11–20 of 25 posts
Yes, they had the plain text shader files embedded in their app, easily extractable. It's been like that since they first released 2.0. Path has (or had) them embedded, too. It's still their IP though, and publishing them as "open source" is unethical and probably illegal. Just because something is feasible doesn't mean you should do it. The GPUImage-based execution environment is fine, but you should remove these sh…
A couple of things: - This is totally wack from a moral/ethical standpoint - Why not filter the video after the fact?
How can you Hack something then open source it? thats intelectual property, if you didn't write it you dont have the right to open source it, am I right? can someone explain if this is legal, what if someone decides to use one of this filters on an app?
License
Since it's a hack, literally. There's no way you could use those
Instagram recipes in your project. But feel free to learn from
them. Other than that part, you are welcome to use and distribute
this project. I'll figour out an appropriate license and put it
here later.Yes, they had the plain text shader files embedded in their app, easily extractable. It's been like that since they first released 2.0. Path has (or had) them embedded, too. It's still their IP though, and publishing them as "open source" is unethical and probably illegal. Just because something is feasible doesn't mean you should do it. The GPUImage-based execution environment is fine, but you should remove these sh…
We're currently working on some filtering stuff using GPUImage as well, and it's nice to see this stuff progress.
One filter that is missing here BTW is Lux, which is Instagram's equivalent of the Camera+ Clarity filter. The reason (I suspect) is that the Lux "filter" is actually not implemented using shaders, but rather CoreGraphics.
Would love to hear your take on it if you know more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Reverse-engineered" is really how this project should be worded. EDIT: At the time I gave this author the benefit of the doubt. Looks like he pulled the actual shaders from the Instagram binaries, which is not cool.
More like intellectual property theft. Or at least just wrong.
Nope, not theft, obviously belongs to him because he created it. It says so in every file.
Yes, they had the plain text shader files embedded in their app, easily extractable. It's been like that since they first released 2.0. Path has (or had) them embedded, too. It's still their IP though, and publishing them as "open source" is unethical and probably illegal. Just because something is feasible doesn't mean you should do it. The GPUImage-based execution environment is fine, but you should remove these sh…
To split hairs: "Free" or not, legal or not, the source is now open .
A couple of things: - This is totally wack from a moral/ethical standpoint - Why not filter the video after the fact?
(irony) it's not stealing though, because they still have their filters, so it's ok! (/irony)
1) The parent post did not use the word 'steal.'
2) The people that get up in arms about usage of 'steal' vs. 'copyright infringement' are making a semantic argument that is not really hard to understand. Whether you think that the semantic argument has merit or not is beside the point.
Your post makes it seem like you either do not understand the semantic argument (which I personally find unlikely, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt) or you are purposely acting like you don't understand it.
Curious to see what Instagram will do about this.