Instagram is Changing Their Terms

umcelinho said:
by "content" it doesn't specify whether it's a text or an image, right?
Click to expand...

No. But I don't care about the text, I care about the photos.

The difference being, you see, that Instagram is a photo-centric service, whereas Facebook is not photo-centric, although there are photos as content within its services.

You see, the TOS in Instagram have made me delete my account, and the TOS in Facebook, not quite as those currently in Instagram, have not, yet.
 
KM-25 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether Instagram is beneficial or not depends on the type of work you do and your audience, I suppose. Many photojournalists seem to like it, e.g.,

http://instagram.com/davidalanharvey
http://instagram.com/jonasbendiksen
http://instagram.com/christopherandersonphoto
http://instagram.com/pinkhassov
http://instagram.com/marcusbleasdale
http://instagram.com/edkashi
http://instagram.com/johnstanmeyer
http://instagram.com/sean_gallagher_photo
etc.
 
andersju said:
Whether Instagram is beneficial or not depends on the type of work you do and your audience, I suppose. Many photojournalists seem to like it, e.g.
Click to expand...


It is fascinating the argument lacunae surfacing.

If X's living is based solely on the income generated by Z, it makes no sense for X to give Z for free. If, however, X is already making a living from Z, it doesn't hurt X to share Z.

While there are successful artists making free appearances, Mick Jagger, for example (as one example, please don't go on a tangent thinking that I'm "comparing everyone to" Mick Jagger), can do lots of pro-bono appearances in concerts not only to boost his audience, but the concerts' goals.

It is very exhausting to see all of these "who cares!" comments, smirking away at people assuming they've reached their decisions via the same life filter they have. Everybody has different priorities.

If I made soup for a soup kitchen, I'd be offended that the soup kitchen started trading at NASDAQ and charging other people for the soup I made with a completely different goal in mind, having been lured with the promise of "sharing" and nothing more.

Yes, yes, Instagram is neither soup or a kitchen. Although lots of that being shared with the Hudson filter.
 
but many of them aren't showing their primary work, they use it as a sketch pad or postcard type of media. some explicitly will not Instagram their bread and butter for this reason.
 
Hey, hold your horses. Gabriel, I'm not arguing for nor defending anything. I merely wanted to point out, for what it's worth, that some professional photographers do seem to find Instagram useful. That's all. As Newsgrunt says, for most of them it's just sketches, postcards. Cropped iPhone pictures to connect with people, to give a hint of what's to come, to keep a diary, or just for fun, whatever. It's not all doom and gloom.

What the consequences of the new terms of use will be, I have no idea. I don't like them either.
 
f16sunshine said:
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 :D
Click to expand...

Well Terry Richardson was making a big fuss out of the fact that he'd finally joined Instagram in the last couple of weeks, and regardless of opinions of his work, he seems to scrape by financially from it haha.

The reason that people are making such a fuss about this is that there is no way to make use of the changes in a positive way, as soon as you share an image on it, Instagram can do whatever they want with it for profit, without crediting or even telling you, it's essentially giving anything you upload away for no possible return.

I had an instagram account until this evening, I have to admit I didn't use it heavily, but I've made sure to delete everything, and cancel my account, that's not to say that I think my work is earth shattering and everyone will be wanting to steal it, but that their new T&C are unacceptable both in terms of the usage of anything I might upload, and the implications it could have on future usage/licencing of any work that I'd produced an "instagram version" of (because nobody is going to want to pay for something that already has an unlimited licence for a lower quality version).

I've just seen Andersju's post and clearly there are many photographers (by trade) who use it, I'm sure that even if it's for sketchbook type purposes, they'd have something to say about the new T&C
Imagine how annoyed you'd be if you were working towards a project, and sharing sneak previews/sketches with your followers, and suddenly the project was compromised by somebody licensing the images for whatever purpose they feel like.
 
I'm leaving as well. I'm going to do a few blurb books of my feed as a record, then delete them all. Sad, as it was a pretty fun community sometimes. But using some picture of my cat to help sell beer and not trickling any of that fee down to me (or my cat) just ain't right.

I used IG as a sketchbook of sorts, like I used to use Polaroids, and have a small group of folks who I interact with regularly. Many are already gone.
 
http://gizmodo.com/5969572/instagram-we-dont-want-to-sell-your-photos

Still, Instagram points out that it's a business and that as a business it does probably one day or another have to sell advertising. The intention of changing the policy wasn't to suddenly appropriate your photos or sell them, but to open the door for better advertising on Instagram.
But let's take a look at what the TOS actually says. This is the relevant passage about your photos and content as they relate to advertising/a>:
Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.
​
Basically, Instagram can take your photos, username, location data, and actions and place them very near an advertisement for something else. The only thing Instagram can't do is modify your photo and incorporate it with the ad itself. Instagram doesn't need to tell you and it doesn't need to pay you, it can just do it. For all intents in purposes it can turn you into an advertisement.
Systrom doesn't come out and say that Instagram won't do this and instead serves us a nice bunch of babble:
To provide context, we envision a future where both users and brands alike may promote their photos & accounts to increase engagement and to build a more meaningful following. Let's say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way. In order to help make a more relevant and useful promotion, it would be helpful to see which of the people you follow also follow this business. In this way, some of the data you produce - like the actions you take (eg, following the account) and your profile photo - might show up if you are following this business.
​
Well that's still unbelievably vague.
 
Closed my account - but no real loss to me either. I'm just starting to hate all these corporations that treat me like fodder.
 
Unfortunately there are millions of phone camera toting kids who could care less. In fact, to get one of their images used by some company for advertising would only increase their image...and their notoriety. If their peers decide to drop Instagram it will be history in a few days, but otherwise they could care less.
 
If the original creators of Instagram simply created a new app with similar interface and called it something dofferent and charged people $1.99 for it I'm sure most people would ditch the Instagram for that knowing that they could post their photos safely. Instagram was a lot better when it wasn't owned by Facebook even if it is a free app.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom