If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Instagram says it now has the right to sell your duck faced self portraits and fuzzy pictures of what you ate for lunch   (news.cnet.com) divider line 99
    More: Asinine, photo sharing, overly broad, GeoCities, Electronic Frontier Foundation  
•       •       •

4371 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 09:41:19 AM
Transfer of copyright clause in the EULA?
 
2012-12-18 09:47:13 AM
Gotta generate some funds to get those facebook stock values up
 
2012-12-18 09:53:46 AM
Can someone explain to me this obsession people have all of a sudden with taking pictures of their food?
 
2012-12-18 10:11:57 AM
I am enjoying the outrage. Doesn't every online service do this now? I remember the uproar when Facebook changed their TOS to something similar. Or did they back down? Probably not.
 
2012-12-18 10:12:15 AM
Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.
 
2012-12-18 10:12:30 AM
As I asked in the other thread:
Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.
 
2012-12-18 10:13:35 AM

Honest Bender: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.


Yeah, but this would allow Instragram to (theoretically) sell *my image* for a product, even if I have *never used* Instagram, because someone else took a picture of me.

I, uh, don't exactly see how that's legal.

/Not that anyone would WANT to use me to sell a product, but it's a hypothetical.
 
2012-12-18 10:13:49 AM
Huh.

If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold.

What will be interesting is how this affects people who are in the pictures, but do not own them. If someone posts a picture that has me in it, but I'm not an Instagram user, what rights do I have?
 
2012-12-18 10:14:12 AM

Honest Bender: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.


Facebook rescinded that after the uproar over the change. Unless they tried to slip it in again.
 
2012-12-18 10:15:15 AM
They also have the perpetual right to sell the pictures you took of your kids, significant other, and friends to third parties to do what they will with. You won't be notified or compensated.

The only way out of this is to delete your account before January 16th.
 
2012-12-18 10:15:38 AM

Felgraf: As I asked in the other thread:
Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.


If the photos are in public - fair use. If in private - its up to you to make sure you have their consent.
 
2012-12-18 10:17:13 AM
 
2012-12-18 10:23:23 AM
Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.
 
2012-12-18 10:23:50 AM
I'm not an instagram user, but isn't this a free site?
As in, they provide the servers, unlimited storage, bandwidth, mobile apps etc so you, or someone like you, can upload, store and share their images free of charge?
And now they're trying to generate income to pay for all this? Evil corporation I say!

I want my socialism back (or something).
 
2012-12-18 10:24:11 AM

busy chillin': this seems relevant for some reason

3K truffel in there


mommyboots.com
 
2012-12-18 10:25:11 AM
Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.
 
2012-12-18 10:25:19 AM
This just encourages me to post more pictures of my balls.
 
2012-12-18 10:25:26 AM
This might sound off-the-lawnworthy but I see absolutely no value in Instagram. Looks like I'm not alone.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:12 AM
Don't use instagram. Problem solved.
 
2012-12-18 10:26:52 AM
(oops redo)

Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that they now own you, your kids and anything youve ever purchased when you upload images to their service.
 
2012-12-18 10:27:02 AM

cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.


Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?
 
2012-12-18 10:30:41 AM
Another colossal mistake. The value of these companies is in the size of their subscriber base. "Instagram's suicide note" indeed. I am sure "everbody else" does it, but if their intention was to make a significant portion of their user base delete their accounts, then mission accomplished. I'd love to see a total by the end of the week - anything over say 5% will have a brutal effect on the value of the company.
 
2012-12-18 10:32:54 AM

bindlestiff2600: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.


The rumor that Facebook could do this or was changing their terms to do this was false - or at least they never got around to actually doing anything besides starting a rumor. No legal text was ever released to that effect. But Instagram actually changed their policy and seems to have skipped the whole rumor phase.

They will probably get smacked down hard in the EU if they don't explicitly say that what you give them a free unlimited license to your work right when you upload anything, instead of buried in the terms & conditions. Heck, even then they'll probably get smacked.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:14 AM

illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?


Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:20 AM

Honest Bender: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.


Pinterest has this policy. I sort of looked at the site for promotional value and decided I would rather keep my copyrights.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:31 AM

Felgraf: Yeah, but this would allow Instragram to (theoretically) sell *my image* for a product, even if I have *never used* Instagram, because someone else took a picture of me.


I seriously doubt that... If the person uploading your work doesn't own the copyright on the image, then I doubt they can legally transfer ownership to instagram.

YodaBlues: Facebook rescinded that after the uproar over the change. Unless they tried to slip it in again.


Thanks. That's why I added the, "unless it's changed..." I couldn't remember how that played out.
 
2012-12-18 10:35:18 AM
I just delete my account, they might have my old pics but won't get anymore.

/yes, they are cool pics
 
2012-12-18 10:36:04 AM
Yay duplicate thread!
 
2012-12-18 10:36:26 AM
Including the right to *sell* your photographs in the EULA would be a new thing. Redistribution and synchronization across servers is one thing, actually selling your pictures to third parties is completely different. Not cool.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:20 AM
What's an Instagram? I only recently got a tumblr account for fun. I just don't like fads.
/Not technologically retarded I swear.
 
2012-12-18 10:39:29 AM

Felgraf: As I asked in the other thread:
Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.


Yes, why would you need random peoples consent?

The person taking the picture owns the copyright, not the people he photographes. How is this new to you, and why shouldn't it be like that?
 
2012-12-18 10:39:33 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If the photos are in public - fair use.


Fair Use doesn't apply to commercial use of the images, only editorial and artistic. A model release is still required if the use is for a Ford sales brochure, for example, no matter where the pic was taken.
 
2012-12-18 10:40:43 AM

Felgraf: Honest Bender: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.

Yeah, but this would allow Instragram to (theoretically) sell *my image* for a product, even if I have *never used* Instagram, because someone else took a picture of me.

I, uh, don't exactly see how that's legal.

/Not that anyone would WANT to use me to sell a product, but it's a hypothetical.


I, uh, don't see why the hell that wouldn't be legal.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:54 AM

illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?


The rights to your own likeness are kind of vague in the US, because up until 10 years ago the only ones with a chance in hell of using your image for anything were pro photographers who always got releases when necessary, and it's a patchwork of various state laws and case law. For instance, in California, only celebrities get maximum protection, everyone else is left to argue that they're in some way harmed by a depiction.

In the EU, however, protections are much stronger, but only apply if the theft either occurs in the EU or to an EU citizen.
 
2012-12-18 10:43:20 AM
Well maybe someone will create a new type of Instagram that doesn't have this restriction, and I can watch with schadenfreude as Facebook's billion dollar investment goes away.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:58 AM

unfarkingbelievable: Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.


So now you are telling me I can't have fun while I'm out with my friends.

What is the world coming to?!?!
 
2012-12-18 10:45:11 AM

spawn73: Felgraf: As I asked in the other thread:
Wait, how is this legal? You could take pictures of random people and have them used in advertisement without *their* consent.

Yes, why would you need random peoples consent?

The person taking the picture owns the copyright, not the people he photographes. How is this new to you, and why shouldn't it be like that?


Personality rights have been recognized around the world for over a hundred years now. They're not even remotely consistent, but there's a reason photographers make models sign releases to waive them.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:15 AM

unfarkingbelievable: illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?

Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.


You know what, let's make this interesting.

Let's say that your ex-girlfriend is quite crazy. She stalks you, follows you around, takes pictures. Eventually you get a restraining order, but before you do she posts pictures of you to Instagram. You don't have an Instagram account, and believe strongly in privacy.

But she doesn't. She takes pictures of you with her sparkly new Nikon D4 and a 500mm zoom. Posts them to Instagram. Hundreds and hundreds of them.

So you get a restraining order against her, but Instagram now owns the pictures. To top it all off, the biatch up and gets hit by a bus while taking pictures of you and dies.

Now what? The bus took care of your stalker problem, but there are still all these pictures out there of you that you'd really rather not be out there, and probably shouldn't be.
 
2012-12-18 10:46:16 AM
~~~~REPOST THIS IF U USE INSTAGRAM~~~~ Facebook is STEALING all your INSTAGRAM PHOTOS. All your grainy, ill-conceived photos of food and graffiti and sunsets will be STOLEN AND SOLD to Halliburton for ILLEGAL USE in advertisements for SUVs and BABY SEAL PELTS!!!`~~~~
 
2012-12-18 10:55:45 AM
I can't wait for the day when the US joins the civillized world (i.e. Europe) and determines that there is indeed an individual right to privacy. Everyone says that there is not, but a right to privacy was found by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade. I would like to see an explanation of how that right does not apply in these situations and what situations other than abortion that the right exists.

And I would love it if this were what kills FB. Social networking is just evil. Too much data flowing around, which translates directly into control of the people that data is from by either companies or governments.
 
2012-12-18 10:56:45 AM

Lost Thought 00: This just encourages me to post more pictures of my balls.


Rock-on ball picture taking and posting man!

just don't send me any of that shiat!

/WTF is instagram?
//get off my lawn
 
2012-12-18 10:57:21 AM
The article brings up a good point too. Some states have laws regarding the photographing and privacy rights of children. Not to mention, if a personally identifiable image is published commercially, consent is normally required.

This practice of non-consented commerical publishing is illegal in Canada (apparently) Link and for most states in the US too.
 
2012-12-18 10:57:37 AM

Felgraf: Honest Bender: Don't like it? Read your EULA's. I'd bet they have a clause in there that when you upload images to their service, the image becomes their property. Unless it's changed, Facebook has the same deal.

If you want to retain ownership of your images, host them on your own server.

Yeah, but this would allow Instragram to (theoretically) sell *my image* for a product, even if I have *never used* Instagram, because someone else took a picture of me.

I, uh, don't exactly see how that's legal.

/Not that anyone would WANT to use me to sell a product, but it's a hypothetical.


aww come on now. you've got a great face for radio.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:16 AM

unfarkingbelievable: illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?

Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.


Well, that sorta takes all of the fun out of it now, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-18 10:58:19 AM

TheHumanCannonball: I am enjoying the outrage. Doesn't every online service do this now? I remember the uproar when Facebook changed their TOS to something similar. Or did they back down? Probably not.


Here's the current relevant info.
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.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:04 AM
But who would want a duckface picture anyway? Let alone pay for one.

/Buy some gems on Clash of Clans instead
 
2012-12-18 11:01:23 AM

illegal.tender: unfarkingbelievable: illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?

Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.

You know what, let's make this interesting.

Let's say that your ex-girlfriend is quite crazy. She stalks you, follows you around, takes pictures. Eventually you get a restraining order, but before you do she posts pictures of you to Instagram. You don't have an Instagram account, and believe strongly in privacy.

But she doesn't. She takes pictures of you with her sparkly new Nikon D4 and a 500mm zoom. Posts them to Instagram. Hundreds and hundreds of them.

So you get a restraining order against her, but Instagram now owns the pictures. To top it all off, the biatch up and gets hit by a bus while taking pictures of you and dies.

Now what? The bus took care of your stalker problem, but there are still all these pictures out there of you that you'd really rather not be out there, and probably shouldn't be.


Cry?

Or pay some farkstick, errr attorney, to try and get them back / have them destroyed. Which may, or may not, work. But you'll have made some farksitck, errr, attorney's BMW payment for them. So, there's that.
 
2012-12-18 11:04:16 AM
This would be a legal and logistical nightmare for the FB clan and their ilk. You must have the consent of all parties in the photograph in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. If I did not agree to the TOS of Facebook (which I farking hate to begin with), I am not subject to their contract of service.

I sense a slew of lawsuits in their future if they go through with this.
 
2012-12-18 11:05:15 AM
What is this facebook thing everyone is talking about?
And Instagram? WTH is that, a 'gram' is a telegram, sent by Western Union as far as I know.

/lawn, off.
 
2012-12-18 11:10:57 AM

SDRR: illegal.tender: unfarkingbelievable: illegal.tender: cig-mkr: Simple answer, don't post pictures of yourself.

Yeah, but what if someone else posts pictures of you?

Then make sure you don't do anything stupid, skanky or douchey around others.

You know what, let's make this interesting.

Let's say that your ex-girlfriend is quite crazy. She stalks you, follows you around, takes pictures. Eventually you get a restraining order, but before you do she posts pictures of you to Instagram. You don't have an Instagram account, and believe strongly in privacy.

But she doesn't. She takes pictures of you with her sparkly new Nikon D4 and a 500mm zoom. Posts them to Instagram. Hundreds and hundreds of them.

So you get a restraining order against her, but Instagram now owns the pictures. To top it all off, the biatch up and gets hit by a bus while taking pictures of you and dies.

Now what? The bus took care of your stalker problem, but there are still all these pictures out there of you that you'd really rather not be out there, and probably shouldn't be.

Cry?

Or pay some farkstick, errr attorney, to try and get them back / have them destroyed. Which may, or may not, work. But you'll have made some farksitck, errr, attorney's BMW payment for them. So, there's that.


I dunno. This is kinda interesting to me. It seems to me that you should have the right to have those pictures removed in this case, but I have exactly zero idea about how you would structure a legal argument to do so, or how you could structure legislation that would give people that right while protecting the rights of legitimate photographers.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report