13
   

Will you be cancelling your Instagram account?

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:10 pm
I won't because I don't have one but as a photographer I'm curious about what Instagram users think of their new user policy that allows advertisers to use their images without approval or compensation.

Anybody?
 
Val Killmore
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:15 pm
@boomerang,
Si, there are alternative services that offer similar filters.
nothingtodo
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:16 pm
@boomerang,
Theres a point to art...
It explains in areas separate from the threat of physical attack, those ideas and complexities which confound us often..

It is not a direct representation of yourself, as in human vision terms...
To say it should be banned, is to suggest puppets of similarity to anyone be absolutely removed from society.
It is I feel, a rather flattering thing of beauty usually. Should we not share poets works, whilst they are alive?
Poets have to keep hold of and publish works.. Though other similar ones will exist already, if not repeated forever more... You have been lied too.
roger
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:18 pm
@nothingtodo,
Share, perhaps. Use commercially without payment or even approval? Put me in the negative column.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:19 pm
@boomerang,
NO!

Edit to explain that I don't have such an account. But if I did, I'd cancel.
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:19 pm
@nothingtodo,
"Banned"??
usted loco??
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:19 pm
@boomerang,
It's to be expected as Instagram is part of FB.

Given what I've seen posted at FB it's not like art will be stolen.
nothingtodo
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:24 pm
@Val Killmore,
Banned in the sense that if I were to inadvertently include one in a documentary of art, I am liable to pay that person who threw it in the room or never witness/issue the exhibit again.

What is the point behind monetary compensation to excess upon art, if not to account for its replicability?

Always some will work cheaper. Always there will be some form of copying... What hopes do the few have about ones and zeros and what is seen in the world... WAKE UP!

Content lives exist, scrounging at the feet of the few is ridiculous, we are all human. 7 billion milked to extreme for 1 billion?

Resources in a managed world are accounted for by numerical comprehension of living beings at the time, not a fight about who gets what, time is allowed for many to be less, if many become.. too many.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:34 pm
@boomerang,
I'm annoyed about it.

When sozlet signed up for Instagram, they didn't have an age limit. They had some sort of loosey-goosey recommendations but not the age 13 limit that Facebook has. When I looked that up today it had changed (also 13) so I don't remember what it was exactly. But sozlet doesn't have a Facebook account in part BECAUSE of that age limit, and Instagram was a "legal" alternative.

It's the #1 social media site for her friends, and I've seen kids on there as young as 2nd grade.

So that's my biggest concern. These kids post a ton of pictures of themselves and their friends -- once this goes into effect, then anyone can buy one of those photos and use it for anything?

Instagram's teaser for the new privacy policy says: "Nothing has changed about your photos' ownership or who can see them." So if some sort of option to keep things private remains -- if only sozlet and followers she has approved can see her photos -- that would be somewhat less annoying. Still ugh though. Hoping there will be enough of an outcry that they'll backtrack.
nothingtodo
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 01:40 pm
@sozobe,
By its very nature that excludes pedophilia, it is not a true likeness of a person can be drawn from that.
Manga representation however, I concede....


If a pedophile had that instagram all over his walls, he is interested in beauty, not merely sex... The images do not arouse, they merely allow more recognised comprehension of the realm of beauty.

Well what do you think drives this incessant worry about childrens visuality?
If not that it can be abused?

Do you really think you want to waste the worlds resources digging around for all that as a police force.. for example?, there are far more important issues.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:06 pm
@boomerang,
Parp!.. Sorry... I think you see what I meant. I seem to have made an error.
That instagrams are the stencil based repro of a person.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:08 pm
@nothingtodo,
I'm not suggesting it's art, or that it should be banned.

What have I been lied to about?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:09 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I won't because I don't have one but as a photographer I'm curious about what Instagram users think of their new user policy that allows advertisers to use their images without approval or compensation.

Anybody?

Can you source this claim? Facebook isn't that stupid to make this colossal a mistake and anger their members. Sounds like a typical rapid internet rumor gone viral.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:11 pm
@Val Killmore,
I'm solidly in the Val, Roger, osso camp on this one. If I had an account I'd be cancelling. It seems pretty crazy to me for someone to say "oh sure you still own the photo but I can use it anyway I want without even having to ask you".
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:13 pm
@ehBeth,
Since I'm not on Facebook I don't see a lot of Instagrams. Most of the ones I do stumble across are of food, with kids coming in a close second. I agree they aren't art and can't really imagine a company wanting to use them.

Maybe Facebook is just using it as a way to lure advertisers to some kind of subscription service? Like -- if you advertise with us, or pay us some sort of fee, you'll have access to all this free stuff.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:16 pm
@sozobe,
The way I understand it any photo could be used for anything.

I don't know anything about their privacy policies. I'd be interested in anything you learn about how it will all shake out.

For instance, what if sozlet sends a photo to a friend who forwards it to someone who doesn't have privacy settings?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:16 pm
@tsarstepan,
Story sourced:
Quote:
Privacy advocates and users alike are interpreting the dense legalese of the new policy, which goes into effect on Jan. 16, as permission for Instagram to use all publicly shared images like its stockpile of stock photos, farming out your bathroom mirror self portraits, or whatever, to advertisers willing to pay. (Pay Facebook via Instagram — not pay you and/or the photographer.)

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/instagram-angers-users-new-privacy-policy-1C7660196

Sourced again:
Instagram privacy policy: Shocking new rules give company the right to sell images of users as young as 13
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/instagram-facebook-privacy-policy-changes-1495377

Maybe Facebook is that stupid.... Rolling Eyes
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:17 pm
@tsarstepan,
It's all over the place....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/instagram-terms-users/?hpt=hp_t3
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:39 pm
@boomerang,
The FB version went something like ... your friend Bob <random pic from Bob's photo files> likes Corn Flakes. Do you want to like Corn Flakes too [like button]?


You could always opt out of that application.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:41 pm
@tsarstepan,
it's all about the publicly shared images again

tsarstepan wrote:

Quote:
permission for Instagram to use all publicly shared images like its stockpile of stock photos,
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Will you be cancelling your Instagram account?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 11:50:40