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

Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#31

Post by yincrash »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #12

So a couple different things here: On one hand, it's funny that user "doedeere" thinks she had to give permission to the artist in order to use her picture in art. Gives off an air of entitlement if you ask me. On the other, I think it's a fair example of how little the average user is aware (read: doesn't give any attention to at all) of a free service's TOS and what is/isn't allowed, in addition the actual nature o…

This has nothing to do with Instagram's TOS. This is an argument about whether or not this falls under the US's Fair Use doctrine to determine whether or not the instagram user can assert copyright over the images being used by Prince.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#32

Post by anon4 »

0359B02149AB wrote: post #25
danso wrote: post #4

Well...yes...this headline manages to be both true but a little off-point. By posting your photos on Instagram, you have definitely given a third-party (Instagram) the right to make copies and distribute your photos...yet, the photo still belongs to you, Instagram is quick to point out [1]. But the reselling of photos as described here is not particular to Instagram. It involves an artist who reappropriates them for…

To me, it's almost the same (but not quite exactly) as someone posting code on stack overflow, and developers using and relying on that code for their job. The idea of what part of information is owned and what is shared is a concept that fascinates and bewilders me consistently. Art has all these emotional attachments to it, this personal affect, and not many stop to think that for some people, code - even mathemati…

Nah, there's a pretty big difference (mentally) between SO and Instagram.

You put your code on SO with the intention of giving it to someone else, potentially many others. That's the entire point in SO and it's pretty clear from the start that that's what you're doing there.

You put your photos on Instagram so you can show them to your friends. Instagram is a storage space for your photos. When someone looks at your photo, the intention is that you're showing them the photo, rather than giving them the photo. (Un)Fortunately, when computers are concerned, showing and giving are the same thing.

The fact that people think of showing and giving as different, but their smart devices treat them the same, results in a lot of friction. The entire DRM industry and respective legislation is concerned with aligning computer behaviour with (some) human expectations.

So yes, I agree that Instagram works the same as Stack Overflow, but that's not what people's instinctive expectation is.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#34

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pachydermic wrote: post #3

It doesn't really bother me that much that someone else could sell your Instagram photos. What bothers me is that someone else would buy them, when they're available for free on the internet.

Presumably based on the Prince decision you can take a duplicate of one of "his" works [which are really just minor amendments and not new works at all ...], get a friend to write a comment to go with it and appropriate the newly commented work without infringement? That extends the principle fairly.

Regardless, this all makes Prince in high demand - basically any work now can be validated by his comment and then can be reproduced without paying the original creator for a license.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#35

Post by glenda »

The headline is a bit like saying "Painters sells dried paint for 90k" or "Programmer sells series of characters for 90k" Technically it's accurate, but it misses the point entirely.

Richard Prince, whether you like him or not, is an artist and his medium is typically found/appropriated objects. We, as a society, have rewarded him in the past because there is something interesting in what he does. Oftentimes artists are misunderstood within their lifetimes and the scope of their interests become more apparent with time. So for now, these are super gimmicky and somewhat frustrating, but as the world changes in unexpected ways they will only take on more meaning .

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#36

Post by marincounty »

wmil wrote: post #18
mullingitover wrote: post #15

I find it fascinating that trivial modifications of photos qualify as 'transformative' and thus evade copyright. So it's okay for me to download the new Taylor Swift single, add some extra reverb, and start selling copies of it? Cool.

Many things in civil law come down to who can afford to spend more on lawyers. Richard Prince probably has a brother or a fan who's a copyright lawyer willing to work pro-bono.

I think it does come down to money too--like everything? I think if Richard Prince downloaded an image of Mickey Mouse, and did his "artistic" magic to the image, and sold prints in a gallery; his Lawyer would be very busy?

I, personally, don't give websites very many pictures. The few pictures I post are images I am giving away. Companies, Artists, and webscrapers are free to do whatever they want with the pictures I give up.

I don't give companies like Instagram any images--period. Facebook gets a picture of the back of my head, and I still use a pseudonym.

Even in high school, and college I never sat for a school picture. I don't like people taking my picture without my permission. I don't like companies whom take, and keep my picture--even for security, and identify purposes. I don't like public cams. I don't like marketing trend of taking employees picture for marketing purposes(Whole Foods, etc), or even employee of the month pictures.

What I am trying to say is I wish people were more concerned about their Images? I'll admit my my concern over the protection of my image, and the images I take borders on an obsession. I sometimes wonder if I'm missing out on opportunities in life by being so private?

I know companies will start running campaigns, and marketing ploys if Not posting becomes a trend. I can see it now, "Don't miss out on life--post more images!" "Don't miss out on networking opportunities--post more images!" "Don't miss out on love--post more images!"

People here know once image is posted it can be copied, manipulated, used without your consent, and sent around the world. The people I am close to don't quite realize once they upload in image it's essentially not their's anymore in any practical sense.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#37

Post by wiredfool »

brador wrote: post #22
wiredfool wrote: post #21

The buyers aren't spending 90k for a print of an Instagram, they're spending 90k for Richard Prince's signature on the bottom. Richard Prince could appropriate anything at this point, make a very limited edition, sign it, and mint money. You couldn't, I couldn't, but he can.

Under your theory, assuming I was famous, could I make a copy of a movie, sign the DVD copy and sell it for $100 free and clear? I don't think I'd get away with that, so why should he?

Unlike you, he has won a lawsuit to that effect. Also, he has sold similar appropriations for far more money, so there's a framing effect as to what they're worth.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#38

Post by KeytarHero »

danso wrote: post #4

Well...yes...this headline manages to be both true but a little off-point. By posting your photos on Instagram, you have definitely given a third-party (Instagram) the right to make copies and distribute your photos...yet, the photo still belongs to you, Instagram is quick to point out [1]. But the reselling of photos as described here is not particular to Instagram. It involves an artist who reappropriates them for…

> It involves an artist who reappropriates them for artistic purposes (similar to parody)...he could've done this with any photo or off of any service...so this concept isn't even particular to the Internet and the digital age.

So why is this legal in the case of photographs, yet sampling (in music) remains illegal?

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#39

Post by brador »

wiredfool wrote: post #37
brador wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under your theory, assuming I was famous, could I make a copy of a movie, sign the DVD copy and sell it for $100 free and clear? I don't think I'd get away with that, so why should he?

Unlike you, he has won a lawsuit to that effect. Also, he has sold similar appropriations for far more money, so there's a framing effect as to what they're worth.

He won that lawsuit because that work was transformative. I think it could be argued that his Instagram pieces are not.

Re: Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

#40

Post by asadlionpk »

brador wrote: post #28
krisgenre wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I bought the DVD, got it signed by you and sold it for $100? Replace DVD with guitars, T-Shirts etc, definitely seen that happening.

With the items there's no copyright. With the DVD there is. The studio owns the copyright to the "image" on the DVD that was copied. I guess the big question is does what he has done to the images count as derivative works or not? I say not, since he's used the image unmodified. I hope at $90k a sale it catches the attention of a pro bono for a nice test case. Would be interesting to see what the courts say.

I think he will be in trouble if this gets tested. Just my thoughts. I don't see how he can defend that.
Post reply on HN