Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: How about this for a MASSIVE rights grab  (Read 3643 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1991


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2012, 04:55:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Some more reasoned analysis at:-
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/9262192527/what-you-need-to-kn0w-instagram

If nothing else the media storm is at least highlighting an awareness of IPR.
Logged
RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 09:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

We all saw this coming:
http://instagram.com/p/TZaMHuoVRh/
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2012, 03:41:55 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.


Go for it. I indulged in the wretched thing for about three months and it was something of a liberation to cut free.
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2012, 03:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Has it yet been estimated how many photos are actually held by FB, Instagram, Google etc and how many photos are actually required by, what we may loosely term, the media?  

Probably for every 1 image required there are 10,000 available or some such figure. We can't put the genie back in the bottle but we let the monkeys pick over the peanuts.

Having said that I was looking for some images to accompany an article I had prepared for a club (non photographic) magazine and although I spent an evening looking for appropriate pictures I found very very few that were even half way suitable, and it was only landscape type shots that I needed, nothing arty or too specific. Presently I think the average instagram/FB/Flickr user just takes pretty pictures, to their way of thinking anyway. But it's not pretty pictures that are always needed.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 02:56:17 PM by Justinr » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6190


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2012, 02:12:46 PM »
ReplyReply

This seems to be the future of Instagram-sourced advertisement (or any crowd-sourced, for that matter):

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2012, 03:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

But that's a great shot, Slobodan, don't you just adore the atomic sunrise/sunset effect?

It could be art! It probably is.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2012, 03:16:20 AM »
ReplyReply

This seems to be the future of Instagram-sourced advertisement (or any crowd-sourced, for that matter):



It's a cold uninviting picture, a place that I would not hurry to, where is there any note of welcome or comfort? It is though, not the fault of the photographer, but the picture editor who chose it.
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2012, 07:38:53 AM »
ReplyReply

surprised the BBC reported it seeing as they failed to report anything about the digital economy bill that reflected their own stance on orphan works and their use for free, not forgetting how they wanted to run the collections agency, pocket any unclaimed funds and set the 'compensation'.  all this from a publicly funded organsiation who's remit is to serve the british public.

stop43.org
Logged
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2012, 05:26:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

How about the novel idea of sharing some of the profits with the user who created the image? Seems like a simple solution that should have been explored before the PR fiasco of claiming all rights. But I guess corporate greed got in the way.
Logged
tom b
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 873


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2012, 06:13:57 PM »
ReplyReply

After Backlash, Instagram Changes Back To Original Terms Of Service.

Cheers,
Logged

Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1882


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 24, 2012, 01:21:55 PM »
ReplyReply


Down the path....

Instagram furor triggers first class action lawsuit


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook's Instagram photo sharing service has been hit with what appears to be the first civil lawsuit to result from changed service terms that prompted howls of protest last week.
 
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court on Friday, a California Instagram user leveled breach of contract and other claims against the company.
 
"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.
 
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
 
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
 
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
 
The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.
 
However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause.
 
The lawsuit, filed by San Diego-based law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk, says customers who do not agree with Instagram's terms can cancel their profile but then forfeit rights to photos they had previously shared on the service.
 
"In short, Instagram declares that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" the lawsuit says.
 
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had criticized Instagram, said he was pleased that the company rolled back some of the advertising terms and agreed to better explain their plans in the future.
 
However, he said the new terms no longer contain language which had explicitly promised that private photos would remain private. Facebook had engendered criticism in the past, Opsahl said, for changing settings so that the ability to keep some information private was no longer available.
 
"Hopefully, Instagram will learn from that experience and refrain from removing privacy settings," Opsahl said.
 
The civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Lucy Funes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Instagram Inc., 12-cv-6482.

from: http://news.yahoo.com/instagram-furor-triggers-first-class-action-lawsuit-181048984--sector.html
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad