Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by roc » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:11 PM UTC

panacea wrote: post #82

Aardwolf wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find the old text somewhere. Get the new text. Copypaste both in a text file. Then use diff or meld or another difftool of your choice to compare the two text files.

Presumably they meant, when you're 'asked to agree' to new T&C's the diff changes in the new policy are highlighted. When presented with a new T&C's policy, shouldn't you explicitly be asked to agree to any changes from the previous one you agreed to rather than be presented with the entire 14 pages which approximately 0.00001% of people will ever read before agreeing to? (And please don't say you read every EULA you…

Then they'll just shuffle wording to ensure the changes are however-many-pages they need to be so that no-one reads those either.

In general: people who don't take the time to read or consider their Terms of Service are not going to take the time to read or consider the changes.

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

#162

Post by jscheel » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:14 PM UTC

Guess I'll have to continue not using Instagram. All joking aside, this was the worst possible time for them to do this, considering Twitter and Flickr both attacking their space more and more now.

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

#163

Post by pavel_lishin » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:14 PM UTC

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…

Personal call, I suppose, but if I take a picture of a friend of mine and then that photos hows up in a weight-loss ad on the subway, I am probably going to lose a friend.

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

#164

Post by stephenhuey » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:18 PM UTC

Instagram-export service Instaport is returning 500 errors:

http://instaport.me/

500 Internal Server Error

nginx/0.7.67

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

#165

Post by ChuckMcM » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:25 PM UTC

Wow, that was not entirely unexpected, but rather poorly executed. I would have hoped there would be a grace period were you could either remove material or mark it in such a way that it wasn't tagged with this right.

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

#166

Post by drivebyacct2 » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:27 PM UTC

If only Android let you one-click share to any social network you wanted and included all of the photo manipulation and filter features of Instagram. Oh wait.

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

#167

Post by jonknee » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #146

jonknee wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+.

G+ has more active users than Instagram based on the released data. They purposefully don't release too much information, but the figures that have been announced show G+ to be far larger than Instagram. Instagram claims more than 100M signups, Google claims more than 500M. I don't see MAU for Instagram, but Google+'s MAU is 135M which is more than all of Instagram's signups.

Like any social network, what you see is dependent on who you are and how you use the service. Instagram is much more wide open than G+ as well, people are much more likely to share content to only a few people on G+ and thus you'll never see that content (or any replies). From what I've heard from photographers, G+ is definitely an active place to share photos.

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

#168

Post by callmeed » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #29

callmeed wrote: post #17

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.

He has a huge following (of both brides and other photographers) and enjoys taking pictures I'd guess.

And, for the record, he still shoots film (not a DSLR) :)

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

#169

Post by declan » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 5:07 PM UTC

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…

Matt: It is, as you say, likely a deal breaker for aspiring or pro photographers. And in the end it's also a case of "their servers, their rules."

But there's a difference between telling users clearly this is what you're doing, and putting it in the headline of a blog post, vs. inserting this language into the middle of a terms of use agreement. I don't think anyone here begrudges Instagram making money. But being upfront with the users who just made the founders $1B (well, maybe $700M) is something that's not unreasonable to expect.

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

#170

Post by jeremyarussell » Tue, Dec 18, 2012, 5:11 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #97

brigade wrote: 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…

It would seem that the key difference is in the first example Instagram has to be involved in the nightclub venture. Which is all fine and dandy for an Instagram themed nightclub or nightclub event. Now however, and this is the kicker, Instagram can let as many nightclubs as they want use the photos without Instagram having to be involved or even disclose their involvement with anyone.

TLDR - Before: Instagram had to have clear collaboration.(which would limit how many people they could sale your photos to.) After: Instagram does not have to show clear collaboration.