 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As the title says, Facebook are now claiming ownership rights of clients photos on Instagram, or at least expecting to sell them on if they so wish..
Given that photos with Instagram filters are universally shit, what's the chance anyone would want to use them?
They still get used where a filter is appropriate. There's an app available that allows a direct retrieval of all your Instagram photos, and uploading them to Fb or Flickr, then you can delete your Instagram account. I can see this really biting them in the ass.
I haven't got many photos in there, but I'm removing them, putting them into Flickr, and deleting my Instagram account.
I can always set up a new one under a different username if they reverse this stupid idea.
Isn't it only photos taken after Jan the something that are open to be used?
Don't facebook have the same in their t&c's?
No
They'll rescind this, you mark my words.
Google were the ones whom tried to do this with all your 'Google' stuff about 4-5 years ago.
Needless to say, it was rescinded within days of it's annoucement, and watered down.
Two things about this make me laugh.
1. Instagram photos are so low res and bad quality they could never be used for something substantial (print, media etc).
2. Everyone moaning about having their crappy photos 'stolen' is continously downloading music for free without second thought!
Facebook don't actually own your pictures, but you (with default settings) are granting them royalty free use of them if they want to use them.
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
A quick google suggests that facebook tried to put it in, in 2009, but pretty quickly backed it out again.
damo2576 - Member
Two things about this make me laugh.
1. Instagram photos are so low res and bad quality they could never be used for something substantial (print, media etc).
2. Everyone moaning about having their crappy photos 'stolen' is continously downloading music for free without second thought!
1) Yeah, nobody advertises on the internet.
2) You always exaggerate.
Also, i can't imagine many celebs continuing to use it.
1. Instagram photos are so low res and bad quality they could never be used for something substantial (print, media etc).
As someone who worked in print and prepress when a pro digital camera was 1.25Mp, you are talking bollocks.
2. Everyone moaning about having their crappy photos 'stolen' is continously downloading music for free without second thought!
You're an expert on this as well?
I am, and I don't. I pay for my music, except when it's a legit free download. Not everyone's like you... 🙄
I'd be chuffed if some drunken picture I took on my phone ended up being used somewhere. Granted its a different story if I were a photographer making a living from my pics but mine are mainly random nonsense of inconsequential subject matter.
As someone who worked in print and prepress when a pro digital camera was 1.25Mp, you are talking bollocks
Not going to argue with someone who thinks a 612x612 could be used in print nowadays.
As someone who worked in print and prepress when a pro digital camera was 1.25Mp, you are talking bollocks
Is't that why they were all still using film?
In general is this not another turns out to be Bollox news stories?
Instagram is great for giving me a Flickr/Facebook/Twitter uploader. In reality the phone pics might be used but then again people seem happy to nick them from facebook etc anyway.
Did anyone see the recent MBUK with an article entirely shot on an iphone?
The pics were slightly pixelated...
However if you're using the images in digital advertising or offering all instagram photos as a digital istock then the money making potentail is there.
No different to how MSN Messenger's been since it started. Owns any 'content' that you transmit, which is why every place I've worked we installed internal services once I'd pointed this out.
Just one question: Does it really matter who does what with them, or is this just another 'anti' bandwagon to jump on?
anti bandwaggon no way it's a real cause like stuff what matters like...
No Instagram of Amazon & Starbucks - think of the children
Does it really matter who does what with them, or is this just another 'anti' bandwagon to jump on?
This to a degree - for professionals its an issue of course. Can't imagine Rankin (for example, assumed he used Instagram) being happy that someone could take his work and use it commercially. Likewise all my professional friends have stepped away from the service in the last couple of days. Not just photographers actually but also designers.
PP, it does matter in this case- lots of professional photographers/journalists using Instagram as a blogging device/notebook. I thought it was a one trick pony that would quickly disappear but seem well wrong.
Bit of furious backpedaling going on now, blaming 'confusing language', suggesting that it's actually related to targeted advertising, if I'm reading correctly. Though the language in the explanation isn't too straightforward either.
No different to how MSN Messenger's been since it started. Owns any 'content' that you transmit, which is why every place I've worked we installed internal services once I'd pointed this out.
except it doesn't..
3.1. Who owns the content that I put on the services? Content includes anything you upload to, store on, or transmit through the services, such as data, documents, photos, video, music, email and instant messages ("content"). Except for material that we license to you that may be incorporated into your own content (such as clip art), we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the services. Your content remains your content, and you are responsible for it. We strongly advise you to make regular back-up copies of your content. We don't control, verify, pay for or endorse the content that you and others make available on the services.
As someone on Twitter said, if Instagram want to use pictures of my dinner in the staff canteen, they're welcome to it.
I'm with Neil on this. I do wonder if T&Cs like this are sometimes stuck in without a great deal of thought. Someone in Marketing probably thought it was a good idea. I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of anywhere Instagram have actually used any photos.
At a personal level, I could care more. I've never used Instagram, I couldn't see the point of a photo upload service which helpfully made all your photos look shit during the upload process.
Did anyone see the recent MBUK with an article entirely shot on an iphone?
The pics were slightly pixelated...
Wonder why? Surely the iPhone camera is high enough resolution to print at a decent dpi even at full magazine page sizes.
I used instagram 'cos I quite liked the filters and blurring tool thing.
Doubt they'd want my photos but I've deleted my account and will find something else again, although the stopping of twitter integration played a big part!
Instagram only exists because the early iPhone cameras were shit. I thought they'd improved enough not to need disguising by arty effects.
Now is a good time to pause and think if you arn't sharing too much of your lives on social networks.
Hang on a sec...
.. thought about it. Carry on.
As a designer who's repeatedly had issues with people using my work, in breach of copyright, then I can only imagine what Facebook/Instagram are plotting. I presume its the set up of commercial image banks. Buying and licensing images for advertising/editorial content is big business, and decent images cost big money. If they can get away with flogging your images, then they will. And of course it 'll give them a serious revenue stream. Have you seen their share price?
[i]3.1. Who owns the content that I put on the services? Content includes anything you upload to, store on, or transmit through the services, such as data, documents, photos, video, music, email and instant messages ("content"). Except for material that we license to you that may be incorporated into your own content (such as clip art), we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the services. Your content remains your content, and you are responsible for it. We strongly advise you to make regular back-up copies of your content. We don't control, verify, pay for or endorse the content that you and others make available on the services.[/i]
I'd suggest you re-read that, its talking about who is 'responsible'...
PP, it does matter in this case- lots of professional photographers/journalists using Instagram as a blogging device/notebook. I thought it was a one trick pony that would quickly disappear but seem well wrong.
Fairy nuff 🙂
But, correct me if I'm wrong, in the UK the photographer owns the copyright yes? Surely if Instagram starts selling your pics you can rip a strip off them legally, no matter what their t&cs are?
I don't use Instagram anyway. As above, it just makes pictures look crap.
I like the Metro article.
It quoted someone's tweet about Instagram using your photos for financial gain, in the process using the tweet as 'content' for Metro's advertising platform, for financial gain.
Smirk.
instagram is generally for hipster ***** so im quite enjoying this
Is this the modern industry revenge for home taping in the 80's
luffy105 - Member
I'd be chuffed if some drunken picture I took on my phone ended up being used somewhere. Granted its a different story if I were a photographer making a living from my pics but mine are mainly random nonsense of inconsequential subject matter.
+1
Personally i don't care. But for pro photographers I can understand.
Well, that wasn't predictable at all.
http://blog.instagram.com/post/38421250999/updated-terms-of-service-based-on-your-feedback
[url= http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.pn g" target="_blank">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
TV producer Kenton Allen had a funny dig about the proposed instagram changes:
"File sharing: you don't mind when it's some musician's song or a designer's game. When it's your shitty Instagram photos it all changes, eh?"
account nuked, along with all the others I did earlier (strava, myspack, etc.)
Only installed it to see what all the fuss was about, but can't see why there was so much fuss about limiting images to square, adding poncy "toy effect" not-tilt-shift, and degrading the image quality beyond all recognition.
Not really sure what all the T+C fuss was about either. All of the services have a clause which has to allow them to make a commercial gain from your copyright, else they couldn't run a business hosting images. Google/Picasa/Youtube, Farcebook, Flickr, and all the rest make a business from your free contributions.
TV producer Kenton Allen had a funny dig about the proposed instagram changes:
's a very good point, that.