pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Instagram can sell your pics under new t&c  (Read 10622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aspp

« on: December 17, 2012, 16:50 »
+3
There are more details about the updated terms of service at Wired. The specific bit that matters is

"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."

Posted here because I suspect this is something that IS exclusives need to especially be aware of whether they are also submitting mobile stock or not.


« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2012, 17:15 »
0
Mighty generous of them  >:( 

« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2012, 17:31 »
0
I'm guessing (yes this is just a guess) that what they might be trying to do, is be able, to say..
If I clicked on an ad and said 'I like KitKat' that they they can post that on another person's timeline (especially my friends) and say, Tyler likes 'KitKat'... and possibly use a photo of mine in the process.

That said, the terms of service seems very vague and open and DO sound like they can sell my image to KitKat for a nation wide advertising campaign.  I'm guessing that isn't what they are giving themselves permissions to do though and they may make an amendment  sooner than later.  They have too much to loose otherwise (I hope).  I wouldn't go deleting my account before this settles at least.

Either way, thanks for the heads up - this is very relevant for us.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2012, 19:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2012, 05:42 »
0

« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2012, 08:31 »
0
and I was wondering that stock agencies such as iStock were crazy, these guys are even worst ;D

« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2012, 08:49 »
0
I wonder what for example Shutterstock will do with it. They publish images of SS contributors on Instagram. Will they close their Instagram account?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2012, 09:02 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2012, 09:13 »
0
Thank god I'm not a Facebook or Instagram user.  8)

« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2012, 09:18 »
+1
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.

« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2012, 10:05 »
0
account deleted! At least here we can afford to send a signal.

« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2012, 10:14 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2012, 10:14 »
0
I tried instagram briefly, but now - bye bye!
https://instagram.com/accounts/remove/request/

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2012, 10:18 »
0
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?


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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 11:36 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2012, 10:23 »
0
Looks like the "Race to the bottom" has become reality.

« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2012, 10:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2012, 10:45 »
0
I would just say - if you  post good photos on FB - i.e. you use it as a photography blog - downsize them before uploading.   And be looking for an alternative to FB because it's going to become a polluted river of in-line ads.

« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2012, 11:18 »
0
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 :)

Microbius

« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2012, 11:24 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 11:33 »
0
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.
..."
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 11:58 by ShadySue »

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2012, 11:34 »
0
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.

Absolutely Fact! I agree but if you did a search on Instagram can sell your images, it's amusing.

The part about FB was the mob reaction to something that's always been the same on every site that needs the right to display your images, that you posted. Instagram is just plain stupid on their part. Two different issues.

What's that other site that means people will steal your images? Pinit, or Flckit or that new Picnik (does it have ants?), BlueMelon, Dashwire, Snapchat, and the tip of the iceberg as the new ones pile in to grab Photo Sharing.

I have a Flickr account with one image, and the same for Pinterest and Instagram. Parking my name. I don't trust any of them and why would I publish things for free, so people could steal them, and then later complain that they did?

« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 11:36 »
0
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. 



rubyroo

« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2012, 12:34 »
0
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

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2012, 12:46 »
+1
BS go read the TOS at Facebook that you agree to and what I quoted is on the Facebook site, Instagram is now thrown into the picture because they were bought by Facebook!

No matter what starting next month Facebook and Instagram can sell any of your images that you have put up on their sites because you checked I Agree to the TOS.

Go right here and look at the FB TOS.

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



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.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2012, 12:46 »
0
Thank god I'm not a Facebook or Instagram user.  8)

Amen to that!  Same here. 

« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2012, 12:47 »
+1
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

« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2012, 12:59 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2012, 13:06 »
+1
1) Download all your images:  http://help.instagram.com/customer/portal/articles/95777-export-your-photos-to-your-computer

2) Delete Account:  http://help.instagram.com/customer/portal/articles/95760

3) Smile  "We cannot reactivate accounts. Additionally, you will not be able to sign up with the same username again."

I bet Instagram has been having their busiest day ever. Too bad it will be for all the wrong reasons.


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2012, 13:46 »
0
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?

 

Poncke

« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2012, 17:52 »
0
They are already saying they didnt mean it like that

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

« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2012, 18:24 »
+2
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....

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 18:55 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2012, 18:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2012, 19:03 »
+1
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.

grafix04

« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2012, 21:10 »
0
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

« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2012, 21:12 »
-1
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 21:16 by ann »

« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2012, 21:23 »
+2
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"
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 21:27 by gostwyck »

grafix04

« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2012, 21:41 »
-1
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"


 ;D  Spot on!

« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2012, 21:47 »
+1
Next up: auto-playing video ads, right in your news feed.

http://news.yahoo.com/horrible-autoplay-video-ads-coming-facebook-190959998.html

If I had the guts, I'd short this stock.   None of these crazy ad schemes will deliver anything like the revenue being projected and resistance of the user base will greatly exceed expections.   Just my typically uninformed opinions...
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 21:55 by stockastic »

« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2012, 23:52 »
0
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.

KB

« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2012, 23:56 »
0
Do Getty and FB / Instagram share a common management team?  ::)

« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2012, 00:02 »
0
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. 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 00:04 by stockastic »

« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2012, 00:06 »
0
I also have shunned facebook, instagram and others.  This reinforces my decision. 

« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2012, 03:15 »
+1

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2012, 03:35 »
0
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

'til next time.

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"

« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2012, 04:20 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2012, 09:57 »
+1
Here's some more information on the topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/instagram-ads_n_2325477.html


Oh darn you mean we burned Instagram and drowned FB (deleted your accounts forever,,,) and they weren't really witches!

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

(& carry a towel)


« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2012, 10:13 »
+3
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.

« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2012, 11:47 »
0
Facebook waited too long to 'monetize'.  Their user base now has a growing awareness of privacy issues and an increasing resentment of in-your-face ads, junk mail and robo-calls.  We now see FB as something like a public utility which should do what we need it to do, and be subject to government regulation. 

FB will be facing increasing resistance to every new terms-and-conditions attack they cook up, and heavy use of apps and plug-ins to block inline FB ads. 

We need to be thinking about what comes after FB. 

« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 12:58 by stockastic »

aspp

« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2012, 15:30 »
0
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.

« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2012, 15:44 »
-1
Thank god I'm not a Facebook or Instagram user.  8)

Amen to that!  Same here.

Wow,
and I thougt that I am the only person on the planet who is not a Facebook user.
(Instagram as well)
 :)


« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2012, 04:51 »
+2
They can sell the photo of the cuts of my nails I have there. :D  Instagram is a toy.  I've been enjoying shooting idiot stuff and applying filters and uploading to Instagram. My very own artistic trash! :))

« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2012, 06:31 »
0
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.

IS is not a cooperative, they don't have to be democratic, or even have the forum.

Democratic countries breed companies such as IS by the bucket load, no matter who gets voted in.

« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2012, 08:04 »
+2
More from the BBC on the fall-out from Instagram's ToS storm;

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

rubyroo

« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2012, 08:41 »
0
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."

 ;D

« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2012, 16:18 »
0
It doesn't look like National Geographic was very impressed with the new terms either

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

CD123

« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2012, 19:13 »
0
It doesn't look like National Geographic was very impressed with the new terms either

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


Fine distinction between power you have and power you where given. Instagram made the vital mistake of thinking that they have the power, now they are finding out that it can be taken away very quickly.

Batman

« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2012, 08:29 »
+1
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."

 ;D

Somebody tell Apple the same.

« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2012, 08:36 »
+1
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."

 ;D

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'.

Batman

« Reply #59 on: December 29, 2012, 08:25 »
0
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."

 ;D

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
9235 Views
Last post July 07, 2009, 14:12
by hlth
42 Replies
20115 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 09:55
by RacePhoto
19 Replies
5647 Views
Last post January 04, 2013, 17:43
by ruxpriencdiam
28 Replies
9304 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
2 Replies
2437 Views
Last post March 08, 2018, 14:09
by christiano

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle