myself, it was just too limited. I guess it's time to review the other companies' terms as well.

The terms that are causing the uproar with instagram are currently as follows:
To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

Strictly interpreted, it says that others may PAY instagram (facebook) to display YOUR content. So, someone IS getting paid. It's just not us. And that's bad for us as businesses, no matter how they try to soften the impact.

Sam

VanishingAmerica wrote: »

I cancelled my instagram account the day I read the news on the WPO newsletter.

Facebook tried this several years ago (claiming ownership to all content), but users went nuts and FB supposedly changed their terms. Now they're trying it again with the instagram buyout.

I did, however, notice that they are re-wording the terms, but they're still vague (from what I've gathered). I've also read from some of the big photo news reports that the terms are still being modified and aren't even official yet. Regardless of what's going on, I don't want to take the chance and simply don't use instagram anymore. As a matter of fact, since I found other apps out there (like Snapseed and MagicHour) I haven't even used instagram since the first day I downloaded it. For a creative like myself, it was just too limited. I guess it's time to review the other companies' terms as well.

The terms that are causing the uproar with instagram are currently as follows:
To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

Strictly interpreted, it says that others may PAY instagram (facebook) to display YOUR content. So, someone IS getting paid. It's just not us. And that's bad for us as businesses, no matter how they try to soften the impact.

Your home page link doesn't work.

Sam

mbonocore

VanishingAmerica wrote: »

I cancelled my instagram account the day I read the news on the WPO newsletter.

As a matter of fact, since I found other apps out there (like Snapseed and MagicHour) I haven't even used instagram since the first day I downloaded it. For a creative like myself, it was just too limited. I guess it's time to review the other companies' terms as well.

I can't use Instagram's editing tools or filters either, but it is great as a mobile photography social network. I use Camera Awesome and Snapseed to edit my photos before posting to Instagram.

I am not as upset about this as most people are (and should be), simply because I only post mobile photography to Instagram. Personally, I am not looking to make money off my mobile photography (although I wouldn't say no if it came), but I am glad I am not one of the people that would upload SLR photos to their instagram

ian408

I think it's more the notion someone will take what they want and make money. And they'll take jobs. Instagram won't buy stock photos; they'll just draw from what users have. Sort of like the newspapers encouraging people to submit news photos and video-each reduces the cost of photography by reducing the number of staff photographers. And they'll have their own stock agency that will license works how ever they see fit.

Lots wrong with what Instagram wants to do and the potential long term affect if others adopt the scheme.

novicesnapper

Hows this for karma? Bwaaaahaaa

Does Facebook Privacy Confuse Zuckerberg's Sister?

Facebook's privacy settings can be confusing - just ask Mark Zuckerberg's sister, Randi Zuckberberg.
Randi, who is the former marketing director of Facebook (FB), posted a feisty tweet Tuesday night scolding a Twitter follower for reposting a picture that Randi had originally published on Facebook. "@cschweitz not sure where you got this photo. I posted it on FB. You reposting it to Twitter is way uncool," Randi said in her tweet.
.....................
Randi appears to have deleted most of the back and forth between herself and Schweitzer, but she later posted a telling-post about the incident.
"Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency," Randi said in a tweet.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-facebook-privacy-confuse-zuckerbergs-165504211.html

ian408

She's trying to blame someone else with that "etiquette" statement when in fact, it's her own fault. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, will happen as a result.

VanishingAmerica

Sam wrote: »

Your home page link doesn't work.

Sam

Thanks, I forgot about that. I need to change that link. Someone hacked my Vanishing America page and my webmaster hasn't fixed it yet.