Killing it on Instagram!

[Huss]

Why would galleries and museums allow established photographers to use these platforms if facebook and instagram own the rights their images after posted to these platforms? If what you are saying is true, we would not see any established photographers (who make a lot of $$ from their photos) using these platforms at all. You are correct in saying their business is collecting data and selling data...but they cannot sell your photos or make a book of your photos or decide to open a gallery with your photo.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/andy-rouse-photography/facebook-picture-rights/270204724175/

Yes they can. I've met w copyright lawyers, part of my work dealt with privacy and rights issues etc etc.

Famous photogs are already monetizing their works and use social platforms to keep themselves in the news so to speak. They either have weighed the risk/reward ratio, or - be shocked by this - have no idea that their work can be reproduced.
The saving grace is that they are not posting full Rez images. The downside is pretty soon uprez software will be able to take even small crappy low Rez stuff and so with it what they will. Also, big companies like Apple, FB etc already have uprez software that does this that is not (at the moment) commercially available. It's how Apple can run those billboard shot on iPhone ads.

Anyway, a heads up. Feel free to ignore.

 

[Huss]

While Huss brings up a huge red flag, the reason established artists use these platforms is exposure. It's free advertising. Or course, it's not free but the trade off is obviously profitable for some and they are willing to take the risk. People will always want a signed print or book (or whatever limited edition scratches your itch) that can only be gotten at the source. "Authenticity" for the win!

Exactly.
.

 

[Emile de Leon]

Its too bad..photogs.. cant insert a master virus..into each and every uploaded photo..custom profiled to anyone who "samples" the image..
I would like to do this with music as well..

 

[Huss]

Its too bad..photogs.. cant insert a master virus..into each and every uploaded photo..custom profiled to anyone who "samples" the image..
I would like to do this with music as well..

But that's the thing, 'we' agree to the terms of service. It's not being stolen, 'we' agree to give it away.

I think Flickr is the only platform that - at the moment - does not do that.

 

[robert blu]

But that's the thing, 'we' agree to the terms of service. It's not being stolen, 'we' agree to give it away.

I think Flickr is the only platform that - at the moment - does not do that.

This is why I am not on IG (and do not use FB). And even worse I do not like that they can make money with the posted photographs but leave to the poster the responsbility of the photo, is anything wrong about privacy or image rights, which is a complicated matter in many countries.

 

[jawarden]

Yes they can. I've met w copyright lawyers, part of my work dealt with privacy and rights issues etc etc.

Have there been instances of IG showing a photographer's work outside of IG, like books, art shows, advertisements etc in order to sell them and without compensating the photographer? I just did a google search but didn't find anything. I did find plenty of instances of people stealing images from instagram and using them but that's different.

 

[Bart Bart]

Yes they can. I've met w copyright lawyers, part of my work dealt with privacy and rights issues etc etc.

Famous photogs are already monetizing their works and use social platforms to keep themselves in the news so to speak. They either have weighed the risk/reward ratio, or - be shocked by this - have no idea that their work can be reproduced.
The saving grace is that they are not posting full Rez images. The downside is pretty soon uprez software will be able to take even small crappy low Rez stuff and so with it what they will. Also, big companies like Apple, FB etc already have uprez software that does this that is not (at the moment) commercially available. It's how Apple can run those billboard shot on iPhone ads.

Anyway, a heads up. Feel free to ignore.

Do you mean like on the TV shows where the law enablers can zoom in on license plates from satellite cameras? It's amazing!

I zoomed in on some of Dan's images and found numerological patterns that, if applied correctly, should unlock the secrets of the Rolleiflex. They were hidden there by the Weimar engineers of Dresden, transcoded into the wavelength of the... oh cripes, a knock at the door I'll be right bac....

 

[Mark C]

Do you mean like on the TV shows where the law enablers can zoom in on license plates from satellite cameras? It's amazing!

I zoomed in on some of Dan's images and found numerological patterns that, if applied correctly, should unlock the secrets of the Rolleiflex. They were hidden there by the Weimar engineers of Dresden, transcoded into the wavelength of the... oh cripes, a knock at the door I'll be right bac....

Finally, the voice of reason.

 

[Michael Markey]

Do you mean like on the TV shows where the law enablers can zoom in on license plates from satellite cameras? It's amazing!

I zoomed in on some of Dan's images and found numerological patterns that, if applied correctly, should unlock the secrets of the Rolleiflex. They were hidden there by the Weimar engineers of Dresden, transcoded into the wavelength of the... oh cripes, a knock at the door I'll be right bac....

That`s funny .

 

[jsrockit]

Have there been instances of IG showing a photographer's work outside of IG, like books, art shows, advertisements etc in order to sell them and without compensating the photographer? I just did a google search but didn't find anything. I did find plenty of instances of people stealing images from instagram and using them but that's different.

Exactly my point.

 

[Henry]

Have there been instances of IG showing a photographer's work outside of IG, like books, art shows, advertisements etc in order to sell them and without compensating the photographer? I just did a google search but didn't find anything. I did find plenty of instances of people stealing images from instagram and using them but that's different.

I think it returns to the question of what these companies interest is. Instagram (and Facebook at large) have basically no interest in becoming image resellers. They want only to monetize the usage patterns of their user-base.

If your fear is people stealing your images (I'm not talking agreed-to-licensed-use here) then you basically cannot post online in any real sense. Flickr, Instagram, RFF, 500px (or whatever it is called) are all very easy to steal images from. You are taking a calculated risk when posting anywhere.

All that fancy upscale stuff Huss is talking about is probably AI/ML and is another question entirely. Is an upscaled image in which a computer dreamed up what comes between pixels even the same image any longer? Is it a derivative work (my suspicion is that it is), is it something new entirely?

That said, if the license agreement feels wrong to you then don't use it.

I no longer post on Instagram because I found that using the platform disagreed with my creative tenancies and left me feeling bereft of personal value. I still consume the content, and I think there is value in that consumption.

 

[Michael Markey]

I no longer post on Instagram because I found that using the platform disagreed with my creative tenancies and left me feeling bereft of personal value. I still consume the content, and I think there is value in that consumption.

Are you willing to expand on that .

I feel these are sharing platforms and if someone has no content of their own for whatever reason I have little inclination to share mine with them .

 

[Henry]

Are you willing to expand on that .

I feel these are sharing platforms and if someone has no content of their own for whatever reason I have little inclination to share mine with them .

I approach instagram (at least the art-centric part of instagram) with the same mentality that I approach photobooks. I carefully curate the photographers that I follow, and I use what they choose to post as a sort of ever-evolving catalog. It is inspirational and thought provoking, it is its own image of what is modern and current.

I see a lot of value in sharing my own work. Here on RFF I am happy to share, I feel that it is the minimum that I can do in return for the great work that the photographers here have put into their craft. We grow through that shared experience of sharing and consuming.

Sharing on instagram left me feeling as if, even if I fought against it, I was fishing for likes. I had fun with that for a time, but it also drove me away from my own personal vision. There is a shared instagram vision-board that can overtake ones own aesthetics if you aren't careful. I find myself happier consuming instagram and sharing more "locally" (if I'm permitted to call RFF local).

 

[Mark C]

Oops. Posted at the same time. Likes and Follows are tough.



I thought he might have meant that he started creating for the medium and not for his personal interests. But I might be reading that in since it is a pressure that is always there with publicly presenting images.

Years ago I quit working with a new gallery that sort of pushed me in a more commercial direction I didn't want to go. With Instagram I've managed to do pictures I like but still take into account what will work there.

 

[PRJ]

I'm with Huss.

Just because they aren't using your images now doesn't mean you haven't given them the right to use them whenever they get around to figuring out a way to monetize them.

Instagram is a house of cards too. Once advertisers realize that maybe up to 70% of accounts are not actually real it will devolve and the wheels will come off.

 

[Henry]

Oops. Posted at the same time. Likes and Follows are tough.

I thought he might have meant that he started creating for the medium and not for his personal interests. But I might be reading that in since it is a pressure that is always there with publicly presenting images.

Years ago I quit working with a new gallery that sort of pushed me in a more commercial direction I didn't want to go. With Instagram I've managed to do pictures I like but still take into account what will work there.

I think you've said it well. I felt as if I were being pushed to fit within what the platform encouraged. It was entirely a feeling internal to myself, obviously no one told me I needed to change my methods, but I felt susceptible to that influence anyway.

 

[Michael Markey]

I approach instagram (at least the art-centric part of instagram) with the same mentality that I approach photobooks. I carefully curate the photographers that I follow, and I use what they choose to post as a sort of ever-evolving catalog. It is inspirational and thought provoking, it is its own image of what is modern and current.

I see a lot of value in sharing my own work. Here on RFF I am happy to share, I feel that it is the minimum that I can do in return for the great work that the photographers here have put into their craft. We grow through that shared experience of sharing and consuming.

Sharing on instagram left me feeling as if, even if I fought against it, I was fishing for likes. I had fun with that for a time, but it also drove me away from my own personal vision. There is a shared instagram vision-board that can overtake ones own aesthetics if you aren't careful. I find myself happier consuming instagram and sharing more "locally" (if I'm permitted to call RFF local).

Thanks for the reply .
I do much the same .
I find a lot of what I save both inspirational and instructive .

I`ve never understood the "like " part though even though I`ve heard the same thing from others .

I think some of the "likes" are merely politeness ,at least that`s what I think when I get them .
I don`t view them as always being indicative of worth necessarily .

I only post stuff that I like but if ,on reflection, I change my mind about a shot I delete it even though it may have attracted "likes".

If people comment ,well that`s a different thing but either way I can`t understand why that would affect your aesthetic .

I go to a weekly photographic society where members work is constantly criticised …. now that does have an effect on folks aesthetics .

 

[Henry]

Criticism is inherently different than social media hill climbing. There is an urge to maximize social media capital even if it’s pointless. The likes have nothing to do with value, they are simply a currency and that currency pays only in exposure. It’s addictive, or at least it was for me.

 

[Bart Bart]

Instagram is what the television was to a couple generations who grew up with it. So advertising controls it, and they want to please their clients clients and their marketing/advertising agencies.

If they assumed they had rights to your images then they want to monetize them. They probably don't want to expose their corporate clients to nuisance lawsuits from photographers whose images were used by Instagram in targeted marketing. This also allows the ad agency a higher net and gross ~ all tidy and professional, thank the Lord. Or there would be zero commercial photography work these days.

It's something to pay attention to for sure, as they could lobby for exactly those rights and a corrupt court and legislature could be bribed. I don't put it past the government regardless of party or leadership.

 

[NY_Dan]

Instagram is what it is.

How can photographers share their work? It's tough.

I put my heart and soul into my photo book Never Seeing Nothing, and my novel Schmendrick - and yet the sales have not been high. And it's not about the money - for very little would end up in my pocket. What it is about is sharing my work, and hopefully getting some positive feedback. Now on Instagram you get followers and likes - kind of like when you see a numerical figure for money in your bank account. The likes are for the most part anonymous. So you take from it what you will. And the money in your bank account is only a number until you spend it on something tangible. So numerical money beats numerical likes.

Now what feels a bit better than likes, are when someone comments. You may have 1000 followers, and have a photo with 100 likes and 2 comments. So if you ask me, in a way you really have two followers. That's not to say one doesn't appreciate the likes. The likes serve to tell you which photos in general resonate with others. And the results, unless it's photos of animals and such, can be informative. For me, I shoot for myself, and edit for myself - at least I'm consistent.

And these are my thoughts on Instagram. And for what it's worth, I find the quantity of interaction generated by non-photography topics vs the essence-of-photography topics to be interesting.