13
   

Will you be cancelling your Instagram account?

 
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:46 pm
@ehBeth,
But what if it was a really great picture of Bob eating corn flakes?

Should the corn flake company be able to appropriate that image and use it for advertising? Should the corn flake company be able to profit off Bob's image without Bob's consent?
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:47 pm
@ehBeth,
What if the picture is forwarded? How does that work?

I don't think all Instagrams are posted on Facebook. Or are they?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:49 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

I don't think all Instagrams are posted on Facebook. Or are they?

That doesn't matter as Facebook owns Instagram. So what Instagram owns, Facebook owns.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:52 pm
@boomerang,
It doesn't really matter where the Instagrams are posted - you used it: "We are able to do whatever we want with your photo later, but for now Bob's breakfast will not show up in a banner ad."
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:53 pm
@boomerang,
If Bob was dumb enough not to put privacy settings on his photos ...
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:53 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Instagram Now Owns All of Your Food Porn
Quote:
Users who want to opt out of the new arrangements must delete their Instagram accounts before the 16th of next month.

http://newyork.grubstreet.com/2012/12/instagram-owns-your-food-porn.html?mid=grubstreet--20121218
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:57 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

What if the picture is forwarded? How does that work??


you can block photos from being tagged/shared

It came up yesterday in my dance circle. There was a party at a studio - albums and albums of photos were posted on FB. A1 wanted to copy a really great photo of herself to her own page - she couldn't because of the security settings on A2's page (album owner). A2 temporarily changed her security settings so A1 could grab a copy of the photo - then A2 put the security settings back in place.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:59 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

But what if it was a really great picture of Bob eating corn flakes?


we'd all be amazed since the randomness of it meant you'd be more likely to get a fuzzy shot of Bob (maybe Bob or some random guy Bob took a photo of) standing to the side of the stage at BPB's show.
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 02:59 pm
@boomerang,
I see a problem with this new policy. What if a picture of a friend who didn't give permission to post the picture online is posted online, and such picture is used by a private third party for an advertisement. Would a lawsuit then ensue?
I don't understand the logic of this new policy, because using a free service does not mean you automatically gave them ownership of your property. If I park my car in the CVS pharmacy parking lot, a free service provided to me as a CVS pharmacy customer, does that mean I handed over ownership of my car to them?
If people are going to keep their account, my best suggestion is to just make sure that ever picture they post has one person giving the middle finger. Simple yet effective.... in most cases....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 04:01 pm
@boomerang,
You can install a "watermark" with your logo, name, or website over the picture. That would sorta defeat the purpose of not giving you any attribution at least.
Compensation? I dont know, since weve already released it to a social site, do I have any reasonable expectation of compensation? Or is this just opportunity a knocking?
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 04:16 pm
@boomerang,
I am not permitted to say any more unless directly questioned by point of key fact.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 05:20 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:
Hoping there will be enough of an outcry that they'll backtrack.


Backtracking!

Quote:
After several famous and non-famous users vowed to stop using Instagram, co-founder Kevin Systrom released a statement saying, "It is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos."

Systrom continues, "[The new terms of service] was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true."

He adds, "Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period."

"I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights."



http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/18/instagram-sorry-were-not-selling-your-photos-kevin-systrom/#ixzz2FRsFTbPq
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:02 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Hoping there will be enough of an outcry that they'll backtrack.


Backtracking!



not backtracking at all - it's exactly the same as the lawyers said it was earlier today - not sure what the internet hoopla was about - I missed most of it but it sounded like it was fun

people own their photos - the site has the right to use them - pretty standard stuff

the age limit thing is confusing as the media lawyers who were debating it on the radio were all under the impression that Instagram had always had the same 13+ lower limit that many other sites have (the host tried to suggest otherwise but he was talked over)
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:11 pm
@ehBeth,
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that out too. I don't know what the lawyers said earlier today (I'd believe it was the same thing). I don't know how out there the language really was (CNet, the site that started saying "Hey wait a minute now!" tends to be trustworthy, but...), and I don't really know how much of a backtrack the CEO's statements are from the original language. Plus he might be saying these reassuring things and then there turn out to be loopholes after all.

At any rate -- there was a freakout, Instagram seems to be responding, I'll keep an eye on things. Seems to be going in the right direction but I can't tell if it's resolved (or if it was even actually that big of a deal in the first place).

Wish I could remember more about the age limit thing, all I know for sure is that sozlet and I are both sticklers for this sort of thing (she didn't want to go on Facebook even when I was considering letting her, because of their 13 and up policy and she didn't want to lie) and we were OK with Instagram. Happy that this was something she could do with a clear conscience.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:17 pm
@ehBeth,
I have shared images on a2k, and as I understand it, those can be sent to someone else, oh, look at Osso's dog (or morning fishcake with mayo) as information, and I'm fine with that. But a2k tos is clear on copyright, and I take it that FB/Instag doesn't get that, a matter that seems long settled to me.

Not that I read any fine print.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:25 pm
@ossobuco,
Sorry, missed a bunch of posts. Ignore that last.
0 Replies
 
Val Killmore
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:51 pm
@farmerman,
I know a friend, she is a graphic designer, who can remove watermarks with photoshop. I doubt putting a watermark on the picture will stop third parties from buying it from instagram.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 09:38 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
not sure what the internet hoopla was about


I'm not really sure that it's hoopla.

There's this, for instance:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02432/natgeo_2432193c.jpg

I'm not convinced it's just a bunch of Facebook "Bob eating breakfast" photos that nobody will ever be interested in using for anything.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 09:47 am
@boomerang,
That's pretty big. WE now need a few more big nationwide media institutions to do the same thing and I believe that Facebook/Instagram will slink back into its corner after a quick insincere apology and a revoking of the newly hated policy.
Val Killmore
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2012 10:00 am
@tsarstepan,
No they likely won't. Facebook already has the same terms, I doubt he will make an exception for Instagram, because greedy Mr. Zuckerberg thinks he's better than that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/25/2020 at 07:40:20