Live data from Hacker News

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

news.cnet.com

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a much much more cynical view: Democracy was created so the rich could convince a majority to tie the hands of a minority.

Just as laws have the effect of protecting the rich from the poor. I will explain the rationale behind that argument if anyone asks.

Yes, please do. Thanks.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#112
I noticed awhile back that Instagram branding was appearing in television commercials, such as recent Taco Bell ads about Doritos Locos. If companies are using Instagram content for branding it makes sense to try to change the license agreement to capitalize if you're focused on monetizing an acqusition. As we've seen, however, it will certainly anger a solid chunk of the user base.

Nick Tran, social media lead for Taco Bell talks a bit about the campaign in the below article: "http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/content/13959.html

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#113
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You granted Instagram a license. Under the old ToS, an entity that wasn't Instagram, say a nightclub, couldn't use your pictures on their own promotional materials, advetising, or site without obtaining a separate license from you, period . This changed.

Right, I'm aware "that changed". I'm not sure that "an entity that wasn't Instagram, say a nightclub, couldn't use your pictures on their own promotional materials, advetising, or site without obtaining a separate license from you" is really true, though. If a night club was working in clear collaboration with Instagram and published your photos on its promotional materials, that would seem to be covered by Instagram…

There is a difference between a contract that "Joe can use this" and one that says "Joe can let anyone use it". Sure, if Mary uses it Joe can say "She's just using it for me", but UNLIKE code, the law is not completely decimated by a single loophole. Judges and juries can see through blatant abuses and rule that the contract did not cover that use. ("Can", not "will", but even the chance is enough: a 1% chance of losing a 100-million dollar class-action lawsuit is a million dollar cost, plus legal fees.)

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#114

I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25 after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because sometimes I don't want to be the…

With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you? Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive. The downside of doing that is that storage is…

[deleted]

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#115

I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25 after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because sometimes I don't want to be the…

With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you? Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive. The downside of doing that is that storage is…

The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive

No, the downside is that there are zero social features when you put your photos on Dropbox. Flickr is better, but still not anywhere near Instagram.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#116

I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25 after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because sometimes I don't want to be the…

With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you? Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive. The downside of doing that is that storage is…

"Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you?"

Actually, yes. Hard drive space is incredibly cheap, especially at their scale. My photos aren't terribly popular, so they aren't using much bandwidth either. I probably cost them $5-10/year, tops. In fact, I'm probably one of the majority, the ones who subsidize the heavy, uber-popular users with tens of thousands of followers who upload hundreds of photos a year.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#117
post #29

This is going to get interesting. I know several professional photographers who use Instagram regularly (and are worth following). I suspect this will not sit well with some of them. I'm especially curious if Instagram will let people leave and remove their old photos easily. Some of them also post professional images they've imported from their computer ( not just phone images). For example, here's an image taken by…

Why is he even using Instagram? Doesn't seem like he used any filter there, did he? Seems like he's just using it to promote his own DSLR-made photos. Google+ might be a better target for that kind of community.

Because Instagram has a huge audience. Google+ might be a better place for the photos, but it doesn't have an audience.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#118

This is not new. It seems that their new TOS explicitly lays out that your photos may be used in advertising, possibly due to a new law somewhere requiring specific notification and release, but my understanding is that you'd already given them this right based on this clause: By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully…

That old TOS is pretty standard language required for any online service to show photos that you upload. Flickr, Google, etc are all pretty similar. A few times a year a bunch of FUD springs up among more old-school photographers who become terrified that such language means that Flickr (or Google) wants to steal and own all of their images.

These new TOS however - absolutely appalling. In the past year we've seen professionals flock to instagram to help promote their craft - with the new language I'd imagine you'll see a mass exodus from those folks pretty quickly.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#119
I doubt this policy is going to last long - the biggest and most important Instagram users as far as I can tell are celebrities (incl. professionals and other popular persons), and they sure as hell will do something if Instagram starts selling/licensing the photos to anyone who wants them.

Coupled with the other big mistake of separating themselves from Twitter, I'd say Instagram is well on their way of becoming the next MySpace.

Re: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

#120

I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25 after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because sometimes I don't want to be the…

With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you? Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive. The downside of doing that is that storage is…

> With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you?

Oh, absolutely. I store a backup copy of my entire Flickr library for something like $5/year on Amazon S3, and the service hasn't exactly had insane development costs the past few years - design and feature set have stayed pretty steady.

Post reply on HN