Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How about this for a MASSIVE rights grab  (Read 3562 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1967


WWW
« on: December 18, 2012, 07:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

I wonder how many millions of images they'll get and how many users they'll loose.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2012, 08:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think so; the urge to be published, even for nothing, is so strong (witness penny stock sites) amongst non-professional image makers that they might even get a larger base from which to draw material when some realise that it may be a route into publication.

Regarding the morality of the issue, that's a different thing altogether, and I think it disgraceful. But then, I have no Facebook, Twit or other such service to which I subscribe my presence. I would rather sell nothing at all than offer my goods or services at shitty prices, and the idea of being a willing rape is horrific to me.

Rob C 
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8107



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2012, 08:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I haven't used Instagram, but I have a (mostly dormant) Facebook account. This just may be the nudge I need to cancel Facebook.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2012, 10:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

People are really complaining that Instagram now has the right to sell their over processed pictures of lunch, shoes and selfies?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1967


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2012, 11:11:56 AM »
ReplyReply

People are really complaining that Instagram now has the right to sell their over processed pictures of lunch, shoes and selfies
Whilst most of Instagram is rubbish, you can also find some credible work on there.
It has had some 'serious' users, National Geographic, Time magazine, Bloomberg Business Week etc.

If I were a user I'd not only be peeved to find my work was being sold on for Instagram's profits, but possibly more concerned with the lack of control of how images were being used.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6083


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2012, 11:23:37 AM »
ReplyReply

People are really complaining that Instagram now has the right to sell their over processed pictures of lunch, shoes and selfies?

Hmmm... if it is worth something to Instagram, it is then worth something, no?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2012, 11:31:58 AM »
ReplyReply

This is a comment on that article.

"I love Instagram and I have over 1700 photos on it, they are small images and I would not post anything i'd not want the world seeing as my account is public. I would feel rather proud if they used any of my photos! If you don't like it then leave Instagram :-)) Simple."


Says it all really..
Logged

joneil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


This is what beer does to you....


« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2012, 11:50:47 AM »
ReplyReply

  I am not worried so much about Instagram, I don't and will not use it.   However, it's the precedent it sets.

 For sake of argument, if the Instagram  policy holds, what other photo sharing websites will claim the same thing down the road?  Notice there is no "opt out" unless you delete your entire library.  even there, I am not 100% certain.  Usually those End Users agreements you have to click on are pages and pages long, so maybe the web site has a backup copy of your images they can some day use?

    Call me paranoid or an idiot for thinking so, I've been called much wosre in the past I don't care, it's just establishing a precedent that others may follow that in the long run, bothers me.

joe
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 497


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2012, 12:02:07 PM »
ReplyReply

  I am not worried so much about Instagram, I don't and will not use it.   However, it's the precedent it sets.

 For sake of argument, if the Instagram  policy holds, what other photo sharing websites will claim the same thing down the road?  Notice there is no "opt out" unless you delete your entire library.  even there, I am not 100% certain.  Usually those End Users agreements you have to click on are pages and pages long, so maybe the web site has a backup copy of your images they can some day use?

    Call me paranoid or an idiot for thinking so, I've been called much wosre in the past I don't care, it's just establishing a precedent that others may follow that in the long run, bothers me.

joe



People should probably keep a close eye on who Instagram buys out in the future. The interweb seems to love consolidation, so if it buys out the sites where your pics reside, that is also a risk it seems to me.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1967


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a comment on that article.
.... I would feel rather proud if they used any of my photos!..."
What people who say this usually haven't considered is who "they" are. Will they still be so proud if their images get sold to and used to promote a company or cause they disagree with ?
I know a couple of Intagram users who would be appalled if they found their images were going to be used to promote an organisation that supported vivisection, others that would hate their images to be used by certain political parties.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2012, 12:29:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you are taking an assumption too far, the fact that they are actually thinking!
Logged

RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2012, 12:35:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm just echoing other views, but Instagram is and always has been a business. They have to make profits, especially now that Facebook owns them. They have shareholders to satisfy.

Yes there are more legitimate users, but National Geographic and other similar companies use Instagram as a marketing tool to connect with users of that demographic. I would not think they are concerned with this change in ToS. If they are, they probably have left already.

Given the other options they have, this is the least intrusive to the users.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4062



« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2012, 01:19:02 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a comment on that article.

"I love Instagram and I have over 1700 photos on it, they are small images and I would not post anything i'd not want the world seeing as my account is public. I would feel rather proud if they used any of my photos! If you don't like it then leave Instagram :-)) Simple."


Says it all really..

I was just about to post that, with exactly the same comment. The infinite monkey paradigm will lead to one or two good images being found among the staggering quantities of dross; but would the effort prove financially worthwhile?

Jeremy
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1967


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2012, 01:42:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Given the other options they have, this is the least intrusive to the users.
Indeed, burying right grabs in T&Cs is 'unintrusive'. It's also not very fair.

I fully appreciate that services like this have to be funded somehow, but there must be less surreptitious ways of doing it.
The Flickr model, so many free then pay a subscription could be an option. Charging a modest subscription for the app or a micro payment per upload could also work. If they really feel there's enough revenue to be gained from the user base, maybe offering a chargeable opt-out would be fairer.
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2012, 02:13:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I never subscribed to Facebook or Instagram for this reason.
If you don't pay today, someday they will get money from your work.
I only post to Flickr with a Pro account. Recent Yahoo! head management change is look promising by now.

Paolo
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2012, 02:28:45 PM »
ReplyReply

People should probably keep a close eye on who Instagram buys out in the future.
Or rather, if you are worried about what you post in the internet, keep an eye on who buys any posting service that you use, especially if the buyer is Facebook (as in this case) or Google.

Better, accept that any online service that allows you to publish to the internet "for free" (meaning at no up-front cost to you) is likely to end up "monetizing" its service by selling or renting your content. If you consider that monetizing to be a back-door cost to you, avoid such "freebies". Not that for-pay services are necessarily better, but that have a better chance of it, since they have a motivation not to chase away paying customers.

Even better yet, only expose to the internet what you are happy to have shared or used by anyone in any imaginable way, because if people want to, they can and they will.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1180



« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2012, 02:31:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Apparently there has been some backlash.  Who would have thought?

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-instagram-leaving-uproar-20121218,0,5257839.htmlstory
Logged

RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 261


« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2012, 02:38:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I was afraid it would be taken this way, and it was. My fault.

Least intrusive to the the users, as opposed to charging a fee that would make a lot of the user base flee.
Logged
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2012, 02:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

This just may be the nudge I need to cancel Facebook.


That may be far easier said than done Eric.  Facebook is the current business vemnture of BastardsIncorporatded.

Cheers,

W
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1180



« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 03:18:40 PM »
ReplyReply

That may be far easier said than done Eric.  Facebook is the current business vemnture of BastardsIncorporatded.

Cheers,

W


In the words of The Eagles:

Last thing I remember, I was
 Running for the door
 I had to find the passage back
 To the place I was before
 "Relax, " said the night man,
 "We are programmed to receive.
 You can check-out any time you like,
 But you can never leave!"
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad