pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Instagram photo sells for $90,000 without consent  (Read 2458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2015, 18:30 »
0
I am surprised to see Instagram say that everyone owns their own photos. I thought all of social media had in their terms that once you upload a photo on their site, its up for grabs.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2015, 18:58 »
+1
I am surprised to see Instagram say that everyone owns their own photos. I thought all of social media had in their terms that once you upload a photo on their site, its up for grabs.

Not so:
Instagram:
"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, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy."
https://instagram.com/about/legal/terms (immediately under 'rights')

Facebook:
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
    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. "

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Flickr:
"We feel very strongly that sharing online shouldnt mean giving up rights to your photos. Our Terms of Service clearly spell out that Flickr/Yahoo! doesnt own the photos that you upload. You, as a member, maintain all ownership rights to the photos that you upload to Flickr. Our Terms of Service allow us to,
    use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. (Please see Section 9b of the Terms of Service for the full text.)"

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2011/05/13/at-flickr-your-photos-are-always-yours

Twitter is more dodgy in this respect:
"5. Your Rights
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
    Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets on the Twitter Services available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.

You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.
    Tip: Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Twitter Services. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. But whats yours is yours you own your Content (and your photos are part of that Content).
Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.
We may modify or adapt your Content in order to transmit, display or distribute it over computer networks and in various media and/or make changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to any requirements or limitations of any networks, devices, services or media."

https://twitter.com/tos

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2015, 19:09 »
0
BTW, look at what someone on FAA's forum had to say:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2538324

« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2015, 20:28 »
0
BTW, look at what someone on FAA's forum had to say:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2538324


If you're referring to Dan Turner, he's a well-known provocateur on the FAA forum. 

There's already been a long Richard Prince thread on FAA, in which Dan Turner was Prince's only advocate. 
 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 20:39 by stockastic »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2015, 20:40 »
+6
I think what's interesting is what images can be worth when represented by the right person or company. Nothing special images selling for $90,000. He should be an agent representing people's work instead of pushing the legal and ethical boundaries of theft.

« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2015, 21:23 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2015, 15:50 »
0
BTW, look at what someone on FAA's forum had to say:
http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2538324


If you're referring to Dan Turner, he's a well-known provocateur on the FAA forum. 

There's already been a long Richard Prince thread on FAA, in which Dan Turner was Prince's only advocate.


Thank goodness he was the only one.
I don't go there very often; there's a lot of toxicity over there.

« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2015, 16:14 »
+1
For a long time, FAA has been telling people that their search placement is affected by something like 25 factors.  I strongly suspect that previous sales is the only one that actually matters, and that all the others put together don't amount to a hill of beans.  But, one of them is "participation in the forums".  So draw your own conclusions. 

« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2015, 16:27 »
0
a) anyone one who pays 90k for a photo is totally idiotic
with that sort of money, i could hire the best photographer in the world for an assignment...
even 90, 000 assignments with any good photographer, to get one usable photo.


b) anyone who puts an image hi-res and large enough to be sold without consent and payment
on instagram, flickr, facebook,etc is equally questionable to their mental faculty being intact.
c) there is nothing wrong with putting your photos on these social medias,
so long as it is no larger than 600x900. so small that not enough to look good in print .

that said, if someone actually pays these social media any money for this small image,
i would not be angry, i would be quite amused to see who they are,
and would love to meet them as i am sure you can gyp them for more money
without even giving away a photograph ,etc to these people. 8)

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2015, 16:33 »
+1
For a long time, FAA has been telling people that their search placement is affected by something like 25 factors.  I strongly suspect that previous sales is the only one that actually matters, and that all the others put together don't amount to a hill of beans.  But, one of them is "participation in the forums".  So draw your own conclusions.
Nowadays the strong factors seems to be special deals with known 'names', and probably 'pay for placement'. I had come to the latter theory only a few days ago, then it was hinted at in a thread and the comment was deflected, not denied.

« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2015, 17:56 »
+2
For a long time, FAA has been telling people that their search placement is affected by something like 25 factors.  I strongly suspect that previous sales is the only one that actually matters, and that all the others put together don't amount to a hill of beans.  But, one of them is "participation in the forums".  So draw your own conclusions.
Nowadays the strong factors seems to be special deals with known 'names', and probably 'pay for placement'. I had come to the latter theory only a few days ago, then it was hinted at in a thread and the comment was deflected, not denied.

What's happening at FAA is like what happened at Etsy.   It starts out as a "community for artists", gets its initial product offerings from small contributors, then when it becomes successful, the little people are moved to the back of the bus.   The admins just repeat the party line about the need to promote yourself outside of the site.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2821 Views
Last post May 15, 2011, 12:35
by cascoly
59 Replies
7468 Views
Last post December 29, 2012, 08:25
by Batman
19 Replies
3725 Views
Last post January 04, 2013, 17:43
by ruxpriencdiam
15 Replies
8323 Views
Last post July 31, 2013, 19:37
by Batman
0 Replies
881 Views
Last post May 15, 2015, 20:34
by jsmithzz

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results