instagram will soon have the right sell photos uploaded to it

[Yakoo752]

yep anything you put in the public domain (ie internet) you run the risk of someone else commercializing it.

a lot of this depends on how it is used though commercially (right now if you post a picture on FB, I can use that image in my own online marketing efforts - print and tv change requirements though for usage)

my questions - what if I use a photo that cycle61 has copyright over and then Instagram uses it for their marketing efforts?


OH AND - who is selling your sucky instagram photos anyways?

 

[Cycle61]

1) Rick, stop backwards quoting. :laughing

2) I do store locally, with offsite physical backups.

3) Per Instagram's TOS:

You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Instagram Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Instagram Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights or any other rights of any person, and (iii) the posting of your Content on the Site does not result in a breach of contract between you and a third party. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of Content you post on or through the Instagram Services.

Interesting. If somebody posts one of my photos on Instagram, and I pursue the copyright violation (say for use in advertising, etc) then that person is responsible to me for payment of whatever amount is agreed upon by the mediating court.

 

[auntiebling]

so what if you upload to instagram and put big fat watermarks across the good part of an image?

can/would they be able to erase that?

 

[aszrael1266]

1) Rick, stop backwards quoting. :laughing

2) I do store locally, with offsite physical backups.

3) Per Instagram's TOS:


Interesting. If somebody posts one of my photos on Instagram, and I pursue the copyright violation (say for use in advertising, etc) then that person is responsible to me for payment of whatever amount is agreed upon by the mediating court.

wait so let say I put up a photo you took and copy righted and instagram uses it. I am then liable for what instagram did with the photo?

 

[Cycle61]

wait so let say I put up a photo you took and copy righted and instagram uses it. I am then liable for what instagram did with the photo?

That appears to be what their legal team says.

 

[LikeWaah]

I was also surprised no one started a thread on this.

Total BS to me. I wasn't on Instagram before, but I definitely won't be on Instagram now.

 

[aszrael1266]

it would be interesting to see the first law suit that pops up from this

 

[auntiebling]

it would be interesting to see the first law suit that pops up from this

i'll summarize:

ohio/hipster: you stole my photow meanies, i am angrybirds at you. i am going to sue
instazukerberg: ok. we have lots of lawyers
OH:shit. pay me off?
IZ: here's a chrome messnger bag and some skinny lycra culottes for your single speed. go away
OH: sweeeet. where do i sign?

 

[aszrael1266]

I was thinking something more along the lines of what i was talking to cycle61 about. a pro photog sees his work being used in adverts with no compensation to him. sues instagram then who ever uploaded it gets stuck with the bill. What happens if the uploader paid for said photo would that absolve him/her from legal action?
for example let say I pay cycle61 to shoot wedding photos for me. I upload them on instagram to share with family/friends. The venue ends up using the instagram photos for some major international add campaign. Cycle61 then sees his photos plastered all over bill board and magazines with no reference to him being the photographer. He sues and it comes back down to the uploader since they paid for his services would he still be able to get compensation from them?

 

[mercurial]

self entitled users? really? What do you call it when a company offers picture hosting services for free, and then later changes their terms of service to give them property rights to your pictures?
and I am absolutely laughing at the ignorance that causes you to think a hosting service costs someone hundreds of millions of dollars. :rolleyes

also, they can make money in ways that don't include shafting everyone that made their service worth a shit in the first place.

Hundreds of millions is an exaggeration in Instagram's case, it's probably more like multiple tens of millions when you take into account all costs. Do they have other ways to make money? Let me lay out the facts for you.

A) Instagram launches a paid version for $1. Hell, let's make it $5, which would be a huge price in the mobile app space. 3% of their user base adopts it (that's generous) and they make a whopping 15 million bucks. End result: Instagram gets shuttered for being completely unprofitable.

B) Instagram inserts mobile ad banners on their app. Going average mobile CPM (cost per thousand impressions) for iphone is $0.70, since Instagram is UGC it's going to be lower, maybe more like $0.50. If the average user sees 5 screens in Instagram per week (a very generous estimate), that's $250k per week, or a 13 million annual run rate. End result: Instagram gets shuttered for being completely unprofitable.

C) Instagram comes up with a new creative way of monetizing their user base that turns UGC into an advertising asset, instead of hosting-related capex/opex cost. End result: unknown.

What path are you going to pick as CEO?

 

[auntiebling]

I was thinking something more along the lines of what i was talking to cycle61 about. a pro photog sees his work being used in adverts with no compensation to him. sues instagram then who ever uploaded it gets stuck with the bill. What happens if the uploader paid for said photo would that absolve him/her from legal action?
for example let say I pay cycle61 to shoot wedding photos for me. I upload them on instagram to share with family/friends. The venue ends up using the instagram photos for some major international add campaign. Cycle61 then sees his photos plastered all over bill board and magazines with no reference to him being the photographer. He sues and it comes back down to the uploader since they paid for his services would he still be able to get compensation from them?

that is a different animal.

real world similar scenario: on the land cruiser board i used to frequent someone went into old navy and saw a shirt withe some stupid slogan on it and a picture of a landcruiser. they Recognized the pic as one taken and posted on the board by a member. no authorization asked or given. not an inconceivable scenario if instagram starts selling stock photos

 

[mercurial]

your post is full with technical truths, but the reality is, that users would not have gone to Instagram AND made it a success if the service declared from its first screen or ad:

"Come upload your pictures to us, we'll SELL them for sure with no money to you!!!"

You don't think people would simply NOT use it? Or at least avoid a CNET article about it later..

p.s I don't have an account so I can't really go get upset

That is a completely true postulate. The corollary though, is that the users implicitly endorse and encourage this sort of recurring deception by being a bunch of cheap asses and only using stuff that has no direct and obvious cost.

 

[mean dad]

That is a completely true postulate. The corollary though, is that the users implicitly endorse and encourage this sort of recurring deception by being a bunch of cheap asses and only using stuff that has no direct and obvious cost.

Self-entitled Users.
Cheap Asses.

How fucking dare we take a company up on their offer.
And it's totally our fault if said company decides their business plan sucks, and tries to completely change their philosophy.

 

[mercurial]

Would you rather Instagram close down? This is the only possible business model for mobile/social. If you don't like that reality, you can always stop using the service, which you never paid a dime for. But to complain about it as abusive, is really just silly and yes, self-entitled.

 

[Marlowe]

it would be interesting to see the first law suit that pops up from this

They'll need to remember to opt out of the binding arbitration clause by January 13th.

Via snail mail, of course.

 

[planegray]

ok, I'll bite;

what's an instagram ?

 

[aszrael1266]

ok, I'll bite;

what's an instagram ?

its an application for cell phones it lets you edit and add filters to photos and you upload to their service so you can share photos. Its like tumblr flikr photobucket and so on. Just more popular.

 

[mean dad]

Would you rather Instagram close down? This is the only possible business model for mobile/social. If you don't like that reality, you can always stop using the service, which you never paid a dime for. But to complain about it as abusive, is really just silly and yes, self-entitled.

Swing and a miss, pepe. I don't use the service at all. And please, show me where I said they were abusive? Pretty sure I've just been "complaining" regarding their complete about-face in regards to user content.
They're not just tweaking the TOS, they're telling everyone that ever read and agreed to their terms to fuck off.

 

[TylerW]

Worth reading:

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

ok, I'll bite;

what's an instagram ?

Worth Watching:


youtu.be/Nn-dD-QKYN4

 

[auntiebling]

don't tease raul.

steve: it's a grahm cracker delivery service. like WebVan but more specialized