[Screwston]

Have fun trendy attention whores. I've already deleted my pictures from my Facebook profile.

Quote:

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

In its first big policy shift since Facebook bought the photo-sharing site, Instagram claims the right to sell users' photos without payment or notification. Oh, and there's no way to opt out.
Declan McCullagh
by Declan McCullagh
December 17, 2012 9:54 PM PST

Instagram said today that it has the perpetual right to sell users' photographs without payment or notification, a dramatic policy shift that quickly sparked a public outcry.

The new intellectual property policy, which takes effect on January 16, comes three months after Facebook completed its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.

Under the new policy, Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world's largest stock photo agency. One irked Twitter user quipped that "Instagram is now the new iStockPhoto, except they won't have to pay you anything to use your images."

"It's asking people to agree to unspecified future commercial use of their photos," says Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That makes it challenging for someone to give informed consent to that deal."

That means that a hotel in Hawaii, for instance, could write a check to Facebook to license photos taken at its resort and use them on its Web site, in TV ads, in glossy brochures, and so on -- without paying any money to the Instagram user who took the photo. The language would include not only photos of picturesque sunsets on Waikiki, but also images of young children frolicking on the beach, a result that parents might not expect, and which could trigger state privacy laws.

Facebook did not respond to repeated queries from CNET this afternoon. We'll update the article if we receive a response.

Another policy pitfall: If Instagram users continue to upload photos after January 16, 2013, and subsequently delete their account after the deadline, they may have granted Facebook an irrevocable right to sell those images in perpetuity. There's no obvious language that says deleting an account terminates Facebook's rights, EFF's Opsahl said.

Facebook's new rights to sell Instagram users' photos come from two additions to its terms of use policy. One section deletes the current phrase "limited license" and, by inserting the words "transferable" and "sub-licensable," allows Facebook to license users' photos to any other organization.

A second section allows Facebook to charge money. It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." That language does not exist in the current terms of use.

Google's policy, by contrast, is far narrower and does not permit the company to sell photographs uploaded through Picasa or Google+. Its policy generally tracks the soon-to-be-replaced Instagram policy by saying: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our services." Yahoo's policies service for Flickr are similar, saying the company can use the images "solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available."

Reginald Braithwaite, an author and software developer, posted a tongue-in-cheek "translation" of the new Instagram policy today: "You are not our customers, you are the cattle we drive to market and auction off to the highest bidder. Enjoy your feed and keep producing the milk."

One Instagram user dubbed the policy change "Instagram's suicide note." The PopPhoto.com photography site summarized the situation by saying: "The service itself is still a fun one, but that's a lot of red marks that have shown up over the past couple weeks. Many shooters -- even the casual ones -- probably aren't that excited to have a giant corporation out there selling their photos without being paid or even notified about it."

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom speaks at the LeWeb conference in Paris. Click for larger image.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Another unusual addition to Instagram's new policy appears to immunize it from liability, such as class action lawsuits, if it makes supposedly private photos public. The language stresses, twice in the same paragraph, that "we will not be liable for any use or disclosure of content" and "Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any content you provide."

Yet another addition says "you acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." That appears to conflict with the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines that say advertisements should be listed as advertisements.

Such sweeping intellectual property language has been invoked before: In 1999, Yahoo claimed all rights to Geocities using language strikingly similar to Facebook's wording today, including the "non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right" to do what it wanted with its users' text and photos. But in the face of widespread protest -- and competitors advertising that their own products were free from such Draconian terms -- Yahoo backed down about a week later.

It's true, of course, that Facebook may not intend to monetize the photos taken by Instagram users, and that lawyers often draft overly broad language to permit future business opportunities that may never arise. But on the other hand, there's no obvious language that would prohibit Facebook from taking those steps, and the company's silence in the face of questions today hasn't helped.

EFF's Opsahl says the new policy runs afoul of his group's voluntary best practices for social networks. He added: "Hopefully at some point we'll get greater clarity from Facebook and Instagram."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-575597...ur-photos/

[thegmanifesto]

What is that quote again?

"If they don't charge you for the product, then you are the product."

?

[Ziltoid]

Do people besides 14 year old girls actually use instagram, though?

[Screwston]

(12-18-2012 09:36 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Do people besides 14 year old girls actually use instagram, though?

I don't know if you're serious or just don't interact with people under 35. Everyone uses that shit.

[Ziltoid]

I guess I don't have enough friends with smartphones.

[NYJ]

(12-18-2012 09:39 PM)houston Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 09:36 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

Do people besides 14 year old girls actually use instagram, though?

I don't know if you're serious or just don't interact with people under 35. Everyone uses that shit.

Everyone and their mom does apparently. I have one, but I stopped using it upon realizing I was acting like said 14 year old girl.

[FretDancer]

I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.

[BIGINJAPAN]

[quote='FretDancer' pid='330346' dateline='1355893068']
I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.
[/quote

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

[Cincinnatus]

(12-19-2012 12:03 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:57 PM)FretDancer Wrote:  

I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

They're already doing this in the USA. City surveillance cameras across the country are being programmed with facial recognition software. If you have an official photo I.D. in the USA your picture is already in a government database.

Casinos have been using facial recognition software for years now to keep out known card counters, cheaters, etc.

[FretDancer]

(12-19-2012 12:03 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

[quote='FretDancer' pid='330346' dateline='1355893068']
I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.
[/quote

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

So? That will eventually happen anyways. Why be so paranoid?, you are not that important in this world.

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

[Mirthless]

(12-19-2012 12:12 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Casinos have been using facial recognition software for years now to keep out known card counters, cheaters, etc.

So that's how they always know when I walk in...

[kosko]

People are now (slowly) starting to see the dark side of Social Media. These firms for years ran at losses to get everybody assimilated and addicted to their sites and to become normalized to uploading content onto their sites. They have always owned anything you uploaded onto their site its just now with so many people using it people are now starting to read the fine print. Also with so many users its to easy for these corps now to make money. The goal was for everybody to upload a digital meme/mirror of them selves that FB, Instragram, Twitter, would use and exploit and sell off to Advertisers. This was clear as day from the start. There was never any benevolence with the creation of Social Media it was always with the end goal of data storing for exploitation (and control) down the road.

You own nothing you put online. From cloud storage, to your Facebook photo profile once you upload it it becomes their property. I cringe when people put up their kids babies photos, and photos of their children growing up. I at least have years vacant from my online "mirror" but these parents are creating literal databases for their kids from birth.

(12-19-2012 12:13 AM)FretDancer Wrote:  

[quote] (12-19-2012 12:03 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.
[/quote

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

So? That will eventually happen anyways. Why be so paranoid?, you are not that important in this world.

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

[bojangles]

I tried to use it to game girls, but it's worthless for that due to the mass attention whoring facet of it.

[Praetor]

Instagram has officially apologized on their blog and they claim they are amending their Terms of Service to remove the offending lines... their wording looks sincere that they are building an opt-in promotional/advertising platform, but this doesn't do anything to advance game for us.

http://blog.instagram.com/post/382521354...-listening

It's still full of the same attention whoring and KIK messenger hoops that we have to jump through and it's only going to get worse as its parent company Facebook continues to ruin it over time. If you really have a passion for photography, grab a cheap Wordpress template and throw up your own quick website! Don't waste your time with this players.

[thegmanifesto]

(12-19-2012 12:13 AM)FretDancer Wrote:  

[quote] (12-19-2012 12:03 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.
[/quote

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

So? That will eventually happen anyways. Why be so paranoid?, you are not that important in this world.

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

Some people on earth still care about Privacy.

I know it is a crazy concept in today's world, but it used to be the norm.

Hard to believe isn't it?

Quote:

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

I am guessing you have never been arrested for a crime you didn't commit?

Am I right?

(12-19-2012 02:42 AM)kosko Wrote:  

People are now (slowly) starting to see the dark side of Social Media. ]

And some of us saw that dark side 100 miles away.

[thegmanifesto]

duplicate

[Ovid]

Facebook is, effectively, a CIA data mining service. It's like a dream come true to any government who can access it -unshielded, sincerely-given, intimate personal info about nearly everyone in the country and many in the world. It's not a good idea to have an account, and, if you must, it should have only the most superficial info. One might not have good reason to be concerned about privacy now, but in 20 years (or a month) you could be kicking yourself big-time. I have so many friends who have opened up their yaps on Facebook, only to have it get back to their boss, their school administration, etc.

I was one of the early adopters, back when you had to be a college student to sign up, but eventually I deactivated my account. It's amazing how much more free time you have when you focus on real life and not catering to FB attention whoring...

[FretDancer]

(12-19-2012 02:42 AM)kosko Wrote:  

You know, that's actually my facial expression when reading those types of comments. But to each his own.

[Screwston]

I can imagine the people who have no problem with 0 privacy at all put full trust in the government and never do anything outside the box.

[Ziltoid]

I hate the government and all, but I'd really be kidding myself if I thought they cared about my favorite bands, funny videos I've reposted, or the people I randomly befriend in bars.

(RIP Hunter S. Thompson)

[Anon-A-Moose]

(12-19-2012 10:24 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 12:13 AM)FretDancer Wrote:  

[quote] (12-19-2012 12:03 AM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

I don't use Instagram. Also, if Facebook or any of those other things owns your pictures, Who cares? They're just pictures.
[/quote

They are using it for facial recognition software. Your government is using the photos to identify you when you walk into an airport or bus terminal already. Pretty soon this will be like England and there will be cameras on every corner recognizing you and recording your every move.

This is a lot more than just pictures.

So? That will eventually happen anyways. Why be so paranoid?, you are not that important in this world.

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

Some people on earth still care about Privacy.

I know it is a crazy concept in today's world, but it used to be the norm.

Hard to believe isn't it?

Quote:

If getting recognized on an airport is your fear, then its probably within good reason.

I am guessing you have never been arrested for a crime you didn't commit?

Am I right?

(12-19-2012 02:42 AM)kosko Wrote:  

People are now (slowly) starting to see the dark side of Social Media. ]

And some of us saw that dark side 100 miles away.

^this. You're spot on. I don't have anything to FEAR, but I want my privacy, and I don't like that social media obliterates that concept--and people do it willingly for stupid digital "likes" and vapid attention.

[sixsix]

From the always spot-on XKCD: