Mighty generous of them   

hmm, it poses something of an issue with using minors' pics, which they'd need parental consent for, so there surely must be more amendments due.

and I was wondering that stock agencies such as iStock were crazy, these guys are even worst

It's not just Instagram it is Facebook as well because they own Instagram.

Facebook wrote:   
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

It's not just Instagram it is Facebook as well because they own Instagram.

Quote

Facebook wrote:   
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

No, that's not the same at all. Facebook aren't saying they have the right to sell your images to others, as Instagram are, only to use them in connection to FB.

And you thought getty was a thief.   Is 20% better than 0%.   Can't image the downward pressure on pricing in microstock this would create.  Not to mention the loss of sales.  They could sell photos for a dollar and make out like a private equity firm.

Oh GW don't let the facts get in the way of an angry Internet lynch mob. 

Facebook aren't saying they have the right to sell your images to others

Any bets on how long it takes Instagram to issue a re-wording of this policy? What already 12 hours and no retraction?

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on December 18, 2012, 09:02

It's not just Instagram it is Facebook as well because they own Instagram.

Quote

Facebook wrote:   
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

No, that's not the same at all. Facebook aren't saying they have the right to sell your images to others, as Instagram are, only to use them in connection to FB.

Oh GW don't let the facts get in the way of an angry Internet lynch mob. 

Any bets on how long it takes Instagram to issue a re-wording of this policy? What already 12 hours and no retraction?

Then that would prove how effective the 'angry Internet lynch mob' had been. One things for sure __ without them the retraction wouldn't happen.

I've never used instagram so I don't have any personal stake in this, but they deserve the angry lynch mob. Facebook has a completely overblown idea of itself and will try on just about anything to see what it can get away with. The peasants should be revolting

Yup absolute power corrupts absolutely and Facebook know they have a captive market (sound familiar?)
Sooner or later they will get everything they want by a slow creep. They make these big changes then backstep just a little when their users make a large enough stink.

Oh yes, there was another company which did the same, and now doesn't backstep, even a little.
Again, I have no stake in this. I looked at Instagram and couldn't see a way of using it without putting all Instagrammed pics on their site (I didn't look very hard), and I wasn't having that in any case.
Mind you, Alamy's phone filter app seems to have unacceptable conditions, so I haven't used that either.

Adobe Photoshop Express:
Permissions
This application has access to the following:
...
   Your personal information
    read your contacts
    Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your tablet, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge. Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
..."

The 'technology' press makes fun of Google+ but I've heard a lot of photographers are using it - even if they're only networking with each other at this point. 

I've never used Instagram (although I play the comedy song Tyler posted often... so hilarious!)

Given my unfamiliarity, I don't know if this is useful to anyone here, but it was posted on Wired and I assume it's legit.  It explains how to delete your pics and account at super-speed:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/18/how-to-quit-instagram

Thank god I'm not a Facebook or Instagram user. 

Amen to that!  Same here. 

There's a bit more background information on Instagram's "need to monetise" in this report from the Beeb;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

I agree with this comment on that article by John McCormick

"One thing the complacent overlook. This is what the top of the slippery slope looks like. You'll find after one or two more shake-ups like this that THEY own YOUR photo, because you uploaded it onto THEIR server. As inevitable as gravity. Get out while you can."

Even if they do a u-turn - that's it for me.

And since SS has a Facebook page and displays our images at a large size they are now giving away our images for free to be sold elsewhere and they and we make no any money off of it!

I wonder how this is going to fly?

 

This is going to be the story of FB from now on - one obnoxious 'terms and conditions' attack after another.  And your news feed will be polluted with ads.  They have one goal - "monetize" - and one way to reach it - sell their users' privacy and content.

Some changes will cause a big negative reaction, and they'll back off. For a while.  And then try something else.  They'll try to just wear us down.

Imagine the telephone was new technology today.  The phone company starts as a free service - everyone gets a phone and starts talking.  In a couple of years they have millions of users, and it's indispensable.  Then they dust off that old "T &C" we all agreed to, and announce they have the right to record our conversations and sell them to advertisers.  And our calls are interrupted with ads.   But we have no place to go because we all have to be on the same phone network....

I always wondered what the benefit to the founders was in FB and instagram being free.
Clearly they had to hook loads of suckers users in, then monetise.
I tend to be very, very suspicious of anything that's 'free', especially online.

You know what they say about the internet ... if the service is 'free' then you are the product.

"By Reading This I Now Own You": http://blog.photoshelter.com/2012/12/by-reading-this-i-now-own-you/

Quote from: grafix04 on December 18, 2012, 21:10

Instagram has responded.  It's all good now, no one is selling our photos.

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

What a vomit-inducing, cuddly "we're all friends together" statement. *hugs*

The actual translation is "We got found out and now we're trying to limit the damage"

   Spot on!

There's a bit more background information on Instagram's "need to monetise" in this report from the Beeb;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

"The fact is that Facebook has critical mass, and is quite confident that such moves may cause uproar, but not a flight of business."

ThIS sounds familiar.

AOL once thought they had "critical mass" too.  The world eventually routed around them.    Like Jeff Goldblum's character said in Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way".

Microstock is an early application of crowdsourcing.  Crowds eventually move on. 

Here's some more information on the topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/instagram-ads_n_2325477.html

I wonder if Facebook had any idea what to do with instagram when they bought it. It seems to me that they splashed one billion dollars just to show the world that they can buy anything on this planet if they want.  And now when they found out that fb ads on mobile phones do not work that well as they expected etc., they're trying to find any way how to monetize Instagram. Maybe they should sell some extra filters for a few dollars instead...

Anyhow, I downloaded Add Watermark app to smartphone and won't upload any photo to FB without it. Just to be sure.

I'm still not a fanboy of either, but happy that people got past the mob mentality in under one day.

I look at it as that "mob" got needed results, in the "clarification" and removal of some of the terms.  Better to take care of things before they happen.  And "the people" aren't really out anything for deleting their account.  In this case, the business learned that they don't hold a monopoly.

I can never understand why they don't run things like that past someone with common sense before putting them out there.

Enjoyed Joe's post on the IS forum which got deleted

If that place was a foreign govt they would call it anti democratic and call for regime change.

They can sell the photo of the cuts of my nails I have there.   Instagram is a toy.  I've been enjoying shooting idiot stuff and applying filters and uploading to Instagram. My very own artistic trash!

More from the BBC on the fall-out from Instagram's ToS storm;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20782536

It doesn't look like National Geographic was very impressed with the new terms either

http://instagram.com/p/TZaMHuoVRh/

Thanks for that Gostwyck.  A particularly nice quote here:

"They run a giant community," Mr Blau said. "You have to treat it like one. You can't just be a dictator."

 

Somebody tell Apple the same.

Quote from: Batman on December 22, 2012, 08:29

Quote from: rubyroo on December 20, 2012, 08:41

Thanks for that Gostwyck.  A particularly nice quote here:

"They run a giant community," Mr Blau said. "You have to treat it like one. You can't just be a dictator."

 

Somebody tell Apple the same.

You don't have to buy Apple's products. Other phones, tablets, etc are available. Every time you buy one of Apple's products you are effectively giving them your consensual 'vote'.

When I buy a car I don't give a consensual vote for them to say what brand of tire, where I get it fixed, who I can take for a ride and what road to take. Apple says I can't change a battery, what software they approve, how I can use the device. I own it not them.