# Stop Using Instagram



## dr croubie (Dec 18, 2012)

Read.
Understand.
Comprehend.
Then delete your photos.
Then delete your account.

Well, that's what I would do if I had ever used it.
But I urge you all to do the same (you can keep the photos on your own pc, fine, but just take them off the website).
If we let companies like this get away with massive copyright infringements like this, then more will be tempted to do the same. Send a message now, otherwise facebook and flickr will be next, then anything you've ever sent on gmail and yahoo, and after that Canon will claim all the photos you ever make on one of their cameras.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 18, 2012)

Thank you fot the information.

That´s why I don´t post or send pictures in the internet.


----------



## sanj (Dec 18, 2012)

Not fair! I was thinking of opening an account there but will not now.
How can they have such a policy?? Is it not against some copyright rules? Confused...


----------



## bycostello (Dec 18, 2012)

facebook and flickr already steal copyright...


----------



## Sith Zombie (Dec 18, 2012)

Why the big uproar?! In the current economic climate I think it's a good thing that a small local business like Facebook will buy instagram and make a good use of all these photos. They can then sell the photos to other poor companies that cant afford to hire a photographer. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history!


----------



## Northstar (Dec 18, 2012)

Good post/information dr croubie

I might be wrong, but I can't see them getting away with this long term....people that produce good photos WILL stop using them, and instagram will be left with poor quality/uninteresting amateur point and shoot and mobile phone shots.


----------



## Northstar (Dec 18, 2012)

Sith Zombie said:


> Why the big uproar?! In the current economic climate I think it's a good thing that a small local business like Facebook will buy instagram and make a good use of all these photos. They can then sell the photos to other poor companies that cant afford to hire a photographer. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history!



You are joking right?


----------



## Sith Zombie (Dec 18, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > Why the big uproar?! In the current economic climate I think it's a good thing that a small local business like Facebook will buy instagram and make a good use of all these photos. They can then sell the photos to other poor companies that cant afford to hire a photographer. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history!
> ...



Yeah I'm joking, did the montypython quote not give it away? I guess if you don't know the quote, then you don't know it. No harm done


----------



## infared (Dec 18, 2012)

Sooooooooo glad I got OUT of professional photography. So glad.


----------



## MintMark (Dec 18, 2012)

bycostello said:


> facebook and flickr already steal copyright...



The linked article suggested that flickr (and google+) were OK... can you explain what you mean when you say flickr steals copyright?

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 18, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Read.
> Understand.
> Comprehend.
> Then delete your photos.
> ...



I never used instagram. It's WAY too mainstream for me!


----------



## infared (Dec 18, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Good post/information dr croubie
> 
> I might be wrong, but I can't see them getting away with this long term....people that produce good photos WILL stop using them, and instagram will be left with poor quality/uninteresting amateur point and shoot and mobile phone shots.



Not so. Instagram KNOWS that the average person will not change their habits.
...and Instagram was just bought by Facebook...BEFORE this policy was instituted.
I know I am in the minority....but I would NEVER have a Facebook page. The reasons are just too many to list....WAY too many. It's just not a safe or very intelligent thing to do. Truly.
It's as if you have left the front door to your home wide open.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 18, 2012)

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Northstar (Dec 18, 2012)

Sith Zombie said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Sith Zombie said:
> ...



ok, funny, i haven't seen montypython in years.


----------



## triggermike (Dec 18, 2012)

Done.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Dec 18, 2012)

infared said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Good post/information dr croubie
> ...



I had a Facebook page about 3 years ago but canceled it. I can see the value in it sometimes but I survived a long time before facebook arrived and hopefully will still be doing so after it has gone.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 18, 2012)

infared said:


> I know I am in the minority....but I would NEVER have a Facebook page. The reasons are just too many to list....WAY too many. It's just not a safe or very intelligent thing to do. Truly.



Safe? Intelligent? Aren't you the guy who took a photo walk on the Jersey shore during the worst hurricane NJ ever had????

Just kidding, Bob!! I know you're smart about everything you do, and those hurricane pictures are still the best I've seen anyone take regarding that disaster.

This Instagram thing has me puzzled. They certainly have a right to change their policy (and I and everyone else have the right not to participate), but they must think two things:

1. Most Instagram users won't care and will even be flattered that some corporate entity is using their images. "Wow, dude, Frito-Lay is using one of my snaps in their TV commercial -- awesome!"

2. The quality of photography has fallen to a level that any kind of junk is now acceptable.

This is really huge news. I'll be watching to see what happens. If there is no mass rebellion, it spells real trouble in the world of image ownership.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



*LOL!!* Oh that's rich! I was just about to post to *Northstar* to re-read it! (I was gonna say, "Come On Northstar!! How could you miss that!?")

*IMHO* - Anyone who spends more than $100 on a camera these days and decides to upload content online should not be so naive as to think that 90% of the places the photos go will not be collection bins for free content to the provider where all of their rights will be stripped away. Really. It's no secret and hasn't been for years. It's really pretty simple... Either pay for a respected service like Zenfolio or SmugMug, et al. and protect your rights or use free services and lose your image rights. Simple choice if you ask me. It's not like the paid services really cost that much either. $50 a year? Big whoop.

*Here's my Zenfolio Referral Code if you decide to buy Zenfolio...
https://secure.zenfolio.com/zf/signup/plans.aspx*
*6KC-FPW-PWR*

I just read this story (below) and planned to post a warning on CR but the OP beat me to it. I don't use any of these online services to post images myself except to share the occasional phone pic or family photo but if I did, I would assume they were going to eventually be shared with the world without my permission. That's just the reality of it.

http://www.zdnet.com/so-instagram-can-now-sell-your-photos-get-over-it-7000008960/


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

BTW - the point that the article I link to makes is that the lion's share of the photos on instagram are...

"... grainy, dark, fuzzy out of focus images ..." and " Let it sort through the millions of family, pet, ‘action’ and party photos to find a great image with good composition, framing and colour." and " ... your bar room drunken cell phone uploads will never quite make the grade ...".

The point the columnist makes is there are 5 billion photos to sort through and most of them are crap.

Unfortunately, I agree with *distant.star* in that the majority of people now have a very low standard for what is considered an acceptable image. It's pretty sad. Makes me wonder why I care so much sometimes.


----------



## Beautor (Dec 18, 2012)

Taking the copyrights to any images posted has been Facebook's policy for at least 4 years now, and when they bought Instagram they obviously implemented the policy there too. One more reason why I hate Facebook and refuse to post any images on one of their services. 

Flickr does not assume any rights to your images. They were quite explicit on that when I signed up for my Flickr account. I'm pretty sure that Google's products do not assume any rights to your images either, but I don't use them so I'm not certain.


----------



## IslanderMV (Dec 18, 2012)

Facebook legal double speak: (http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms)

2. Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2012)

No Facebook, No Twitter, No Flickr, No instagram, etc... 

I have posted a picture on this site once. That's all.

My pictures are held in many ... local backups.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 18, 2012)

Crap, and I was just starting to like instagram. 

As a Istock contributor, IMO, Most crap cell phone photos won't print,look, or sell as well as good stock photos.


----------



## Shawn L (Dec 18, 2012)

I thought this was an interesting quote about Facebook and its ilk:

If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product

More info here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/

Shawn L.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Crap, and I was just starting to like instagram.
> 
> As a Istock contributor, IMO, Most crap cell phone photos won't print,look, or sell as well as good stock photos.



Unless that is the look that is needed. Or the image is significant for other reasons, newsworthy or specifically desirable.

Years ago, I got a Zenfolio account specifically to control my images because I didn't want our Boy Scout images in the public domain or ending up on a billboard, cereal box or hiking advertisement without permission. I educated myself on the subject so others wouldn't be adversely affected by my ignorance. Money well spent.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 18, 2012)

Flickr lets you assign controls and copyright restrictions to your images. For a free service, they are pretty clear on user rights. A small German business making horse and goat cheese asked to lease rights to a photo on my wifes Flickr site to use for advertising. She appreciated the honesty, and told them to go ahead. They put the image on some small trays, and sent her a stack. This was a image taken with a point and shoot, and heavily photoshopped to remove a fence in front of the animals.
I have my own website, so I'm not concerned about instagram. I have some old scanned images of my ancestors on Facebook, and on Ancestry.com. Those who want them are welcome, and I've also found many photos of my ancestors that others were willing to share.
This is a snapshot of the tray. She gave some to our kids, and keeps one to show occasionally. We've never used it for cheese, we have made goat cheese, but our horse is a gelding, no horse milk


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Flickr lets you assign controls and copyright restrictions to your images. For a free service, they are pretty clear on user rights. A small German business making horse and goat cheese asked to lease rights to a photo on my wifes Flickr site to use for advertising. She appreciated the honesty, and told them to go ahead. They put the image on some small trays, and sent her a stack. This was a image taken with a point and shoot, and heavily photoshopped to remove a fence in front of the animals.
> I have my own website, so I'm not concerned about instagram. I have some old scanned images of my ancestors on Facebook, and on Ancestry.com. Those who want them are welcome, and I've also found many photos of my ancestors that others were willing to share.
> This is a snapshot of the tray. She gave some to our kids, and keeps one to show occasionally. We've never used it for cheese, we have made goat cheese, but our horse is a gelding, no horse milk



Can I lease this picture to illustrate that the real photographic gear is the not the camera, but the eyes and the brain behind it?
Just kidding, very nice picture though!


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 18, 2012)

.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 18, 2012)

sagittariansrock said...

"Can I lease this picture to illustrate that the real photographic gear is the not the camera, but the eyes and the brain behind it?
Just kidding, very nice picture though!"

This quote should be made a 'sticky' post for the Forums to remind all of us that, just as the Chef makes the meal not the oven, the photographer makes the photograph not the camera - even if it's got the best L series lens on it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2012)

Patrick said:


> just as the Chef makes the meal not the oven, the photographer makes the photograph not the camera



...so, I guess Instagram is the Swanson TV Dinner in this analogy?


----------



## preppyak (Dec 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Crap, and I was just starting to like instagram.
> 
> As a Istock contributor, IMO, Most crap cell phone photos won't print,look, or sell as well as good stock photos.


Depends on the market. If Facebook is trying to undercut microstock for bloggers/online news, then cell phone photos will be perfectly fine. There's still a decent amount of money is selling subscriptions that way; especially when it only costs you storage space to produce those images. Their labor cost is lower than a microstock place that pays photographers.

That said, I think a lot of people will abandon them after their last few changes. Taking away Twitter usability and then this is a good way to piss people off and make them go elsewhere


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 18, 2012)

preppyak said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Crap, and I was just starting to like instagram.
> ...



Istock has editorial licensed photos that are free for use on blogger non-commercial sites already in place. The Small file size sales are pretty decent and already are cheap for bloggers.

Then again, We won't really know until next year.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 18, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Nobody can steal copyright, they can steal the image (which is not the case here) or the original copyright holder can assign rights to others, which is the case here. If you don't agree with an end user license and their draconian copyright sharing policies then don't tick the box to signup for an account.
> 
> Further, once you have ticked the box and got an account there is usually a clause in there that states you agree to any changes unless you opt out, that is, if you don't monitor what changes they make to the agreement and do nothing then you are considered to have agreed with the changes.
> 
> ...



Which hosting company? I'll want to avoid it if I can...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Patrick said:
> 
> 
> > just as the Chef makes the meal not the oven, the photographer makes the photograph not the camera
> ...



Love it neuro! LOL!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 18, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thanks. Interesting, never heard of them. 

Is anyone else totally hating the bottom footer (e.g. About, FAQ, Help, Contact Us, etc) that keeps disappearing? It's freaking annoying! I want to click on those, but they are never visible on the screen! WTF! Facebook is another big offender when it comes to that and the timeline. Grrrr...

Oh, and found another opinion on the updated Instagram policy. Looks like it's more a clarification of language that already sorta gave them those rights anyway.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 18, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Read.
> Understand.
> Comprehend.
> Then delete your photos.
> ...



Not that I used it much...but the Instagram app is GONE. Thank you.


----------



## dirtcastle (Dec 18, 2012)

While it appears to be a nefarious policy and big PR mistake, my guess is that the reaction to the policy is mostly overreaction. 

1. Let's face it: 99.999% of photographs on Instagram aren't worth $0.0001.

2. For aspiring photographers, Instagram can provide a marketing opportunity that can outweigh the limited piracy risks.

3. If Instagram/Facebook attempts to set up some sort of "stock" sale, my guess is that there would be a class action lawsuit.

4. If you don't enjoy Instagram enough to justify the occasional image theft... why are you using it in the first place?

More than likely, this policy will simply allow Instagram to do things like sell you your own photos back to you someday (or use your photos in Instagram marketing).


----------



## Meh (Dec 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Patrick said:
> 
> 
> > just as the Chef makes the meal not the oven, the photographer makes the photograph not the camera
> ...



Droll, Neuro, very droll. ;D


----------



## Meh (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't like these new ToS either but the new terms are essentially what FB has had for a number of years and I'm not aware FB has ever used anyone's photos in the way people are worried about. I can imagine the problem faced by FB and other social network sites would be that by definition they are sharing your photos with other people, those people could do something like take a screen shot and reshare, or some other casual use that the copyright owner could then make a claim against FB (i.e. sue the guy with the deepest pockets). So what FB wants is an indemnity that the users can not sue FB for any infringement and would have to make their claim against the third party directly. I'm not excusing their ToS and perhaps there is better language they could use but I suspect the lawyers have decided this is the most protective method. But still, I say everyone cancel their instagram and FB account NOW... well, give me a few hours to put some heavy short positions on the stock.


----------



## cayenne (Dec 18, 2012)

Sith Zombie said:


> Why the big uproar?! In the current economic climate I think it's a good thing that a small local business like Facebook will buy instagram and make a good use of all these photos. They can then sell the photos to other poor companies that cant afford to hire a photographer. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history!



*Ni!!!*


----------



## cayenne (Dec 18, 2012)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Sith Zombie said:
> ...



Very interesting, and thanks for the links...

But it did make me want to question. Does anyone not just set up their own small server at home for personal stuff or business anymore?

I have Cox Business, only $69/mo, I can set up and run as many servers as I wish, no caps, no blocked ports, speeds approx 10up and 8-9 down....

I like photography, but I like to tinker with computers. I used to do the webstuff by hand, but am looking into almost turnkey applications/frameworks for sites for posting photos, blogging...etc.

Just curious if anyone still does a bit of DIY on the internet side of you businesses?

C


----------



## infared (Dec 18, 2012)

distant.star said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I know I am in the minority....but I would NEVER have a Facebook page. The reasons are just too many to list....WAY too many. It's just not a safe or very intelligent thing to do. Truly.
> ...



I agree with what you are saying, Bill... but this is the largest blatant encroachment on other people's property. I used to shoot for a livingbut thank God..... I got out! Many, Many people think I should show up with $1000's and $1000's of dollars worth of equipment and work like a dog to produce art...and for some reason they feel that they do not have to pay for it or pay very little.
If I show up with my truck full of carpenters tools and work all day...they are willing to pay for it??? Never has made any sense to me. ..but one thing that does make sense to me is to not give ANYTHING to Instagram or Facebook for free. As far as I am concerned what they are doing is "technically" legal...(read the find print)..but just plain sleazy and unethical. It is just another "GOTCHA". I feel that it is a personal invasion. ...but like I said...I am in the minority..and most do not feel that way. Oh well.
Also...I have to disagree with something else....I have seen some KILLER talent making awesome art on Instagram. ..I am going to have to call it the art of our times....new media... Phone images are becoming more valid and there is some serious talent out there manipulating and tweaking some wonderful art. They should be compensated for there creations if a large corporation sells it outright for media or advertising purposes or uses the art to advertise their business. Burying some legalese in fine print so that you can basically cheat or deceive someone is just bad ethics. 
...but other than that ...it doesn't bother me! LOL! ;D


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

*THIS STORY*
*http://mashable.com/2011/05/17/space-shuttle-twitpic/*

has been around for awhile now and while it surprised some, I didn't blink an eye. It is safe to assume that if you put anything in the cloud, even simple emails or text msgs, it's gone and available for anyone to use with or without your permission. This is why even with stuff you 'sort of' 'can' control, you should probably watermark it if you want to at least get credit for it.


----------



## picturesbyme (Dec 18, 2012)

How is this news? This is going on years ago on fb and other sites and people just realized it now?
This is why I post with low res + large watermark. (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10985.msg197166#msg197166)
Sure it takes away a bit but still better than nothing and due to the w.marks my site gets more exposure... 

Do you check permissions on apps you download and use on your phones or that's a new thing too?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

*infared* - while I understand your point and agree, I do my photography for ME and let those around me benefit. Since I'm not a pro, I see my hobby as an activity that might bother some when I take a lot of pictures but when I freely share them, they don't mind so much. Sort of like inviting the neighbors to a loud party you're hosting. So I am probably not helping any pros by doing so much for free but it's my contribution to volunteer activities such as Boy Scouts, School and Church.

If I did photography for a living, I would treat it much like I do IT consulting. Charge by the hour or by the job and make sure everyone understands up front what it will probably cost including materials and billable time. Hopefully, word of mouth would bring me good clients that are of the same mindset I would prefer.

It doesn't matter what line of work you're in, there are those who don't mind paying and expect to pay for good work and then there are those who expect a favor all the time. I send those people to Best Buy for computer services.


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 18, 2012)

I think most larger companies wanting images and often purchasing images, kind of fear not paying someone. Say someone snags a photo off my website and posts it on instagram/etc and they get it that way. So then I send them(end user) a nice bill or let a lawyer do it as the images are registered. At least if they are paying someone, they should have a better recourse if someone does that. Because I sure won't care if they can't then find whoever snagged the image. So many times I've been told "well a friend of blah said we could use these images." Great, like I care what someone fed you. Seems plenty out there learn it is better to be paying someone something. Course I laugh inside knowing the crazy amount that don't and think it is cool to just snag and use. The amount of people that will snag any and everything off the net and "share it" in their own folder on these sites, I don't get how many companies are going to feel real great taking free images from these same places. They are at least less protected going that route.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 18, 2012)

Here's an interesting view: Is deleting Instagram going to be the new deleting Facebook?
Google Trends definitely looks like it. I'm a statistical maths nerd, so I'll be watching these lines over the next few days once it's had a while to sink in and for the numbers to come through.

Interesting that a spike already happened in April, coincidentally when FB bought IG, and it's been climbing ever since...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

*cayenne* - You have a nice service deal there. Kudos! Unfortunately most folks don't have a deal like that and pretty much all residential ISP services block incoming web requests to prevent web hosting, email hosting, ftp hosting, etc. So while you have the ability and the bandwidth, most don't.

The other problem is that if everyone was fortunate enough to have what you have, they still don't have the time, skill or desire to build and maintain a web site. It's a lot harder than people might think. And for those that have the skill and the knowledge, they have the distinct pleasure of dealing with all the security and breach attempts that constantly occur on the Internet.

Paying a reputable place like Zenfolio, GoDaddy, etc to do the heavy lifting is usually a much better choice and the up time is better too.

Building a website is a great experience and very rewarding but you have to enjoy it for it to be worth the effort and time.


----------



## EdB (Dec 18, 2012)

Just read this, not sure how well that would stand up in court but I wouldn't want to be the one to find out. Bolding is mine.

"According to the changes, effective January 16, 2013, any photograph posted on Instagram’s service can be repackaged and sold by Instagram for advertising purposes without the user’s knowledge or consent. In addition, by agreeing to the new terms, users are responsible for any legal claims that may result from the promotion or use of their images.

Long story short: Instagram can use your content to increase their revenue, *and if a legal claim is brought against the company regarding how these images have been used, you (the user) might be responsible for the damages.*"



Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/12/18/unfiltered-photographers-react-to-instagrams-new-terms/#ixzz2FRfSat4O


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 18, 2012)

EdB said:


> Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/12/18/unfiltered-photographers-react-to-instagrams-new-terms/#ixzz2FRfSat4O



Read that link, then followed the link at the bottom to here.

Sounds like Instagram are trying to confuse people with this line: "Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos."

*That's not the point, Instagram*. The point is that by using Instagram, *you retain ownership and copyright* but you give Instagram a *royalty free and unlimited license to use and sell* your stuff. In fact, not only are you letting them use it, but *by retaining ownership yourself, YOU are responsible for legal liability*.

It's like this: You own a car (photo). By putting BrandX Petrol in your car (using Instagram), you are letting anyone from BrandX drive your car, and they can let anyone else drive your car, and make money by letting others drive your car (Instagram can sell your photos to others). And if anyone of these (potentially unlimited number of) people driving your car hits and kills anyone, *you pay for their healthcare/funeral*.

Scary stuff.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 18, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/12/18/unfiltered-photographers-react-to-instagrams-new-terms/#ixzz2FRfSat4O
> ...


Wow. What an interesting twist! Let the original owner retain ownership for liability reasons but still retain the right to make revenue risk free. Wow. That sounds pretty lawyery!

Time to unleash the hamster p0rn and see if I get sued! Makes me think of that furniture p0rn I saw a while back. No rodents or couches were harming the making of this photo!! LOL!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2012)

Not that you can't find this stuff yourself but here's a couple mashable posts that I thought were interesting...

http://mashable.com/2012/12/18/celebrity-outrage-instagram-terms-of-service/
http://mashable.com/2012/12/18/instagram-heard-you/


----------



## HeavenHell (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm amazed someone actually bothered to read the terms & conditions. Glad people are looking out for the rest of us.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2012)

Good thing this is a slow news day. It's been kinda fun following this. Instagram/Facebook is probably hating it today in the short term but I doubt they'll change anything. They'll just move forward knowing how fickle people are once the coolness wears off of quitting their beloved photo app service. It's easy to join the crowd and do the easy opt out while everyone is shouting but it's a lot harder to stick to your guns a week later. I would be interested to see how the analytics look from this time to after Christmas and Jan 15th when everyone has been sitting around bored taking lots of pictures to share in their holiday free time and parties with their new iDevices and camera phones. People in general are sheep. Instagram probably picked a great time to make this announcement.


----------



## EdB (Dec 19, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/12/18/unfiltered-photographers-react-to-instagrams-new-terms/#ixzz2FRfSat4O
> ...



Nice pickup. There was a lot said in that post but nothing said that they won't use images in the future, just that they have no plans to right now. I'm glad I don't use it.


----------



## rpt (Dec 19, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20777616
Looks like somebody is taking notice or doing damage control! They think it is due to "confusing" choice of language!

Wow!


----------



## picturesbyme (Dec 19, 2012)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Good thing this is a slow news day. It's been kinda fun following this. Instagram/Facebook is probably hating it today in the short term but I doubt they'll change anything. They'll just move forward knowing how fickle people are once the coolness wears off of quitting their beloved photo app service. It's easy to join the crowd and do the easy opt out while everyone is shouting but it's a lot harder to stick to your guns a week later. I would be interested to see how the analytics look from this time to after Christmas and Jan 15th when everyone has been sitting around bored taking lots of pictures to share in their holiday free time and parties with their new iDevices and camera phones. People in general are sheep. Instagram probably picked a great time to make this announcement.



+1
People move on... forget... don't care...


----------



## krjc (Dec 19, 2012)

I think people are over reacting. No big deal. 

Sincerely from a Google share owner. 8)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2012)

Yep! Time to move on.... already spent more time on it than I should have. Slow day in general. I need to get busy.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2012)

Thanks Dr. C for bringing this to people's attention. It looks like Instagram has backed down (and is hiding behind the "oh it was all just a simple misunderstanding, we really love you and wouldn't do anything to hurt you excuse.)

The truth is that when companies step in it, as they did, it's great that in today's world of instant communication, the word gets around quickly and when faced with a massive backlash they have to do some fast back-pedaling. 

This is very important and I appreciate those who brought it out into the open.


----------



## pwp (Dec 19, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Sith Zombie said:
> 
> 
> > Why the big uproar?! In the current economic climate I think it's a good thing that a small local business like Facebook will buy instagram and make a good use of all these photos. They can then sell the photos to other poor companies that cant afford to hire a photographer. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history!
> ...


I'd say so... 

But isn't this typical? The mongrels will see a tangible quality drop...Here's another take on the story:
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/instarage-as-instagram-claims-right-to-sell-your-photos-20121219-2blrf.html

-PW


----------



## pwp (Dec 19, 2012)

infared said:


> Sooooooooo glad I got OUT of professional photography. So glad.



How this this relate to the original post? Maybe your competitors are soooooooooooo glad you left the industry, but what about you? It's one of the best professions in the world. I know for sure it beats the hell out of having to work for a living!

But seriously, don't let this scurrilous, unethical rights grab undermine your operation. Stand tall and out-shoot every one that you can.

-PW


----------



## iris chrome (Dec 19, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Here's an interesting view: Is deleting Instagram going to be the new deleting Facebook?
> Google Trends definitely looks like it. I'm a statistical maths nerd, so I'll be watching these lines over the next few days once it's had a while to sink in and for the numbers to come through.
> 
> Interesting that a spike already happened in April, coincidentally when FB bought IG, and it's been climbing ever since...



But Google Trends are very misleading and useless IMO. They only tell you the results as a percentage so, for all we know, they could have had only 10 searches for that term in April and now they have 20... :


----------



## WSMyles (Dec 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Patrick said:
> 
> 
> > just as the Chef makes the meal not the oven, the photographer makes the photograph not the camera
> ...



<Snigger> With all due respect, it's more like the rusty electric kettle with dodgy wiring used to prepare instant noodles.


----------



## sanj (Dec 19, 2012)

pwp said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooooooo glad I got OUT of professional photography. So glad.
> ...



You do not believe photography is 'work'?? To me it certainly IS! It is something I enjoy a lot but it still is WORK...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Even after all of the outrage, so far as I know Instagram have not presented a new, fixed, TOS. So why they released a press release to "talk" to people, they appear to have not fixed the actual problem.



Wait, wait...you mean a blog post isn't legally binding?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 20, 2012)

iris chrome said:


> But Google Trends are very misleading and useless IMO. They only tell you the results as a percentage so, for all we know, they could have had only 10 searches for that term in April and now they have 20... :



True, except when you compare it to something like a more popular search.
When twice as many people want to delete an Instagram account as want to delete a Facebook account, you know you're in trouble. (and how many people have FB accounts compared to IG accounts? like 1bn vs 200m or something?)
Latest data tells the story pretty well. At least people are listening.


----------



## dlleno (Dec 20, 2012)

I've never understood folks who don't read the facebook TOS, or any other site for that matter. too many don't even think twice before assuming that a particular site exists for the greater good of the people, and oh look what I can totally give to fb with a perpetual royalty free world wide license. I post an occasional photo on fb but its always low res and always something that I really don't care if it gets stolen. its astonishing the amount of personal information people really give away to fb.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 20, 2012)

WSMyles said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick said:
> ...


Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## picturesbyme (Dec 25, 2012)

http://www.mobilenapps.com/articles/5858/20121224/naughty-instagram-slapped-class-action-lawsuit-over-new-terms-use.htm#S2DgdBIu4feAwQKG.99


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 25, 2012)

Well that was only a matter of time...


----------



## DCM1024 (Dec 28, 2012)

Yesterday I was at Best Buy getting a new phone when the subject of Instagram came up. The customer sitting next to me said that a photo of her cousin, who is a dancer for the Knicks, had been used by Instagram for advertising without her permission. The cousin was upset and afraid that the usage would get her in trouble at work. In addition to TOS, what became of a model release? I told the lady about the class action suit and told her to pass the info along to her cousin.


----------

