Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 213 posts

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

#141

Post by hieronymusN »

bad_user wrote: post #108
hieronymusN wrote: post #106

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…

I think that my $25 will keep Flickr/Yahoo from pulling the same shenanigans Instagram currently is (I've been using Flickr since 2006, just went Pro today). And for that $25 I get a hell of a lot more features than Instagram ever provided (privacy, API, full size photos, etc). All my photos are stored on my phone or hard drive, Flickr is just for sharing. Seriously.

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

#142

Post by jonknee »

untog wrote: post #117
mtgx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google+ has a significantly larger audience than Instagram. G+ is more than photos though and has a different audience.

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

#143

Post by jonknee »

MattBearman wrote: post #81

I was about to delete my Instagram account when I saw this, but having given it a bit of thought, I'm actually ok with it. Instagram needs to get money from somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned selling my photos is preferable to filling the feeds with ads. However I can see how for a lot of people they'd rather have ads then have their photos sold (especially pro photographers) so it'll be interesting to see how ma…

It sounds crazy, but what if they let you pay for your use of Instagram? You pay them money, they give you a service and no one has to argue over IP.

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

#144

Post by dschiptsov »

People still wondering that someone not just paying the bills, but making money in the first place, and that all these "free" services are about making money by aggregating and selling user-generated content, logs and statistics?

There is no other working model, btw.

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

#145

Post by ceejayoz »

bad_user wrote: post #135
ceejayoz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fortunately for you, your collection is small. Because I love photography, but I'm a bad photographer, whenever I take my camera for a spin I always end up with 1000 photos in a couple of hours. The result is something like 50 GB of photos, which isn't so cheap to backup on Amazon S3. But on the other hand, we are talking about photos for which we need backups, because digital storage is incredibly unreliable and I w…

Folks who upload 1,000 photos from a single session get offset by the folks who upload their one favourite, carefully chosen shot for the month.

Even the most prolific folks on my feed curate their 1,000 photo sessions into a hundred or so. I suspect you're something of an edge case.

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

#146

Post by untog »

jonknee wrote: post #142
untog wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Google+ has a significantly larger audience than Instagram. G+ is more than photos though and has a different audience.

How do you figure that G+ has a larger audience? Larger potential audience, sure, given the number of Google users out there. But Instagram posts have engagement (likes and comments) on a level I've never seen on Google+.

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

#147

Post by igorgue »

joshbert wrote: post #140
igorgue wrote: post #139

Question, with these new rules, can you still sell your pictures? Unless you live under a rock, you know that many "Instagram girls" sell their posts to clothing stores to promote them, it's actually hugely successful!

I've been living under a rock, then. Although, it's fairly ingenious.

Maybe because I have friends doing fashion, I know it goes from 500 bucks a pop. A girl with about 100K followers. And she would say something like this:

"Awesome glasses I got them from example.com use code EXAMPLE50 for %50 off on all their inventory"

I wonder if that's still legal. Or maybe Instagram can automate that!

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

#148

Post by untog »

bad_user wrote: post #126
untog wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the problem with sharing from Dropbox instead of Instagram and how's that any different?

What app am I using that collects all my friend's photos from their Dropboxes, creates a feed out of them and allows me to like and comment on them?

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

#150

Post by richardjs »

kloncks wrote: post #53
Smrchy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as i read that FB was buying Instagram i quit and deleted my Instagram account. It was too predictable that something like this will happen. Mark Zuckerberg is in a horrible position. I bet he would love to just build a cool and useful product. Instead he is damned to roll out all these awful money making features. And quick. Not only for his investors but also for the staff that owns FB stock. How smooth cou…

What's the alternative? A cool and useful product that makes revenues how? How do you propose that Instagram actually make money? Not attacking. Just wanted to hear more specific thoughts.

Would it be viable to let users opt-in to selling their photos, with users and Instagram splitting the money? That seems to be a system that would appeal to both sides.
Post reply on HN