pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Instagram can sell your pics under new t&c  (Read 10417 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
9108 Views
Last post July 07, 2009, 14:12
by hlth
42 Replies
19842 Views
Last post October 16, 2012, 09:55
by RacePhoto
19 Replies
5468 Views
Last post January 04, 2013, 17:43
by ruxpriencdiam
28 Replies
9113 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
2 Replies
2337 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