Fact All your [work] are belong to us!

[Scouse]

Ho ho ho!

Merry Fuckmass everybody! - From Instagram

Instagram has updated its privacy policy giving it the right to sell users' photos to advertisers without notification...

...The changes also mean Instagram can share information about its users with Facebook, its parent company, as well as other affiliates and advertisers

/large corporate affiliated with Facebook says "delete your well-maintained and oft-used accounts fucktards or we'll profit from your work"

Mwahahahaha!

 

[Gwadien]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-dD-QKYN4


=

Most people on my facebook.

 

[old.user4556]

Out-fucking-rageous.

Won't be uploading anything to Instagram now. Talk about the shaft.

 

[Raven]

I think my thread title was more snappy.

 

[DaGaffer]

Overrated shite anyway.

 

[rynnor]

Bye Bye Instagrab

 

[Himse]

I guess it'll be useful for food companies, since it's just pictures of peoples meals with filters.

 

[Access Denied]

Surely that contravenes all the laws that give photographers sole ownership of their pictures?

 

[rynnor]

Surely that contravenes all the laws that give photographers sole ownership of their pictures?

Photographer keeps copyright but by using the service you are granting a transferrable license for Instagrab to sell on your work.

 

[Himse]

Surely people who are serious about photography don't really use Instagram anyway?

 

[old.user4556]

I'm serious about photography and I use it.

Also worth noting that the stock / professional photography market is being eroded quickly due to the availability of "good enough" images out there. There are screeds of great photos on Instagram that will now be used "for free" and without consent, further cheapening photography.

A lot of breaking news footage in the media is coming from Joe Hipster with an iPhone. Historically an expensive photo journalist was required, but they're getting paid off given the volume of content out there. This opens another door for cheap, easy, up to date content that will line Facebook's pockets and not the photographers.

 

[Scouse]

Funny how corporations hoover up small amounts of wealth from a lot of people and wang it all in the pockets of the few, eh?

 

[Raven]

I am more disappointed that you missed my quite excellent pun.

 

[Embattle]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/18/how-to-quit-instagram

 

[soze]

So I take a picture of my goddaughter using instagram and all of a sudden that can be used in an advertising campaign without anyone even telling me? Nice one.

 

[old.user4556]

So I take a picture of my goddaughter using instagram and all of a sudden that can be used in an advertising campaign without anyone even telling me? Nice one.

That's correct.

 

[old.user4556]

A few sources re my post above.

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2012/11/20/5275.aspx

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/blog/2011/08/pulitzer-photojournalist-takes-a-stand.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-cuts-50-staff-members-260737

"In an email to staff on Friday, CNN senior vp Jack Womack outlined the reorganization noting that new technology in desk-top editing and user-generated content and social media have made some editing and photojournalism positions redundant."

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Your account has been removed. We're sorry to see you go!

Don't think I uploaded anything with it anyway.

 

[Moriath]

deleted instagram also

 

[Wij]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TwopTwips/status/280988342986874880

 

[Himse]

I'm serious about photography and I use it.

Also worth noting that the stock / professional photography market is being eroded quickly due to the availability of "good enough" images out there. There are screeds of great photos on Instagram that will now be used "for free" and without consent, further cheapening photography.

A lot of breaking news footage in the media is coming from Joe Hipster with an iPhone. Historically an expensive photo journalist was required, but they're getting paid off given the volume of content out there. This opens another door for cheap, easy, up to date content that will line Facebook's pockets and not the photographers.

I only see, as you put it: Joe Hipster with an iPhone. I see some nice pictures sometimes but I assume they are copy & paste from the internet somewhere. Generally thought the pro's used stuff like Flickr!

It's kinda a strange move, don't know why they'd kill their business, just seen everyone getting real mad about it today on the net.

 

[old.user4556]

I think the crux of the problem is "we're going to use your photos, without telling you, for anything, for free" - as a photographer I just don't agree with that in principle, regardless of how amateurish or crude the image may be. Imagine some record company bod spots a cracking Instagram photo on my stream and says to Facebook they want to use it for an advertisement / album cover for an album launch. Before I know it, my image is plastered around the web promoting said album and I get absolutely no recognition or royalty for it - no fucking chance.

 

[Sar]

Your account has been removed. We're sorry to see you go!

Don't think I uploaded anything with it anyway.

Ditto, deleted mine too, and similarly I didn't do much with it, but better safe...

 

[Access Denied]

I'd like to see the stats on the number of Instagram accounts before the change and how many there are now. What a mind-bogglingly stupid decision.

 

[dysfunction]

Looks like they may be backtracking on their policy...

 

[Ch3tan]

And they've released a statement debunking these stories, and changed the terms to make it clear that they aren't doing this

 

[Scouse]

And they've released a statement debunking these stories, and changed the terms to make it clear that they aren't doing this

They've backed off - and will do it on the sly when mass exodus doesn't happen...

 

[Raven]

And they've released a statement debunking these stories, and changed the terms to make it clear that they aren't doing this

I think the wording was quite clear. They are now in full back peddle.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yeah, there's no way they can claim it was just phrased wrong.

The phraseology was VERY clear: we're selling your shit and giving you nothing. There's nothing to get misread there.

 

[rynnor]

And they've released a statement debunking these stories, and changed the terms to make it clear that they aren't doing this

Nah - they are trying to sucker people by using legal niceties when they talk about 'ownership'.

When you produce a photo or other work you automatically gain the copyright - you own it effectively.

What instagrab are doing is saying - fine you own it but your giving us a free license to use it as we please without acknowledgement and royalty free.

"Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram

1. Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services."

Edit - the above is from their terms of service.