Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
now has decreed the 'right' to sell users' photos with permission or notification
good 'ol Facebook takeover
at least they need permission or notification
It fucking cracks me up, honestly. Londoners taking photos of their fucking tea and trying to make it look all romantic and dated.
Load of old bollocks.
there's not a lot wrong in sharing pictures with your mates
trying to create a patina of righteous existence on the other hand is more troublesome but then there are plenty of ways people try to achieve that eh kik?
needlessly_defensive this'd this
GET OVER IT
most of the instagram links people post on fb are just banal photos with a bit of post-editing on them to make them look like polaroids or old 35mm film or whatever. it's all a bit sixth-form if you ask me.
get a proper camera and go out and learn how to take good photos of actually interesting stuff, rather than a photo of a salmon fillet made grainy or something.
Even i can do that, ffs.
<customary link to photograph of existentialist scotch egg>
Even you can do it. Its for dummies who want to share pictures (whatever the nature...food, scenery, animals, clothes etc) without clogging up facebook feeds. Its easier to flick through someones instagram feed and see what they're up to rather than sitting down with someone whilst the bore you to death with 100 delevloped arty pictures.
and y'know - a bit of fun
also - are YOU really having a pop at people taking pictures of their food?
it is what it is - a piece of buttered bread on a table, or a tin-shaped blob of condensed soup in a bowl.
no added effects needed. the art speaks for itself.
let it go.
and often just cos you clicked the tick box on their front end agreement thing that doesn't mean it supersedes your statutory rights.
But those rights can be assigned to a third party by contractual arrangement. So a license isn't at odds with the statute, it's just a transfer of ownership after that first automatic right.
and I wouldn't be suprised if it wouldn't.
eg say I took a photo and put it on instagram and then wanted to use that say for a record cover and them instagram sued me for breach of copyright. I think the law would side with me as the photographer and the general rules of photography law and not just a front end licence agreement.
(of course the chances of the above happening are v slim anyway. These things tend to be put in to stop instagram being sued by users if they go and used someones picture in a advert say)
that the use of their technology/app created the final image and so they are, at the very least, co creators
They prove a tool, that doesn't mean they own anything (semi) created by that tool.
to even try and do that though
but my point is using a product does not mean the makers of the product own what is created from it.
Garageband don't own the rights to songs made on it.
Instrgram can put whatever they want in their EULA, I still don't think a judge would agree with them in court. Like a sign in a shop that says no refunds but then below says does not affect statutory rights (ie the right to a refund if product is faulty). The law supercedes any personal rules the company might introduce.
but the barrier to actually testing that in law is Zuckerberg's gazillion lawyers who will always settle any challenge for a paltry sum
That's why whenever these sort of stories come up a lot of people get all high and mighty about, for eg, fb owning your content, but you never hear anything about, for eg, fb using your content as adverts or whatever. These websites aren't stupid, like it or not
Facebook allows people to put your social life on the internet for free
Facebook decides it can sell that information to make a profit, and has been doing so from pretty much day one.
People are still outraged everytime this happens.
Facebook buy up competitors and change the rights/ T&Cs
end of the world
'slut-shaming' riot craziness
Don't see a problem with this. No one is forced to use it. I guess the people at Instagram had two choices to make more money: 1) The more difficult route of getting people to buy the app, or 2) Let all of your users do the hardwork for you and just sell their pictures (i'm guessing they'll just set up some kind of rival to iStock).
Web developers make most of their money on tour anyway, right?
that people should be compensated for their work?
I dunno, I don't use it.
I don't know really, but I can't see a problem with the principle.
and apply them retrospectively to images that were uploaded before they said they could sell them, then that's probably a bit off.
but you can't impose laws retrospectively (in this country at least, i'm aware things are different in INTERNETLAND), so that must be the same for T&Cs?. Again, I don't know, but you must have the option of deleting your account?
but they could have made it optional with a percentage to content generators - like Youtube
that will continue to use it?
Give a shit.
I was just struggling to imagine anyone being comfortable with that.
Flickr now has filters, so I'll probably start using it.
none of your instagrammed photos are good enough to be used for commercial purposes.
Existential Scotch Egg quarterly have just done a 6 figure deal over kik's internet presence
No meaning is to be found in 'Earlybird' beyond that which you give it.
I stole that from the editors notes in vol. I issue I.
I use it loads, but I'm not really surprised / *that* bothered. I think it's a shame though, that a sort of, in my friend's words >>non commercial photographer/artist/designer/musicians/essentiallygoodcreativepeople led community which has built up so nicely within instagram<< is prolly not gonna exist any more as people start to leave. Instagram *did* one thing really simply, without all the gubbins that Flickr (which I'm a subscriber of too) and the like use. Hmmm.
...which, ultimately, proved to be insufficient as a standalone business model. No real surprise.
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green.
And so castles made of sand,
Fall in the sea,
you don't care that they could sell your photos?
but I also think that if I read all the terms and conditions of every. single. online. service I used I'd prolly find loads of stuff I didn't like.
But yeah I'll probably shut my account.
anyone doing anything actually creatively good with it will run like hell away form it
I mean I know people will migrate elsewhere so not all is lost but wherever they go, it won't be owt like Instagram and I'll prolly have to plough through tonnes of shit to see the stuff I like.
If you want to be in complete control then you need to pay. That's the bottom line.
sharing stuff: great.
the photographic equivalent of WordArt: abysmally tedious
HAVE FUN CREATING FAKE RETRO PHOTOS AT READING
but I dunno, I think it does make pictures look better. even if it is all fake retro and overused.
berlinstagram (http://instagram.com/berlinstagram) and missunderground (http://instagram.com/missunderground) are a couple of my favourites. i'm gonna miss their feeds :(
I'm losing my edge to the art-school Brooklynites in little jackets and borrowed nostalgia for the unremembered eighties.
But I'm losing my edge.
I'm losing my edge, but I was there.
I was there.
But I was there.
I hear that you and your mates have sold your iPhones and bought LOMOs.
I hear that you and your mates have sold your LOMOs and bought iPhones.
I don't care what it looks like, you're not keeping it real™ so I'm not interested
when the Impossible Project started trying to recreate Polaroid film with variable results
I was there
in 1994 with the third version of Photoshop in a loft in New York City.
I was working using layers with much patience.
using BASIC to to program an 8x8 character sprite that I'd mapped out on graph paper beforehand
I sent it to my teacher using Prestel
as you were
Come on, you're better than this
tedious use of typography
I find instagram is mostly useful for having a single source to pick and choose where my photos are shared easily
Posterous got sold to twitter.
Delicious got sold by Yahoo.
Firefox copied the way Chrome displays tabs.
And where where you then, eh?
that it feels a bit like it might possibly, in the long run (big picture here) only affect pricks
...the technology itself is pretty nifty, it's the people who use it that are the problem.
Like an expired roll of film you overwound being delicately fed back into the case with a bit of masking tape and a lot of hope
I lost interest when I realised it wasn't 24-hour columbian delivery by motorclycle courier.
I'M HERE ALL WEEK.
I'm busy on saturday
is people using the paradigms of internet privacy, facebook and twitter, to complain about it.
Also, I haven't had time to verify this, but someone told me instagram's new T&Cs are actually just the same as twitter's
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)
Except insofar as it undermines the rights holder's ability to sell licenses to their instagram photos (and was anyone even doing that before?).
It doesn't involve a transferal of rights and it certainly doesn't allow instagram to bring infringement proceedings against you for using or licencing your own works.
It's still a dickish move but it's not a massive deal like the doomsday scenarios upthread suggest.
don't know about instagram
I wonder if the people getting all fucked off about their shitty food pictures the same people who didn't mind downloading a bunch of songs for free?
don't illegally down music, right?
I would just hate for one of my pictures to end up on a conservative manifesto pamphlet or something.
not likely, granted. but it would be enough to stop me using their service.
I lost a hefty reply to this. It's fuzzy and afaik untested here.
There was a lot more but FUCK IT.