Instagram

Come and join in the banter: discuss here anything you want, whether bike related or not!
User avatar
Asprilla
Posts: 6965
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 15:31 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Asprilla » Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:30 pm

If there is any professionally produced content on YouTube then YouTube pay the rights holders for the usage. Certainly for music they pay a percentage of any advertising revenue created from the clip.

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:45 pm

Sketchley wrote:Meanredspider - I'm with Bustacapp on this, I think the key difference here is intagram is a "free" public website, in this circumstance I think it is no problem instagram claiming the rights as they provide the site for free and are a commercial organisation after all. Furthermore if you want to protect you property then put it somewhere safe. Fomr what I understad this no different to youtube who have right over all content. Correct me if I'm wrong on this?

Also are they really going to sell millions of baby photos and pictures of cats, we are not exactly talking real high quality photos here are we..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.


They provide a service that drives traffic and, from that, they hope to make money through advertising and selling other data. If, as it seems they have, they want to use my intellectual property as part of that deal, I'm not prepared to accept that. I'll just post them elsewhere. What I don't accept though is the argument that I shouldn't post them at all. That's like the police inspector who said to me "if you don't feel safe cycling on the road, don't cycle". I don't actual think my pictures are "worth" anything but I object to someone else laying commercial claim to them. It's not a big deal - there's plenty of other ways to post pics on the web. It's Farcebook that will lose out as people delete their Instagram accounts.
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
daviesee
Posts: 6445
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 18:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby daviesee » Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:51 pm

Sketchley wrote:..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

Friends of friends who are professional have done, under the old T&Cs.
Photo sharing with friends and family. Advertisement of their services etc.
Maintaining copyright is exactly what the new T&Cs were going to do away with.
Ironically enough, I first read the story on the BBC news website. The very same website that asks for your photos and hidden in the BBC T&Cs is exactly the same thing. If you post to the BBC, they take ownership. Always read the small print.

That said, I imagine that some people are now re-evaluating how they use "free" services.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

User avatar
Anti_Podean
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 21:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Instagram

Postby Anti_Podean » Wed Dec 19, 2012 13:51 pm

Bustacapp wrote:Don't know what the fuss is about? If you value pics you take then keep them private and don't put them in the public domain. Simple.

Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:05 pm

daviesee wrote:
Sketchley wrote:..... I'm mean professional photographers are not going to put images on instagram are they.

Friends of friends who are professional have done, under the old T&Cs.
.


Yup - a friend sent me a Twitter link from some professionals complaining about this. I think it's fine for Instagram to try to do this (provided they are "up front" about it) but they shouldn't be surprised by the response.
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28560
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Rick Chasey » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:10 pm

You lot seen the forum T&C's?

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:13 pm

Rick Chasey wrote:You lot seen the forum T&C's?


Yes - not aware they've changed since I signed up
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
Bustacapp
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Bustacapp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:16 pm

Asprilla wrote:Copyright is just proving that you own it. With image this is fairly easy, especially as Instagram will be able to show that you actually took the picture, or at least it first existed in your account and nowhere else. Instagram's Ts&Cs are saying that you own the rights but by uploading an image are licensing it to them to do with as they please. Copyright doesn't come into it.


Regardless, if you value something that much, then don't put it somewhere where other people can access it.

Anti_Podean wrote:Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.


Nope, not trolling. If you are the creator of an image and someone else claims credit for that, then it is either:

a) Your fault for not copyrighting it.
b) Your fault for signing your copyright over to instagram by virtue of using their website. Isn't it in their t&c's?
Last edited by Bustacapp on Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Asprilla
Posts: 6965
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 15:31 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Asprilla » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:26 pm

It is now. That's why people are closing their accounts.

User avatar
TailWindHome
Posts: 10571
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 08:57 am

Re: Instagram

Postby TailWindHome » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:31 pm

Rick Chasey wrote:You lot seen the forum T&C's?



So *that's* why Future tolerate the Girls In threads
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?"

User avatar
rjsterry
Posts: 8506
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 18:26 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby rjsterry » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:46 pm

Bustacapp wrote:
Asprilla wrote:Copyright is just proving that you own it. With image this is fairly easy, especially as Instagram will be able to show that you actually took the picture, or at least it first existed in your account and nowhere else. Instagram's Ts&Cs are saying that you own the rights but by uploading an image are licensing it to them to do with as they please. Copyright doesn't come into it.


Regardless, if you value something that much, then don't put it somewhere where other people can access it.

Anti_Podean wrote:Are you trolling, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between use and ownership? In which case, you must love all those paintings and artifacts that you own, looked after by those nice people at all those galleries and museums around the world.

It's not about visibility or locking it away for safety, it's about who owns the work. Just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's free for you to claim as your own or monetise. That some people do or try is a separate issue. Just as whether copyright is always a good thing is another separate issue.

And just because a work is available for you to enjoy without cost, that doesn't automatically exclude it from being monetised by its owner at a later date. Cory Doctorow and Scott Sigler are examples of this in action - people will pay for things they value, if given the incentive and opportunity.


Nope, not trolling. If you are the creator of an image and someone else claims credit for that, then it is either:

a) Your fault for not copyrighting it.
b) Your fault for signing your copyright over to instagram by virtue of using their website. Isn't it in their t&c's?


There is no verb 'to copyright' - it's not something you do to an image or other artefact after its creation. As someone pointed out above, you can retain copyright, but give or sell a license for limited or unlimited use.
1997 Giant Peloton 7200 - FCN 4 (5 if it looks like rain)
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
1980s BSA 10sp

"Be there, eat sausages, gain ultimate respect"

Ian.B
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 23:26 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Ian.B » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:56 pm

Rick Chasey wrote:You lot seen the forum T&C's?


The website T&Cs say:
If you upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content to the Website, you automatically: .........(b) grant Future and its group companies a non-exclusive, royalty free, sub-licensable, perpetual, world-wide licence to use, modify, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Content: (i) on and through the Website and the Website Service and in all promotional materials relating thereto; and (ii) in any other form or medium (including but not limited to other Future publications) provided that We have obtained your prior permission to do so. You continue to own the Content after it is posted to the Website.

I think it is the proviso here that distinguishes this site from what Instagram are, as I understand, now proposing to do

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 14:57 pm

The key to this (which I think Busta is missing) is that Instagram (or, probably more accurately, their relatively new owner, Facebook) have changed their T&Cs. Your only option, as a user, if you don't agree to these new T&Cs is to delete your account. It's par for the course with FB - they are forever pushing the limits of ownership and privacy to try to improve their stock price...
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
Bustacapp
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Bustacapp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:05 pm

rjsterry wrote:
There is no verb 'to copyright' - it's not something you do to an image or other artefact after its creation. As someone pointed out above, you can retain copyright, but give or sell a license for limited or unlimited use.


If you own the copyright of an image then there must be a way you can prove ownership.

From what I'm led to believe, you are entering into an agreement with instagram that waives any copyright you may/may not have.

If you're serious about your photography then simply don't use such services.

User avatar
Bustacapp
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Bustacapp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:07 pm

meanredspider wrote:The key to this (which I think Busta is missing) is that Instagram (or, probably more accurately, their relatively new owner, Facebook) have changed their T&Cs. Your only option, as a user, if you don't agree to these new T&Cs is to delete your account. It's par for the course with FB - they are forever pushing the limits of ownership and privacy to try to improve their stock price...


Again, I don't see the problem? If you disagree then delete your account! It's not like they've done this after stealing your photo's is it?

So who's been wronged??

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:15 pm

Bustacapp wrote:
meanredspider wrote:The key to this (which I think Busta is missing) is that Instagram (or, probably more accurately, their relatively new owner, Facebook) have changed their T&Cs. Your only option, as a user, if you don't agree to these new T&Cs is to delete your account. It's par for the course with FB - they are forever pushing the limits of ownership and privacy to try to improve their stock price...


Again, I don't see the problem? If you disagree then delete your account! It's not like they've done this after stealing your photo's is it?

So who's been wronged??


Well - apart from invest time and effort in putting them up there in the first place.

It's kinda like getting a "free" bus ride somewhere and partway there they say they're changing the T&Cs and there's some catch. If you don't agree, you're free to get off the bus. Some people would feel they were lucky to get a bit of a bus ride and others would feel like they were misled and dumped only partway to their destination - especially if there were other free bus services with no catches. Maybe not a great analogy but hints at why I'm irritated by it
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
Bustacapp
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Bustacapp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:20 pm

meanredspider wrote:Maybe not a great analogy but hints at why I'm irritated by it


Not the best really as being dumped in the middle of nowhere would be criminal.

User avatar
meanredspider
Posts: 9943
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 15:24 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby meanredspider » Wed Dec 19, 2012 15:31 pm

Bustacapp wrote:
meanredspider wrote:Maybe not a great analogy but hints at why I'm irritated by it


Not the best really as being dumped in the middle of nowhere would be criminal.


But you get my drift (I hope). If not, then I don't think you're ever going to get it. You don't have to agree but there was enough concern about this for Instagram to respond to those concerns so I'm guessing it has hurt them.
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH

User avatar
rjsterry
Posts: 8506
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 18:26 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby rjsterry » Wed Dec 19, 2012 16:11 pm

Bustacapp wrote:
rjsterry wrote:
There is no verb 'to copyright' - it's not something you do to an image or other artefact after its creation. As someone pointed out above, you can retain copyright, but give or sell a license for limited or unlimited use.


If you own the copyright of an image then there must be a way you can prove ownership.

From what I'm led to believe, you are entering into an agreement with instagram that waives any copyright you may/may not have.

If you're serious about your photography then simply don't use such services.


No. This is not what copyright is. A work is automatically under copyright as soon as it is created. Say I take a photo and publish it on Instagram: I'll still retain the copyright, but I will have given them license to use my photo as they see fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom
1997 Giant Peloton 7200 - FCN 4 (5 if it looks like rain)
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
1980s BSA 10sp

"Be there, eat sausages, gain ultimate respect"

User avatar
Bustacapp
Posts: 910
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 13:37 pm

Re: Instagram

Postby Bustacapp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 17:43 pm

rjsterry wrote:No. This is not what copyright is. A work is automatically under copyright as soon as it is created. Say I take a photo and publish it on Instagram: I'll still retain the copyright, but I will have given them license to use my photo as they see fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom


Copyright Law of the United Kingdom? I assume Instagram is American so there's a possible conflict straight away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... ted_States

^^The American copyright law seems to require registration at a copyright office. Which to me makes total sense.

So in the UK you would still have to prove that you produced that image in some way if you wanted to sue?


Return to “Commuting Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MTB-Idle and 5 guests