kdemas
Enjoy Life.
That really is an amazingly user-unfriendly TOS statement. This is going to hurt them badly from a PR perspective. Bad move Zuck.
Instagram is Changing Their Terms
- Thread starter Damaso
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 89
- Views 8K
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
The new Flickr app is quite good, major improvement.
DtheG
Established
OLD non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license
NEW non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license
OLD Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content
NEW 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
umcelinho
Marcelo
Facebook has similar terms for content that is posted... is everybody deleting their facebook account as well?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
I haven't ever posted a picture or other copyrightable content of mine there...
Thardy
Veteran
So, Facebook can use your photos and information any way they want and not even have to notify you?
Damaso
Photojournalist
Facebook and Instagram have different Terms. I believe this update goes beyond what Facebook can do. In any event it certainly goes beyond what Instagram used to be able to do with your imagery...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Nope. Text isn't a photograph, and I'm not adding lines from my Harry Potter novel in there as status updates. Funny, though, about cheeky did-you-actually-read-that remarks 🙄
I am, however, strongly considering deleting my Facebook photos as well.
Damaso
Photojournalist
For anyone who doesn't think this is real...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-it-to-take-sell-anyones-twitpic-photos.shtml
"Two years ago, we wrote about one of the most bizarre copyright lawsuits we've ever heard of. News giant AFP (Agence France Presse) -- for reasons that I still cannot begin to comprehend -- decided to proactively sue a photographer, Daniel Morel, after it (AFP) had taken his photos (of the earthquake in Haiti) from TwitPic without permission, and distributed them for sale via Getty Images. So why did AFP sue? Because Morel contacted them upon discovering this, demanding lots of money. And what was AFP's reasoning? Well, it tried to claim that Twitter's terms of service allowed this. There were all sorts of problems with that idea. First of all, the photo was on Twitpic, not Twitter, and the two are different companies. But, more importantly, neither of the terms of service from Twitter nor Twitpic (AFP eventually figured out the difference) allowed AFP to do what it claims. The AFP appeared to deliberately misinterpret the terms of service, which simply give Twitpic the right to make use of the images -- but that does not extend to third parties automatically, which is what AFP implied."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-it-to-take-sell-anyones-twitpic-photos.shtml
"Two years ago, we wrote about one of the most bizarre copyright lawsuits we've ever heard of. News giant AFP (Agence France Presse) -- for reasons that I still cannot begin to comprehend -- decided to proactively sue a photographer, Daniel Morel, after it (AFP) had taken his photos (of the earthquake in Haiti) from TwitPic without permission, and distributed them for sale via Getty Images. So why did AFP sue? Because Morel contacted them upon discovering this, demanding lots of money. And what was AFP's reasoning? Well, it tried to claim that Twitter's terms of service allowed this. There were all sorts of problems with that idea. First of all, the photo was on Twitpic, not Twitter, and the two are different companies. But, more importantly, neither of the terms of service from Twitter nor Twitpic (AFP eventually figured out the difference) allowed AFP to do what it claims. The AFP appeared to deliberately misinterpret the terms of service, which simply give Twitpic the right to make use of the images -- but that does not extend to third parties automatically, which is what AFP implied."
f16sunshine
Moderator
If anyone should be so lucky to have instagram use YOUR image for their promotional material thank the internet gods. Free promotion of a work. Come on!
Would you give an image away if it would help you sell many more in the future?
Optimistic?... Sure
The glass is always half full.
Would you give an image away if it would help you sell many more in the future?
Optimistic?... Sure
The glass is always half full.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, would you also thank the internet gods if they use your holiday shot of your wife and daughters for the Facebook promotion of the Shady Ladies Bar and Massage...
f16sunshine
Moderator
With all due respect Sevo. How likely is that scenario to get past their legal department?
umcelinho
Marcelo
Andy, I understand they just wouldn't give you any credit for the photo, so it wouldn't really work as promotion of a photog's work.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, they'd only be involved if they have to go after the massage parlour if these don't pay their Instagram bill. "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."
umcelinho
Marcelo
by "content" it doesn't specify whether it's a text or an image, right?
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Content generally means anything a user posts/uploads in these sort of TOS agreements.
KM-25
Well-known
That is how amateurs think, that exposure actually means something these days. I suppose it does, exposure to more Freetography in the new Freeconomy.
I on the other hand, continue to see my income as a full time shooter rise annually without using any of that Flickr, Piccasa, Facebook or Instagram garabage...in fact, I have not had a commercial website in over five years.
mfogiel
Veteran
I am shattered. I think that I will continue sticking to film for another decade or so.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
TBH Facebook's biggest crimes in my opinion are its hideously ugly design followed closely by its counter intuitive format. I still can't fathom why or how people use it. It's like imagining the Pontiac Aztec becoming the best selling car of all time.
f16sunshine
Moderator
And I'm speaking to amateurs and semi-pros when I suggest that there can be a benefit to Instagram using one of "your" images.
What established pro would post sellable works to instagram?
With great respect to all here...This resistance to social media by pedantic photographers is plain silly.
Find a way to make use of the changes that are upon us or get run over by some up and coming kid who will find that way.
If it's a privacy concern then images should not go on the interweb anyway.... nothing is safe there regardless of any legal recourse.
Oh and just for the record... I don't have an instagram acct 😀
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
