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

181–190 of 213 posts

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

#181

Post by zemo »

sgdesign wrote: post #4

I'm starting to realize that Instagram is not the service I thought it was. I initially thought it was Flickr with social features, but more and more it's turning into Facebook with photos. There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new followers or find new people to follow. And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting pho…

>There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new followers or find new people to follow.

Instagram has had an Explore view for a while now.

>And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting photos.

To be honest, I look at a lot of Instagram data because I work on a photo sharing startup that uses their API extensively, and the network as a whole is completely dominated by teen girls vying for each other's attention. The amount of content they create and consume is mind numbing.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

untog wrote: post #148
bad_user wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by fleitz »

rjsamson wrote: post #118
cookiecaper wrote: post #31

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 pr…

Perhaps those professionals should contact Instagram about the valuable service they provide and how much they can pay for this service that promotes their business.

I'm shocked, shocked to find out that Instagram plans to monetize their service via advertising.

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

#185

Post by PJones »

spacestation wrote: post #59

deleting your account is futile, photographs will still remain on their AWS account. after deleting one of my accounts, I was suspicious that they would still keep the photographs. So to test this, I made a dummy account named after where i live; nikkojapan http://instagram.com/nikkojapan/ i made a quick pointless photograph just to upload http://instagram.com/p/K8bx_ZB59K/ Here is the link that still exists to the p…

Just tried deleting a photo, and it looks like they remove the image straight away in that case: http://distillery.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2010/10/08/92944289...

Hopefully it just takes a little time when deleting the account to go through and delete the individual photos, but I'll be deleting the individual photos before I delete my account to be safe.

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

#186

Post by mtgx »

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+.

I've seen hundreds of comments on DSLR-made photos from photographers on Google+. Photographers love Google+, and the engagement is very higher.

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

#187

Post by dennisgorelik »

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…

If you keep all 1000 photos from a single session without deleting 90+% of them -- you would not be able to convince your grandchildren to look at these photos (because it would be too boring).

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

#188

Post by dennisgorelik »

klapinat0r wrote: post #50
greenyoda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point about the model release form is interesting. While you can sign away your own rights to your photos, you can't sign away the rights of friends and strangers who appear in them. According to Wikipedia[1]: "Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_relea…

But wouldn't it mean the user who uploaded the photo is liable, not Instagram? -- I asked off of the Pinterest TOS drama earlier this year: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323

Both would be liable, but:

1) Usually it does not make sense to sue amateur photographer.

2) It may make sense to sue Instagram and their clients, especially when serious money are involved.

IANAL

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

#189

Post by untog »

mtgx wrote: post #186
untog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+.

I've seen hundreds of comments on DSLR-made photos from photographers on Google+. Photographers love Google+, and the engagement is very higher.

DSLR-touting photographers are a minority audience compared to Instagram's audience though, surely.

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

#190

Post by 001sky »

fleitz wrote: post #183
rjsamson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Perhaps those professionals should contact Instagram about the valuable service they provide and how much they can pay for this service that promotes their business. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that Instagram plans to monetize their service via advertising.

Advertising and the uncompensated appropriation of intellectual property are two different concepts. This is neatly disguised theft, hidden in legalese. Get over the Casablanca quotes. Here's the relevant citation:

Zuck: People Just Submitted it...

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb Fucks

See a pattern here?

Post reply on HN